UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:To comment quickly before this thread is DHed, I'd guess the attraction of a church wedding is primarily wanting to celebrate your wedding with your church community. I suppose you could argue that the only reason anyone goes to church at all is for the music, hymns, and venue, but most believers would disagree with your assessment of their faith.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Surely, part of the attraction of a church wedding for most people is 1) the service with music and hymns, 2) the venue itself.
quote:As is usual in discussions of this topic, lesbians seem to disappear entirely.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What is going to happen when 2 guys want to get married . . .
quote:This Church has made weddings its mission field. The even stream their services online for those who can't get there.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Or it could be that you like stained glass windows.
quote:Well, if that happens to be your view, then I can only congratulate you on your acknowledgement that we Christians are - in the context of your philosophy - not deluded. If we were 'deluded' then, according to atheism, we would go to church to actually worship and experience God, but since - apparently - we actually only go "for the music, hymns and venue", then clearly we must 'know' that there is no God!!
Originally posted by Croesos
I suppose you could argue that the only reason anyone goes to church at all is for the music, hymns, and venue, but most believers would disagree with your assessment of their faith.
quote:I attended a wedding of a bride who strongly wanted to be married in a church. She had been reared Episcopalian. She was not a member of any church. But she had been reared that a wedding is not really a wedding unless it is in a church.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Put me down as asking why someone who is not a regular at any church want to get married in a church? Seems to treat the Church as a vending machine.
quote:And not just that, everyone living in any parish has a legal right to get married in the church. It certainly is not 'members only' in the UK.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Over here, lots of people who are not 'members' (in the ordinary sense of that word) of a church want to get married in a church. There is a veritable host of reasons for this: partly it's to do with having an Established Church so it's still part of the cultural furniture so to speak, partly it can be a but of social kudos, people also like the setting of some of our older churches, it's romantic to some people, etc - none of which have much if anything to do with faith.
quote:Very much a poond difference. Under the First Amendment, the U.S. government typically steers clear of deciding which churches are "real" (aside from a few determinations for tax purposes) and doesn't have a Prayer and Decor Police. If the U.K. needs to cut its budget, I'd suggest starting with those guys.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It must be that 'pond difference' again.
Here in the UK loads of people get married in church. they have a 'church do'; a white wedding, an aisle to walk up, hymns, gothic architecture, a vicar, "God", etc, etc.
Mosdt pof the people who get married in church are like those who go to Christenings and funerals - it's the only time they go - they attend when they are 'hatched, matched and despatched.'
The UK is different to the US it seems - where at the moment, if you want to get married in a building that is not a church you are simply not allowed any religious ingredients whatsoever in your ceremony.
Therefore, if you want so much as a prayer, it's off to church you go. And in the UK, that means a real church with a real service - hymns and everything.
quote:Which is part of the problem with having an established church. It's my understanding that the Church of England is supposed to be the Church for all the Englanders who want/need a church. This can cause a bit of tension if the state recognizes homosexuals as being the legal equals of straights if the Church holds a different opinion. Perhaps something similar to the 'Separate but Equal' solution of establishing civil partnerships could be worked out, like having two established churches: a Church of Straight England and a Church of Gay England.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And not just that, everyone living in any parish has a legal right to get married in the church. It certainly is not 'members only' in the UK.
quote:My understanding, from the FB posts and comments I read from CofE laity, clergy and bishops, is that it's fairly common for CofE same sex religious ceremonies to he held in the UK. Gay couples who want a church wedding can easily find a vicar willing down do it on the down-low, with often the bishops knowing about it but looking the other way. In fact, it happens quite often. I don't know whether they use a modified BCP marriage rite or piece together something else - perhaps a bit of both happens.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Just to be clear, the OP is talking specifically and only about the UK. There are multiple denominations in the US that will and do perform same-sex marriages that are quite similar liturgically to any other marriage.
That said, I hardly think the limited options will change what people's ideas of getting married in a church means...
quote:I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of buildings designated for public worship and those licensed to hold civil weddings. It's a matter of planning consent more than anything else.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QB] Very much a poond difference. Under the First Amendment, the U.S. government typically steers clear of deciding which churches are "real" (aside from a few determinations for tax purposes) and doesn't have a Prayer and Decor Police. If the U.K. needs to cut its budget, I'd suggest starting with those guys.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:That it will take time for the churches to get their house in order?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I see that the only religious groups to offer SSMs are, at the moment, the Quakers and the Metropolitan churches.
Can anyone here see the obvious problem?
quote:Not strictly true. Under current legislation a URC church can legally host a CP ceremony (if it has decided to do so) - you are right to say this.
Originally posted by drnick:
There's an obvious solution if a same sex couple want to have a civil partnership ceremony in a mainstream Christian church - they should go to their URC. Which may help them, and if not (the decision being down to each church meeting) there'll be another which will. They can have as many hymns, prayers and sermons as they want.
quote:Sort of - it's a civil partnership blessing, analogous to the blessing of a marriage that were legally married in a civil ceremony. In the UK civil and religious ceremonies cannot be mixed, so while civil partnerships can be held in religious buildings, they cannot use a religious ceremony, religious readings or religious music. Churches can only do the religious stuff for a gay couple if they don't do the legal bit.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:My understanding, from the FB posts and comments I read from CofE laity, clergy and bishops, is that it's fairly common for CofE same sex religious ceremonies to he held in the UK. Gay couples who want a church wedding can easily find a vicar willing down do it on the down-low, with often the bishops knowing about it but looking the other way. In fact, it happens quite often. I don't know whether they use a modified BCP marriage rite or piece together something else - perhaps a bit of both happens.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Just to be clear, the OP is talking specifically and only about the UK. There are multiple denominations in the US that will and do perform same-sex marriages that are quite similar liturgically to any other marriage.
That said, I hardly think the limited options will change what people's ideas of getting married in a church means...
This is one of those moments where the CofE doesn't preach what it practises.
quote:I am proud to say that my Anglican church and its three sister churches do indeed bless civil partnerships in church and would be delighted to marry gay couples once it becomes legally possible
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:That it will take time for the churches to get their house in order?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I see that the only religious groups to offer SSMs are, at the moment, the Quakers and the Metropolitan churches.
Can anyone here see the obvious problem?
I'm fairly sure that civil partnerships are going to start getting blessed at churches if they aren't already by both Anglicans and Methodists far in advance of those denominations officially switching.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:Yes - and I am sure this is what the new bill is addressing. I hope it gets through.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Presumably things would be different if same-sex church marriages came into being. To my mind the current position is an uncomfortable "half-way house" and needs to be remedied.
quote:That is not strictly true, Britain Yearly meeting decided to recognise same sex marriages - but explicitly chose not to ask its registering officers to break the law, believing the social backlash this might cause would be counter-productive. Instead it was decided to lobby for change in civil law.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Point of information :In Britain, Only Quakers and Attenders at Meeting for Worship are generally able to marry 'after the manner of Friends.' At least one of the couple.
This may be of use :
http://www.hitchin.plus.com/Quakers/Nqmar.htm
http://www.law.cf.ac.uk/clr/networks/Marriage%20Q.pdf
Since about 2009 The Society of Friends in UK has been marrying all couples on the same basis whether same or opposite sex. The same sex couples' marriages are not recognsied in British law, but are recognised by the RSoF.
Hope this helps.
quote:But nevertheless, the CofE's official policy is not to bless civil partnerships. (For all the special pleading about how they're perfectly happy for teh gheys to be partnered and it's just that they can't get married, this shows up how much they really love and accept people in same-sex relationships.)
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Sort of - it's a civil partnership blessing, analogous to the blessing of a marriage that were legally married in a civil ceremony. In the UK civil and religious ceremonies cannot be mixed, so while civil partnerships can be held in religious buildings, they cannot use a religious ceremony, religious readings or religious music. Churches can only do the religious stuff for a gay couple if they don't do the legal bit.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:My understanding, from the FB posts and comments I read from CofE laity, clergy and bishops, is that it's fairly common for CofE same sex religious ceremonies to he held in the UK. Gay couples who want a church wedding can easily find a vicar willing down do it on the down-low, with often the bishops knowing about it but looking the other way. In fact, it happens quite often. I don't know whether they use a modified BCP marriage rite or piece together something else - perhaps a bit of both happens.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Just to be clear, the OP is talking specifically and only about the UK. There are multiple denominations in the US that will and do perform same-sex marriages that are quite similar liturgically to any other marriage.
That said, I hardly think the limited options will change what people's ideas of getting married in a church means...
This is one of those moments where the CofE doesn't preach what it practises.
quote:It is indeed a pond difference, but not just one between the US and UK. In 2003 when the law changed in Canada, my partner and I were married at City Hall in Toronto, officiated by a robed protestant minister on the rota to do marriage ceremonies at City Hall. He used a modified BCP marriage rite. So, it was technically a civil marriage in a civil setting, officiated by a minister of religion acting for the Province of Ontario and using a religious form for the solemnisation.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It must be that 'pond difference' again.
Here in the UK loads of people get married in church. they have a 'church do'; a white wedding, an aisle to walk up, hymns, gothic architecture, a vicar, "God", etc, etc.
Mosdt pof the people who get married in church are like those who go to Christenings and funerals - it's the only time they go - they attend when they are 'hatched, matched and despatched.'
The UK is different to the US it seems - where at the moment, if you want to get married in a building that is not a church you are simply not allowed any religious ingredients whatsoever in your ceremony.
Therefore, if you want so much as a prayer, it's off to church you go. And in the UK, that means a real church with a real service - hymns and everything.
quote:The Church in Wales specifically asked for the same opt out as the Church of England in its response to the consultation.
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Why special treatment for these two - the Church in Wales isn't established, so surely is in a similar position to any other church? Does this make sense?
quote:No, the opposition of the Catholic Church was less analytical and more rhetorical. Their response was "Why you must not do this at all ever" whereas the Church in Wales response was "If you must do this, these are the points to address."
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So presumably did the Catholic Church(?)
quote:The RSoF has been marrying all couples (of whatever make-up) since that decision of Yearly Meeting.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:That is not strictly true, Britain Yearly meeting decided to recognise same sex marriages - but explicitly chose not to ask its registering officers to break the law, believing the social backlash this might cause would be counter-productive. Instead it was decided to lobby for change in civil law.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Point of information :In Britain, Only Quakers and Attenders at Meeting for Worship are generally able to marry 'after the manner of Friends.' At least one of the couple.
This may be of use :
http://www.hitchin.plus.com/Quakers/Nqmar.htm
http://www.law.cf.ac.uk/clr/networks/Marriage%20Q.pdf
Since about 2009 The Society of Friends in UK has been marrying all couples on the same basis whether same or opposite sex. The same sex couples' marriages are not recognsied in British law, but are recognised by the RSoF.
Hope this helps.
quote:At one point it was agreed that Methodist ministers could bless gay partnerships in church, but for some reason Conference later decided against this. Gay couples can have a Methodist minister bless their union at home. I doubt that the Methodist church will be marrying gay couples soon, but this isn't something that has been preoccupying minds at circuit level.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Yes - and I am sure this is what the new bill is addressing. I hope it gets through.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Presumably things would be different if same-sex church marriages came into being. To my mind the current position is an uncomfortable "half-way house" and needs to be remedied.
What do Methodist and Baptist Churches do at the moment?
quote:Just to add to this, according to this blog post (which I accept may not be "gospel" on this), not only would Baptist ministers not be able to officiate at SSMs if the Baptist Union (or their equivalents elsewhere) said "no", but congregations wouldn't be able to go against the minister (who, unless they want to lose their accreditation, will be forced to take the BU's line). In short, if the minister says no (which they'll have to), the congregation cannot say yes. The same, of course, would go for other denominations.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
My understanding of Baptist (Union) Churches is that individual churches could vote to perform CPs in church. This is possible since we are a "bottom up" heirarchy and do not require authorisation by Synod, General Assembly or whatever. The denominational Trustees of their building would have to give consent - I cannot say whether they would or not, but their default position is to not hinder local churches from doing thins unless said thngs are illegal!
HOWEVER accredited Baptist Union minsters are not permittd by the denomination to endorse CPs or carry out services of blessing - theoretically it is a disciplinary matter. So one could, I suppse, have a situation where a church wants to host CPs but the Minister cannot be involved. (Although a lay minister or a local Deacon culd do that!)
I think that there has been an underlying assumption that Baptist churches simply won't want to do CPs or SSMs. However I think that is untenable and I cerainly know a few ministers who would at least want the freedom to do so (and who feel that the present situation is an anomaly in a denomnation which prizes the autonomy of the local congregation.
I doubt if the question is even being discussed in the "Grace" Baptist churches, but I don't know.
I canont really comment on Methodists, but I know that the issue of allowing churches to celerate CPs has not yet been to Conference, whose endorsement is legally required first. However a formal Question was put at this year's Conference so I suspect the issue will return next year.
quote:Protestant?
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
if the only Protestant denomination they're clearly aware of - the CofE
quote:Not quite: AIUI, a Baptist congo who voted to conduct SSM against the wishes of their BU-accredited minister would have the option of sacking the minister and calling someone more amenable (but not BU-accredited) to minister.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:Just to add to this, according to this blog post (which I accept may not be "gospel" on this), not only would Baptist ministers not be able to officiate at SSMs if the Baptist Union (or their equivalents elsewhere) said "no", but congregations wouldn't be able to go against the minister (who, unless they want to lose their accreditation, will be forced to take the BU's line). In short, if the minister says no (which they'll have to), the congregation cannot say yes. The same, of course, would go for other denominations.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
My understanding of Baptist (Union) Churches is that individual churches could vote to perform CPs in church. This is possible since we are a "bottom up" heirarchy and do not require authorisation by Synod, General Assembly or whatever. The denominational Trustees of their building would have to give consent - I cannot say whether they would or not, but their default position is to not hinder local churches from doing thins unless said thngs are illegal!
HOWEVER accredited Baptist Union minsters are not permittd by the denomination to endorse CPs or carry out services of blessing - theoretically it is a disciplinary matter. So one could, I suppse, have a situation where a church wants to host CPs but the Minister cannot be involved. (Although a lay minister or a local Deacon culd do that!)
I think that there has been an underlying assumption that Baptist churches simply won't want to do CPs or SSMs. However I think that is untenable and I cerainly know a few ministers who would at least want the freedom to do so (and who feel that the present situation is an anomaly in a denomnation which prizes the autonomy of the local congregation.
I doubt if the question is even being discussed in the "Grace" Baptist churches, but I don't know.
I canont really comment on Methodists, but I know that the issue of allowing churches to celerate CPs has not yet been to Conference, whose endorsement is legally required first. However a formal Question was put at this year's Conference so I suspect the issue will return next year.
If that's a true interpretation, then that seems to drive a coach and horses through congregationalism as a means of church polity - or am I over-reacting?
quote:PDF.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I have been trying to find the text for TEC's "I will bless you and you will be a blessing."
...
(Can someone provide a link to the text?)
quote:A potentially possible solution but for one stumbling block: it all depends on the position of the trustees on SSM. To call a non accredited minister to a church with BUGB as trustees requires BUGB permission.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[QUOTE]Not quite: AIUI, a Baptist congo who voted to conduct SSM against the wishes of their BU-accredited minister would have the option of sacking the minister and calling someone more amenable (but not BU-accredited) to minister.
quote:I heard recently (in the last 2 weeks) f one case that's been referred to BUGB headquarters where the minister was allegedly told "You won't be disciplined if you don't and you won't be disciplined if you do."
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
HOWEVER accredited Baptist Union minsters are not permittd by the denomination to endorse CPs or carry out services of blessing - theoretically it is a disciplinary matter. So one could, I suppse, have a situation where a church wants to host CPs but the Minister cannot be involved. (Although a lay minister or a local Deacon culd do that!)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Hosting
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Is your name indicative of a penchant for the apocryphal by any chance ?
quote:If people will go to law because they weren't allowed to stay in the boarding house of their choice, it's not at all unlikely that they would go to law because somebody denies them their wedding venue of choice - particularly if there's the opportunity of recovering lots of lovely money.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
I have never heard such a case reported in fact. I have heard fanatics saying "What if What if ?" Now Maria Miller has made all clear so i don't expect to hear this again, except from those fanatics who can't help themselves.
quote:And yet, one of these things has happened, and there's no evidence that the other thing has happened.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:If people will go to law because they weren't allowed to stay in the boarding house of their choice, it's not at all unlikely that they would go to law because somebody denies them their wedding venue of choice - particularly if there's the opportunity of recovering lots of lovely money.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
I have never heard such a case reported in fact. I have heard fanatics saying "What if What if ?" Now Maria Miller has made all clear so i don't expect to hear this again, except from those fanatics who can't help themselves.
quote:Churches don't provide goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public. They are a private group that serve their own members.
It is unlawful for a person (“A”) concerned with the provision to the public or a section of the public of goods, facilities or services to discriminate against a person (“B”) who seeks to obtain or to use those goods, facilities or services—
quote:Legislation.gov.uk: The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation Regulations)
(5) Paragraphs (3) and (4) permit a restriction only if imposed —
(a)if it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation; or
(b)so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers.
quote:However given the way that the Catholic Adoption Agencies have been forced to close, and that the CofE is required to marry anyone who demands the service, the possibility that someone will try to play the card seems very high.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And if someone sues, so what? Under British law religious institutions don't have to observe Human Rights Law in the provision of services. Catholic churches don't have to marry atheists, nor must they ordain women. Anyone who tried to sue would get their case thrown out of court.
The law says:
quote:Churches don't provide goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public. They are a private group that serve their own members.
It is unlawful for a person (“A”) concerned with the provision to the public or a section of the public of goods, facilities or services to discriminate against a person (“B”) who seeks to obtain or to use those goods, facilities or services—
And if that isn't enough, the religious exemption goes further:
quote:Legislation.gov.uk: The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation Regulations)
(5) Paragraphs (3) and (4) permit a restriction only if imposed —
(a)if it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation; or
(b)so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers.
So anyone who files suit wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
quote:Catholic Adoption services were serving the general public and receiving public money to provide a public service (and possibly wards of the state who need placement for adoption). It is my understanding if they were totally in-church and refused government aid they could operate. My understanding is that several chose to lose their official ties to the Catholic church instead.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
However given the way that the Catholic Adoption Agencies have been forced to close, and that the CofE is required to marry anyone who demands the service, the possibility that someone will try to play the card seems very high.
quote:Post-disestablishment it still has the legal requirement to marry anyone within the parish/close link to the parish/all the other vague options open to people to be able to use a particular parish Church for their wedding. (Don't ask why, it is just what I know.)
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
[QUOTE] BTW is the Church in Wales required to marry almost all comers or was that dropped upon disestablishment?
quote:How do you tell if a text message is gay? Is it sent in a pink font?
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Certainly no one should have to expect this reaction :
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/12/cameroon-court-upholds-3-year-prison-term-for-gay-text-message/
quote:So that probably explains the explicit ban in the proposed law. It does seem a bit odd that they kept that bit on. Pity Hansard's searching is broken though I found one debate.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Post-disestablishment it still has the legal requirement to marry anyone within the parish/close link to the parish/all the other vague options open to people to be able to use a particular parish Church for their wedding. (Don't ask why, it is just what I know.)
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
[QUOTE] BTW is the Church in Wales required to marry almost all comers or was that dropped upon disestablishment?
quote:Read what it says - one man telling another man that he loved him.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:How do you tell if a text message is gay? Is it sent in a pink font?
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Certainly no one should have to expect this reaction :
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/12/cameroon-court-upholds-3-year-prison-term-for-gay-text-message/
quote:Actually, as this article demonstrates, what really did for them was that they were not even allowed to keep their charitable status that - even without public funding.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:Catholic Adoption services were serving the general public and receiving public money to provide a public service (and possibly wards of the state who need placement for adoption). It is my understanding if they were totally in-church and refused government aid they could operate.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
However given the way that the Catholic Adoption Agencies have been forced to close, and that the CofE is required to marry anyone who demands the service, the possibility that someone will try to play the card seems very high.
quote:Frankly, that doesn't sound like a charity, that sounds like a private club.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And would they have been able to keep on serving only Catholics and keep their charitable status?
quote:But a fair number of religious organizations serve only their own group.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Frankly, that doesn't sound like a charity, that sounds like a private club.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And would they have been able to keep on serving only Catholics and keep their charitable status?
I'm not being facetious about this. Charities are generally set up to further charitable purposes, and it seems contradictory to the intent of charity law to set up a 'charity' that is only designed to help your own kind.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Well, that was partly my point.* The Catholic adoption charities don't want just to serve their "own kind" - and hadn't been doing so. The only consideration of restricting their services to Catholics arose when they were effectively pushed out of general public service by the new regulations.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Frankly, that doesn't sound like a charity, that sounds like a private club.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And would they have been able to keep on serving only Catholics and keep their charitable status?
I'm not being facetious about this. Charities are generally set up to further charitable purposes, and it seems contradictory to the intent of charity law to set up a 'charity' that is only designed to help your own kind.
quote:Can you not see that the first two paragraphs contradict each other? Either they would continue under the new rules to offer services to everybody, and thus stay consistent with the basis on which they received charitable status, OR they would change their services because they decided not to operate under the new rules, and so lose the basis on which they received charitable status.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Well, that was partly my point.* The Catholic adoption charities don't want just to serve their "own kind" - and hadn't been doing so. The only consideration of restricting their services to Catholics arose when they were effectively pushed out of general public service by the new regulations.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Frankly, that doesn't sound like a charity, that sounds like a private club.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And would they have been able to keep on serving only Catholics and keep their charitable status?
I'm not being facetious about this. Charities are generally set up to further charitable purposes, and it seems contradictory to the intent of charity law to set up a 'charity' that is only designed to help your own kind.
As I said above, I would have thought that especially since they were not restricting their services to the Catholic community and were not helping only Catholic children, parents or adopters that they would at least have been allowed to operate within charity law. Clearly I'm (still) wrong. Take public money out of it, it's much more difficult to get funding from a whole range of sources if you are not a registered charity.
*But anyway, surely it is still a work of charity for Catholics to clothe and feed other Catholics in need.
quote:It was a tongue-in-cheek remark. ("Which cheek was that, then, Dud?")
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Read what it says - one man telling another man that he loved him.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:How do you tell if a text message is gay? Is it sent in a pink font?
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Certainly no one should have to expect this reaction :
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/12/cameroon-court-upholds-3-year-prison-term-for-gay-text-message/
quote:I just hope he survives his incarceration.
"I am going back to the dismal conditions that got me critically ill before I was temporarily released for medical reasons," he told Associated Press by telephone. "I am not sure I can put up with the anti-gay attacks and harassment I underwent at the hands of fellow inmates and prison authorities on account of my perceived and unproven sexual orientation. The justice system in this country is just so unfair."
quote:I hope so too. Poor bloke it's terrible.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The Cameroon story is a sad one.
A court has held up a conviction of "homosexuality" (with a resulting 3 year sentence) on a man who was not caught committing "sodomy" but by merely texting "I'm very much in love with you." to another man. His "confession" was obtained under torture. He wasn't allowed to have a lawyer at trial and now he has to serve a 3 year sentence. He said:
quote:I just hope he survives his incarceration.
"I am going back to the dismal conditions that got me critically ill before I was temporarily released for medical reasons," he told Associated Press by telephone. "I am not sure I can put up with the anti-gay attacks and harassment I underwent at the hands of fellow inmates and prison authorities on account of my perceived and unproven sexual orientation. The justice system in this country is just so unfair."
quote:No. I'm afraid I can't.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can you not see that the first two paragraphs contradict each other?
quote:Previously, they were registered as charities whilst serving not just Catholics but non-Catholics alike - they had no intention of being just for Catholics. But they were Catholic agencies and not unsurprisingly wanted to operate within a Catholic ethos. To the best of my knowledge, they always gave preference to straight (usually married) couples over gay would-be adopters. This did not seem to affect their charitable status.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Either they would continue under the new rules to offer services to everybody, and thus stay consistent with the basis on which they received charitable status, OR they would change their services because they decided not to operate under the new rules, and so lose the basis on which they received charitable status.
quote:The rule of law wins.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Who wins in this situation?
quote:It certainly would affect their charitable status in the US. Charities in general are not allowed to discriminate in who they serve, and neither are private agencies contracted to provide services to the public by a government agency. I'd have to go back to the books and read up on the difference between a "religious organization" and a "charity", but I think only the former can discriminate, and then only in cases where religious belief is important to the job. Certainly in regards to subcontracted services (as was the case with the Adoptions agencies)they are not allowed to discriminate in providing services any more than the Government itself is.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
...To the best of my knowledge, they always gave preference to straight (usually married) couples over gay would-be adopters. This did not seem to affect their charitable status.
quote:catholic charities want to discriminate with tax money
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
They probably would have had the same status as any other religious institution only serving those of that faith.
quote:Ha ha lovely trojan horse !
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Carex, thank you for that - genuinely useful.
Orfeo, I wouldn't have a problem with allowing an adoption agency which gave preference to practicing Muslim adopters (over other types of adopter) when placing children with Muslim backgrounds to operate under law and with charitable status. Would you?
quote:As I understand it, this is not a direct parallel to the situation with this Catholic adoption agency - aren't they seeking permission to carry on only offering their services to heterosexual couples?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Orfeo, I wouldn't have a problem with allowing an adoption agency which gave preference to practicing Muslim adopters (over other types of adopter) when placing children with Muslim backgrounds to operate under law and with charitable status. Would you?
quote:
A Roman Catholic adoption agency has been told it cannot turn away gay couples if it wants to keep its charitable status.
quote:
Catholic Care, run by the Diocese of Leeds, wanted its adoption service to be made exempt from equality laws. A judge has ruled the charity had failed to give convincing reasons why it should be allowed to do so... Catholic Care had tried to change its constitution so that it would be committed to following Catholic teaching and placing children only with heterosexual parents.
quote:They might be allowed; however, I see two problems.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The honest answer is that I'm not sure, Kevin, whether the Catholic adoption agencies would ever have considered putting a child with a gay couple. I know that they generally gave preference to married couples - which until civil partnerships at least obviously meant straight couples. But they never, as far as I'm aware, restricted themselves to placing children with Catholic couples or individuals. Nor do they want to.
But if they were forced by changed circumstances instead to operate as a Catholic charity serving only practising Catholic individuals, would they even be allowed to do that? It seems not.
quote:Yes, that's the article I linked to above.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Right, I've overcome my bout of laziness a couple of posts back and found this BBC report. They say:
quote:
A Roman Catholic adoption agency has been told it cannot turn away gay couples if it wants to keep its charitable status.quote:
Catholic Care, run by the Diocese of Leeds, wanted its adoption service to be made exempt from equality laws. A judge has ruled the charity had failed to give convincing reasons why it should be allowed to do so... Catholic Care had tried to change its constitution so that it would be committed to following Catholic teaching and placing children only with heterosexual parents.
quote:They're wrong, and that segment is shrinking. Parentless children OF ANY RELIGION are best served by having access to a larger number of potential foster or adoptive parents / couples.
Originally posted by Enoch:
... The opinion that dare not speak its name is that a substantial segment of society still thinks that this is an area where equality has been improperly allowed to pip the best interests of parentless children. They may be right. They may not be. ....
quote:Impressively assertive. But which parentless children are having their access to the widest possible range of suitable adopters restricted just because a very small minority of adoption agencies give preference to placing them with straight married couples? If such agencies cannot find suitable adopters according to their terms there is nothing to stop those responsible for those children from seeking assistance from alternative adoption agencies.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:They're wrong, and that segment is shrinking. Parentless children OF ANY RELIGION are best served by having access to a larger number of potential foster or adoptive parents / couples.
Originally posted by Enoch:
... The opinion that dare not speak its name is that a substantial segment of society still thinks that this is an area where equality has been improperly allowed to pip the best interests of parentless children. They may be right. They may not be. ....
quote:You think there aren't such things as gay Catholics?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Orfeo, I wouldn't have a problem with allowing an adoption agency which gave preference to practicing Muslim adopters (over other types of adopter) when placing children with Muslim backgrounds to operate under law and with charitable status. Would you?
quote:Its slightly different here in NZ, because non-family adoptions are all managed centrally by the government. However, from what you're saying, I think you must be unaware of the challenges agencies find in placing kids, many of whom, even as babies, have behaviour problems. Having worked briefly during my social work training as a temporary caregiver for babies in care, my observation was that only one baby that I looked after was what most people would call normal. The others, all under six months old, suffered from combinations of being born drug addicted, head injured, neglected, failing to thrive, PTSD, and a host of other issues which were sure to impact on them in childhood and beyond.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Impressively assertive. But which parentless children are having their access to the widest possible range of suitable adopters restricted just because a very small minority of adoption agencies give preference to placing them with straight married couples? If such agencies cannot find suitable adopters according to their terms there is nothing to stop those responsible for those children from seeking assistance from alternative adoption agencies.
quote:There are many different stories in different places here. I do remember a lawsuit about ten years ago in Florida. The gay couple who had been raising several Foster Children with various of these problems such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. The state in it's infinite wisdom had decided it was better they go back to an institution rather than be adopted by the Gay couple. I think they finally won in court but I'm not sure.
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Its slightly different here in NZ, because non-family adoptions are all managed centrally by the government. However, from what you're saying, I think you must be unaware of the challenges agencies find in placing kids, many of whom, even as babies, have behaviour problems. Having worked briefly during my social work training as a temporary caregiver for babies in care, my observation was that only one baby that I looked after was what most people would call normal. The others, all under six months old, suffered from combinations of being born drug addicted, head injured, neglected, failing to thrive, PTSD, and a host of other issues which were sure to impact on them in childhood and beyond.
Are we talking about these babies? Cos I know that there just weren't permanent carers available for them - nobody seemed keen. A competent same-sex couple who were prepared to go through the invasive interview process and ready to get their hands dirty, would be snapped up, due to the shortage of carers and prospective adopters. [/QB]
quote:Patently, I think no such thing. But any couple living together as spouses outside what the Church would regard as marriage would not be practising Catholics, since they would be living in a permanent and public state of defiance of the Church's teaching that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:You think there aren't such things as gay Catholics?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Orfeo, I wouldn't have a problem with allowing an adoption agency which gave preference to practicing Muslim adopters (over other types of adopter) when placing children with Muslim backgrounds to operate under law and with charitable status. Would you?
quote:Arabella, I am certainly not unaware of how difficult it is to place kids who are not "normal". I just don't see how that impacts on what I said above.
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:Its slightly different here in NZ, because non-family adoptions are all managed centrally by the government. However, from what you're saying, I think you must be unaware of the challenges agencies find in placing kids, many of whom, even as babies, have behaviour problems. Having worked briefly during my social work training as a temporary caregiver for babies in care, my observation was that only one baby that I looked after was what most people would call normal. The others, all under six months old, suffered from combinations of being born drug addicted, head injured, neglected, failing to thrive, PTSD, and a host of other issues which were sure to impact on them in childhood and beyond.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Impressively assertive. But which parentless children are having their access to the widest possible range of suitable adopters restricted just because a very small minority of adoption agencies give preference to placing them with straight married couples? If such agencies cannot find suitable adopters according to their terms there is nothing to stop those responsible for those children from seeking assistance from alternative adoption agencies.
Are we talking about these babies? Cos I know that there just weren't permanent carers available for them - nobody seemed keen. A competent same-sex couple who were prepared to go through the invasive interview process and ready to get their hands dirty, would be snapped up, due to the shortage of carers and prospective adopters.
quote:You mean they wouldn't be obedient Catholics. I don't think the word 'practising' means 'practising it in the way other people think is correct'. One can be a practising doctor or practising accountant while operating outside the rules - indeed, if they weren't practising, there would be nothing for them to get into trouble about.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Patently, I think no such thing. But any couple living together as spouses outside what the Church would regard as marriage would not be practising Catholics, since they would be living in a permanent and public state of defiance of the Church's teaching that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:You think there aren't such things as gay Catholics?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Orfeo, I wouldn't have a problem with allowing an adoption agency which gave preference to practicing Muslim adopters (over other types of adopter) when placing children with Muslim backgrounds to operate under law and with charitable status. Would you?
quote:Thank you Soror Magna. That's really helpful. If you had really wanted to persuade those who disagree with you, it would have helped more if you had explained in what way they are wrong - moral? ideological? factual? theological? philosophical? logical?
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:They're wrong, and that segment is shrinking. Parentless children OF ANY RELIGION are best served by having access to a larger number of potential foster or adoptive parents / couples.
Originally posted by Enoch:
... The opinion that dare not speak its name is that a substantial segment of society still thinks that this is an area where equality has been improperly allowed to pip the best interests of parentless children. They may be right. They may not be. ....
quote:A gay couple living together as spouses is living in a permanent state of open and public defiance of Church teaching. How are you "practising" a faith if you are openly rejecting and living contrary to a fundamental moral tenet of that faith in your most basic life circumstances?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:You mean they wouldn't be obedient Catholics. I don't think the word 'practising' means 'practising it in the way other people think is correct'.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Patently, I think no such thing. But any couple living together as spouses outside what the Church would regard as marriage would not be practising Catholics, since they would be living in a permanent and public state of defiance of the Church's teaching that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:You think there aren't such things as gay Catholics?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Orfeo, I wouldn't have a problem with allowing an adoption agency which gave preference to practicing Muslim adopters (over other types of adopter) when placing children with Muslim backgrounds to operate under law and with charitable status. Would you?
quote:You do realise a very large number of the world's Catholics disagree with SOME aspect of official church teaching, and don't follow it? Contraception for one - surveys indicate that a very large number of Catholics go ahead and use it.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But according to you, deciding to live such a life because you happen to think what the religious authorities have to say about it is irrelevant is nevertheless to be a "practising Catholic." Can't you see that that deprives the term of any real meaning whatsoever?
quote:But I don't - now you're just grasping at straws.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to restrict practising Catholics to those who subscribe to every tenet, you are going to shrink your church overnight.
quote:How about the number of remarried divorcees who not only attend church every Sunday, but teach first communion children, read and serve at mass and are eucharistic ministers? Would they be classified as practising Catholics?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:But I don't - now you're just grasping at straws.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want to restrict practising Catholics to those who subscribe to every tenet, you are going to shrink your church overnight.
My criteria were: living in open, unrepentant, public and permanent dissent from the Church's teaching. Another example of that would be a man abandoning his wife for his mistress and living in open and unrepentant adultery with her but claiming to be a practicing Catholic because he kept going to Mass. He wouldn't be one either, in my book.
quote:That is an extremely valuable insight. Thank you.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think people with anti-homosexual views comprehend just how screwed up the psychological results of this are. How half the problematic behaviours of homosexual people are actually caused by the fact that the largest amount of outrage is reserved for the HEALTHY kinds of homosexual behaviours, which rather than being seen as directly equivalent to healthy kinds of heterosexual behaviour are seen as perverted abominations of the real thing.
quote:Seconded.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:That is an extremely valuable insight. Thank you.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think people with anti-homosexual views comprehend just how screwed up the psychological results of this are. How half the problematic behaviours of homosexual people are actually caused by the fact that the largest amount of outrage is reserved for the HEALTHY kinds of homosexual behaviours, which rather than being seen as directly equivalent to healthy kinds of heterosexual behaviour are seen as perverted abominations of the real thing.
quote:Which is the best way to think about it, it is their problem. Sometimes you have to tred carefully, it doesn't do much good to upset the boat too much, but in the main who gives a fig... to carry on from your point, the hypocrisy many of these people demonstrate is startling as well...
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's the biggest thing I learnt when I finally came out of the closet. If people have a problem with my sexuality, it's well and truly THEIR problem, and I'm over trying to make it into my problem on their behalf.
quote:I was going to make a point on what you say, but I actually don't see the point, there is always another, repeated and broken argument people will put up in the way of accepting relationships which are a model of Christian relationships just because they happen to be two people of the same gender... a tired and annoying argument that gets caught on whether there are testicles of breasticles in the bed, and in what combination...
Originally posted by orfeo:
^ No problem!
I had a fascinating exchange with someone on the local GLBT messaging thread when the same-sex law reforms happened in Australia in 2008.
He basically lamented that he wasn't getting as much anonymous sex as he used to. His favourite cruising spots in toilet blocks and so forth weren't getting the stream of macho rugby player types that he used to enjoy.
He suggested that while all this law reform was all very well, someone needed to stand up for his rights and push for some kind of legal protection of his right to anonymous cruising.
My response was that it was precisely the greater rights and greater openness that was killing his cruising spots. Given the choice to be open and honest about their sexuality instead of his kind of furtive fumbling in the dark, most people would take the openness and honesty. Most people only went for sex in toilet blocks because they used to think it was the only option open to them, not because they thought sex in toilet blocks was hot. The new generation of rugby players were much more likely to be happy to be out, because they felt much less likely to be condemned, and so had no need of furtive fondling with this guy. And no 'rights' would get them back for him.
I chat to guys online. You can spot the ones who aren't out a mile away. No pictures of faces. No personal information. Absolutely no desire to talk about anything besides how you're going to suck their dick or they are going to suck yours. Everything has to be anonymous and impersonal precisely because of their gripping fear of the reaction if their friends and family knew about their true sexual desires.
quote:This vicious path is similar to hat Paul described as 'the law of sin and death' - where one tries to live up to somebody else's demands and falls off the wagon now and then.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
There was a vicious path created
quote:I know/have heard of priests who, in the sacrament of reconciliation, encourage penitents to find someone to settle down with in a gay relationship because it is better than one-night-stands.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
any couple living together as spouses outside what the Church would regard as marriage would not be practising Catholics, since they would be living in a permanent and public state of defiance of the Church's teaching
quote:Yes. Definitely.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
(Did that make sense to anyone...)
quote:Orfeo, you've taken this so far from my original - and really, only - point on this thread that I'm tempted not to answer this at all. My point was that it seems that the law in Britain does not permit Catholic adoption agencies to operate even if they were to receive no public money, were not registered charities and explicitly restricted themselves to placing children with practising Catholic adopters. To me, that is deeply regretable.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's the 'open' and 'public' that I find peculiar. Because here's the thing: in lots of other areas - including contraception, but many, many other non-sexual areas as well - people get away with permanent, unrepentant disobediance of Church doctrine because no-one gets a chance to see it.
quote:Publically in defiance? It would, you know, depend how open they were about it. They are certainly commiting a grave violation of their sworn duties as Catholics priests and are quite probably excommunicating themselves - at least in the ordinary sense of putting themselves in a state of grave sin, unfit to receive or celebrate the sacraments. And they are at risk of laicisation and formal excommunication if found out. They are certainly not practising the faith they solemnly swore to uphold.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I know/have heard of priests who, in the sacrament of reconciliation, encourage penitents to find someone to settle down with in a gay relationship because it is better than one-night-stands.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
any couple living together as spouses outside what the Church would regard as marriage would not be practising Catholics, since they would be living in a permanent and public state of defiance of the Church's teaching
I know/have heard of priests who have blessed gay partnerships, albeit clandestinely.
Are these priests in open defiance....?
(Given that I am not a member of the RCC club and, therefore don't know many RC priests, they must be the tip of the iceberg.)
Are they no longer practicing Catholics
Should they be laicised? Excommunicated?
quote:Given those premises? Yes. My point was to draw to your attention the opposite set of premises - having switched from your set to the opposite, I'm in a particularly good position to point out to you the psychological damage wreaked by your set of premises. Can you really not see that, given a set of premises where homosexuality is a natural state for some people - a premise I don't expect you to accept for yourself - the continual condemnation of openingly loving relationships is a disaster?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Given those premises - which I do not expect you to accept for yourself - can you really not see why some acts wrong in themselves are seen as worse, and bringing greater consequences for the realtionship with the Church, when committed openly and defiantly?
quote:Because the government funding such discriminatory agencies reduces the funding for agencies that provide services for all potential adoptiions. In this country we've decided that "separate but equal" is really disguised inferior provision.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In the NZ situation I understand that the govenments own internal agencies place these children. But in a juridiction in which independent or religious charities are also used by the government to help find adopters for children, how does the existence of a few agencies which do not recommend gay couples as potential adopters (or give preference to married straights) limit the number of potential adopters for those kids? There will be plenty other agencies who will. Just as if a woman's GP will not refer her for an abortion herself she will be referred to another doctor who will consider doing so, in the same way gay couples willing to adopt can be referred to other adoption services (govenmental or independent)who will put them on their books.
quote:It would be wise not to. So sin isn't as bad, as long as the Church doesn't find out about it? That seems to imply that adultery really is less serious if no one except you, the person you do it with, and God actually find out about it.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
None of which is to say that private and deliberate defiance is not bad too - depending on the sin, it can be worse. But if it is private, the Church cannot be expected to require of the person that they refrain from the sacraments, or face any kind of penalty or condemnation - because the Church just doesn't know about it. Some sins, like adultery, can be committed in such a way as to minimise the damage done precisely because they are done with an atempt to keep them secret. Cuckolding one's husband in a way that the community is likely to find out about it adds scandal to the act, increases the likelihood of hurt done to loved ones, and demonstrates shamelessness - all of which usually add to the gravity of the sin.
But this is now way off topic. I'm not going any further down this rabbit-hole.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:So sin isn't as bad, as long as the Church doesn't find out about it?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
None of which is to say that private and deliberate defiance is not bad too - depending on the sin, it can be worse. But if it is private, the Church cannot be expected to require of the person that they refrain from the sacraments, or face any kind of penalty or condemnation - because the Church just doesn't know about it. Some sins, like adultery, can be committed in such a way as to minimise the damage done precisely because they are done with an atempt to keep them secret. Cuckolding one's husband in a way that the community is likely to find out about it adds scandal to the act, increases the likelihood of hurt done to loved ones, and demonstrates shamelessness - all of which usually add to the gravity of the sin.
quote:I didn't say that either. The sin itself is no less bad for being kept private, but you can prevent the addtional harm of scandal (causing a spiritual stumbling-block to others) by not living openly in sin.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I didn't come remotely close to saying that. I merely tried to point out that the Church could not be expected to discipline sinners who kept their sin private. That, I think, is one bad consequence of keeping sins secret. But in the sacrament of penance the Church has the precise remedy for that: you can prevent leading others astray by your bad example and at the same time subject yourself to the judgement and healing of the Church. And it's the leading astray of others that constitutes the principal additional harm done when one trumpets one's sin abroad.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Enoch:
[QB]That seems to imply that adultery really is less serious if no one except you, the person you do it with, and God actually find out about it.
quote:No - it is not virtue. But hypocrisy really can be the tribute the vice pays to virtue. And what is this "protecting the church from public scandal" all about? I wasn't talking about that at all.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Hypocrisy is a spiritual virtue because it protects the church from public scandal?
quote:Wedding transportation isn't a religious activity, and seriously, does chauffeuring people around imply approval of everything they do? The "exemption" this guy is requesting is permission to discriminate. He wants his business to be segregated like a Jim Crow drinking fountain.
... Grubbs confirmed that he had sent an email to prospective client Chris Belkot last month explaining: "We are not able to lend support to gay marriages" as a Christian-owned business. "And as a public accommodation, we cannot discriminate between gay or straight couples, so we had to stop doing all wedding transportation."
Grubbs' message went on to suggest Maryland residents contact their lawmakers to "request they amend the new marriage law to allow an exemption for religious conviction for the layperson in the pew. The law exempts my minister from doing same-sex weddings, and the Knights of Columbus don't have to rent out their hall for a gay wedding reception, but somehow my religious convictions don't count for anything."
Belkot, 31, forwarded Grubbs' email to Annapolis news websites and fired off a response to Grubbs that read, in part: "It is your right to run your business any way you see fit, but let's be honest here, you drive a trolley up and down a street. Not exactly God's work."
quote:You seem to be laboring under the misconception that adoption services exist primarily to serve the needs of potential adoptive parents. They do not. Such agencies foremost duty is the children in their care. Or at least that's the case in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with. It may be different in whatever dystopian apocalypseland you inhabit.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In the NZ situation I understand that the govenments own internal agencies place these children. But in a juridiction in which independent or religious charities are also used by the government to help find adopters for children, how does the existence of a few agencies which do not recommend gay couples as potential adopters (or give preference to married straights) limit the number of potential adopters for those kids? There will be plenty other agencies who will. Just as if a woman's GP will not refer her for an abortion herself she will be referred to another doctor who will consider doing so, in the same way gay couples willing to adopt can be referred to other adoption services (govenmental or independent)who will put them on their books.
quote:You can drop the aggro. I'm labouring under no such misconception - and I never said anything that could be reasonably construed as suggesting so. As it happens, though, adoption agencies can in practice serve both adopters and adoptees, whilst always putting the interests of the children first. Adopters have an interest in adopting children which adoption agencies can serve if they are suitable for the job. I'd have thought that was obvious.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:You seem to be laboring under the misconception that adoption services exist primarily to serve the needs of potential adoptive parents. They do not. Such agencies foremost duty is the children in their care. Or at least that's the case in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with. It may be different in whatever dystopian apocalypseland you inhabit.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In the NZ situation I understand that the govenments own internal agencies place these children. But in a juridiction in which independent or religious charities are also used by the government to help find adopters for children, how does the existence of a few agencies which do not recommend gay couples as potential adopters (or give preference to married straights) limit the number of potential adopters for those kids? There will be plenty other agencies who will. Just as if a woman's GP will not refer her for an abortion herself she will be referred to another doctor who will consider doing so, in the same way gay couples willing to adopt can be referred to other adoption services (govenmental or independent)who will put them on their books.
quote:I've alredy addressed this above. Unless the very existence of such agencies limits the existence of other agencies who will consider placing children with gay couples, those agencies are limiting no-one but themselves.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, to answer your question, agencies which automatically exclude same-sex couples from adoption limit the number of potential adopters for the children whose cases they handle by excluding (i.e. "limiting") a whole class of potential adopters.
quote:. . . AND the children whose cases are assigned to those agencies. You keep treating this as if it's not a consideration. A child whose case is assigned to an agency which has a policy that an institutional facility is a preferable placement over a same-sex adoptive or foster family doesn't really have a lot of realistic options to get her case re-assigned to an agency that will consider a same-sex placement. As a minor, she may not even have legal standing to file a case on her own behalf, depending on what jurisdiction she resides in. If she's a particularly young minor she may not have the mental wherewithal (or even the verbal ability) to do so.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:I've alredy addressed this above. Unless the very existence of such agencies limits the existence of other agencies who will consider placing children with gay couples, those agencies are limiting no-one but themselves.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, to answer your question, agencies which automatically exclude same-sex couples from adoption limit the number of potential adopters for the children whose cases they handle by excluding (i.e. "limiting") a whole class of potential adopters.
quote:If they're receiving government money, then they are ripping off the public because they want to be funded like other agencies, but refuse to provide the same level of service to the children they are responsible for placing.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... Unless the very existence of such agencies limits the existence of other agencies who will consider placing children with gay couples, those agencies are limiting no-one but themselves.
quote:In many cases, particularly where such services are subcontracted out by a government agency, it does limit the ability for the children to find homes.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Unless the very existence of such agencies limits the existence of other agencies who will consider placing children with gay couples, those agencies are limiting no-one but themselves.
quote:For the purposes of this debate, I've been taking govenment funding out of the equation. In Britain, it's already been ruled that Catholic adoption agencies cannot operate at all - with or without government funding - if they do not give equal consideration to gay couples. Such agencies don't even seem to be able to operate independently as registered charities any more. But, just so as to be able to focus on the principles, I'm imagining a situation in which the Catholic agencies can fund themselves. Should they then be allowed to operate according to Catholic principles?
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:If they're receiving government money, then they are ripping off the public because they want to be funded like other agencies, but refuse to provide the same level of service to the children they are responsible for placing.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... Unless the very existence of such agencies limits the existence of other agencies who will consider placing children with gay couples, those agencies are limiting no-one but themselves.
quote:And no-one was suggesting it does. What I was suggesting was that children referred to a Catholic adoption agency (were this still possible) could be referred on to another agency in the event that the first agency could not find suitable adopters for him/her. Perhaps any given local authority could place children on all avaliable agency books until one could find parents for him/her. One set of agencies giving preference to straight couples does not eliminate the possibility of resorting to others agencies.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's just probability: fewer potential adoptive parents means fewer adoptions. Religion doesn't trump math.
quote:Actually, I don't.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:. . . AND the children whose cases are assigned to those agencies. You keep treating this as if it's not a consideration.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:I've alredy addressed this above. Unless the very existence of such agencies limits the existence of other agencies who will consider placing children with gay couples, those agencies are limiting no-one but themselves.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, to answer your question, agencies which automatically exclude same-sex couples from adoption limit the number of potential adopters for the children whose cases they handle by excluding (i.e. "limiting") a whole class of potential adopters.
quote:While governments sometimes try the trick of subcontracting out discrimination they're no longer allowed to do themselves, it's been tried often enough there are usually safeguards against that sort of thing.
Originally posted by Carex:
There is also the idea that any such agency receiving money from the government for performing adoption placements is acting on behalf of that government agency. To the extent that the government agency is not permitted by law to discriminate against either the children being adopted or the prospective parents, the agencies acting on their behalf are not, either.
quote:How possible is it for orphan children to be the legal wards of religious organizations instead of being wards of the state in this day and age? (As distinct from being wards of the state whose cases are handled by non-state actors.) I thought that sort of thing no longer happened, but I'm willing to learn otherwise if that's the case.
Originally posted by Carex:
Now, there may be a way that a Catholic Adoption agency can set itself up to get around these requirements. It probably is easier if the children being adopted are under the legal care of a Catholic orphanage to start with rather than wards of the State, though even in that case refusing to let certain couples adopt would limit the chances for the children, and might be open for challenge (since adoption proceedings don't fall under the religious exemption.)
quote:Right. Just give the agency a few years to find that mixed-race, vegetarian, Estonian Orthodox adoptive family and if that doesn't pan out just pass the (now older and less likely to be adopted) kid's file on to someone else to deal with. It's not as if this is a time-sensitive process or anything!
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And no-one was suggesting it does. What I was suggesting was that children referred to a Catholic adoption agency (were this still possible) could be referred on to another agency in the event that the first agency could not find suitable adopters for him/her.
quote:Because having multiple entities trying to match up the same kids and potential parents isn't a bureaucratic clusterfuck waiting to happen. One certainly couldn't foresee a situation where all agencies spend time duplicating each other's efforts when the largest number of potential parents all attempt to adopt the same few adoptees from the most popular demographic set (healthy infants).
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Perhaps any given local authority could place children on all avaliable agency books until one could find parents for him/her.
quote:Actually, I have. Think about why the state needs a proxy in this instance in the first place. Allowing Catholic adoption agencies to operate in addition to others increases the number of services working to locate parents for children.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem remarkably concerned about the ability of your favored religious organization(s) to act as the state's proxy in this area, but you haven't explained why this would be beneficial to anyone other than the organization(s) in question.
quote:Usually the privatization of state services is pitched as a cost-saving measure. It's not something the state "needs" per se. There are plenty of government entities that handle such matters directly themselves, as someone noted previously.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Actually, I have. Think about why the state needs a proxy in this instance in the first place.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem remarkably concerned about the ability of your favored religious organization(s) to act as the state's proxy in this area, but you haven't explained why this would be beneficial to anyone other than the organization(s) in question.
quote:This seems to be based the rather unwarranted assumption that adoptive parents are unmotivated slackers who have to be sought out and pressured into adopting by bureaucratic agencies, preferably ones with religious authority behind them. This description doesn't really fit any of the adoptive parents I know, and quite frankly couples who fit that description probably shouldn't be adopting kids in the first place.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Allowing Catholic adoption agencies to operate in addition to others increases the number of services working to locate parents for children.
quote:So what? Those who do farm it out presumably do seek help: to maximise the chance of finding adopters efficiently, one presumes.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Usually the privatization of state services is pitched as a cost-saving measure. It's not something the state "needs" per se. There are plenty of government entities that handle such matters directly themselves, as someone noted previously.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Actually, I have. Think about why the state needs a proxy in this instance in the first place.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem remarkably concerned about the ability of your favored religious organization(s) to act as the state's proxy in this area, but you haven't explained why this would be beneficial to anyone other than the organization(s) in question.
quote:What? That's totally unreasonable. Are you suggesting that any couple or individual who thinks seriously about adopting for the first time because they have read a pamphlet or attended a talk or heard a sermon about the urgent need for good adoptive parents is thereby unsuitable for adoption because they didn't consider it before? Good grief.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This seems to be based the rather unwarranted assumption that adoptive parents are unmotivated slackers who have to be sought out and pressured into adopting by bureaucratic agencies, preferably ones with religious authority behind them. This description doesn't really fit any of the adoptive parents I know, and quite frankly couples who fit that description probably shouldn't be adopting kids in the first place.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Allowing Catholic adoption agencies to operate in addition to others increases the number of services working to locate parents for children.
quote:But, of course, this recruitment work has had to stop for UK Catholic agencies because of the new legislation.
Catholic Care has a good track record of finding, assessing and preparing adults for their role as adoptive parents. As a Catholic agency we are proud to be associated with Catholic adoption work which has a reputation for finding parents for the most damaged and vulnerable children, including children with behavioural and other disabilities and members of significant sibling groups. Our track record mirrors the national Catholic contribution to adoption with a low family breakdown rate of approximately 3% compared to a nation average of nearly 30%. (Statistics from stage 1 BAAF report to Government 2007).
[...]
We specialise in finding families for children who have Special Needs / Sibling group / Ethnic minority Placements and Older Children. Local authorities approach Catholic voluntary agencies usually when they cannot make a placement from within their own resources. The children are usually older, sibling groups, and there is a particular need for black or mixed heritage parents as well as older children. Statistical data demonstrates that Catholic adoption agencies place a higher proportion of children with special needs than either local authorities or other voluntary adoption agencies.
quote:Catholic agencies are specially placed to be able to reach out to Catholic potential adopters, many of whom take and successfully adopt otherwise difficult to place children.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, it's not clear that having more agencies trying to provide adoption services actually increases the number of potential adoptive parents available. This is particularly so if these agencies are going to actively discriminate against qualifed adopters on religious grounds.
quote:Really? By the closure of agencies who place some of the most needy and difficult to help children?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again, I'm not seeing a problem with the exclusion of discriminatory adoption agencies. The children in the system benefit by having a wider pool of adoptive parents available to them.
quote:That is an outrageous smear. Catholic adoption agencies operate as charities. Your own "paramount concern" here is all too clear.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The only real losers are religious organizations that no longer get profitable contracts from the government, but I'm not convinced that this concern is what should be paramount in this situation.
quote:Interestingly enough, the demographic most willing to adopt "difficult to place children" isn't Catholics, it's same-sex couples. (Admittedly there's more overlap between the categories of "Catholic" and "same-sex couples" than the Church would like.) Deliberately excluding such couples from adopting the children entrusted to their care seems contrary to the interests of those children. The Church obviously regards institutional care as more in those children's interests, but I don't see why anyone else needs to buy into their paranoia on the subject any more than if Catholic adoption agencies insisted that only Catholic (opposite-sex) couples were fit to adopt.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Many adoption agencies actively recruit potential adopters, by rasing awareness of the need for good parents for often very vulnerable and difficult to place children.
Catholic agencies have proved their worth in this area.
quote:From a thread a couple years ago.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:That is an outrageous smear. Catholic adoption agencies operate as charities. Your own "paramount concern" here is all too clear.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The only real losers are religious organizations that no longer get profitable contracts from the government, but I'm not convinced that this concern is what should be paramount in this situation.
quote:Contrary to what you seem to believe, being legally defined as a non-profit and recieving several million dollars in public funds are not mutually incompatible. And I don't have a single paramount concern, just a lot of very serious ones, like:
Citing same-sex marriage bill, Washington Archdiocese ends foster-care program
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has ended its 80-year-old foster-care program in the District rather than license same-sex couples, the first fallout from a bitter debate over the city's move to legalize same-sex marriage.
Catholic Charities, which runs more than 20 social service programs for the District, transferred its entire foster-care program -- 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members -- to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families. Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), the D.C. Council member who chairs the Committee on Human Services, said he didn't know of any problems with the transfer, which happened Feb. 1
<snip>
Catholic Charities, which receives $20 million from the city, had sounded alarms in the run-up to the council vote, saying programs serving tens of thousands of people were in danger.
quote:... nothing.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course you'll argue...
quote:So you want to talk about an imaginary world where funding is not an issue and children needing adoption receive multiple caseworkers in multiple agencies at the same time in order to find the best placement, so that agencies that restrict adopting families don't lower the quality of the opportunity available?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
For the purposes of this debate, I've been taking govenment funding out of the equation. In Britain, it's already been ruled that Catholic adoption agencies cannot operate at all - with or without government funding - if they do not give equal consideration to gay couples. Such agencies don't even seem to be able to operate independently as registered charities any more. But, just so as to be able to focus on the principles, I'm imagining a situation in which the Catholic agencies can fund themselves. Should they then be allowed to operate according to Catholic principles?
quote:If there is a Christian God, this idiot will more likely answer for her poor treatment of her neighbours.
It is my right, and it's not to discriminate against them. It's not so much to do with them, it's to do with me and my walk with God and what I will answer [to] Him for.
quote:Oh, but it's not just "preparing food for homosexuals". That would probably be fine if they were discreet about it, but they do keep rubbing it in your face by standing next to each other, and *gasp* even holding hands. What's a good Christian supposed to do in the face of such flagrant provocation?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Remind me again why "preparing food for homosexuals" is a sin?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)