Quantcast

Comments about ‘Civil unions law stops Catholic adoption agencies in Illinois’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 12 2011 1:59 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
carabaoU
Moab, UT

Why is a government paying a church for services?

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

"They're asking permission to put their desire to discriminate ahead of the welfare of children in state care."

Say the potential adopter was a prostitute, would it be be against the welfare of the children then? If homosexuality was indeed a sin and a choice, then the adoption agencies would be doing nothing wrong. People act like this is a unanimous belief, that people are 'born that way'. - Another point, in the eyes of the religion, and in my own view, they are doing the children a favor. Every child inherently deserves and is entitled to a father and a mother.

Married couples can choose to have children.
Infertile couples are physically defected (meaning, in principle they can, but by defect they cannot) from having children.

Gay couples? They can't have children because of a choice to engage in an activity that is not heterosexual. Whether they feel they were born with attraction or not, it is not natural physically and they want to force society to accept it that way, which is so obviously false.

Hypothetically, have every gay person move to an island with only gay people. Let them adopt there, see how well it works.

George
Bronx, NY

here we go a gain with the church owned DN spreading false propaganda. "When the new civil union law in Illinois became effective June 1, the stage was set to force some religious adoption and foster care agencies to choose between following their religious beliefs or following the new state law."

They do not have to choose between doing adoption or following their religious beleifs they have to choose if they will continue their contract with the state. They can continue to do adoption they just cannot expect the state to pay for it if they refuse to follow the terms of the contract. (Kind of like LDS social services already does.)

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

A voice of Reason
Gay couples? They can't have children because of a choice to engage in an activity that is not heterosexual. Whether they feel they were born with attraction or not...

LDS4
They could have IVF or use a surrogate or they might just be CHOOSING to adopt a kid that already exists and needs love. They might want to unburden the state and be a positive force rather than have kids on their own and contribute to the perceived problem of over-population. Keeping kids a ward of the state rather than giving them a loving family (though it isn't "ideal"...though what family really is?) is immoral and anti-child and anti-family.

A voice of Reason
Hypothetically, have every gay person move to an island with only gay people. Let them adopt there, see how well it works.

LDS4
Since gays make up 2% of the population. If gays and lesbians were vanquished to an island, you'd see them engage in IVF and surrogacy and the island would thrive and within 100 years, the island's population would end up being 2% gay, like the rest of society.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Hypothetically, put every bigot on an island and see how well it works. I'm sure just because they are straight they will start having babies together, right?

lol, so I'm assuming by bigot you mean 'those who believe in family and do not endorse gay marriage or homosexuality'.

Put all faithful LDS Church members on and island and see how well it works. I'm sure because they are straight (ans support family), they will start families... and after this, they would thrive and thrive and do good in the world... kind of like they already do.

It seems the analogy where there is only family works, the one with only homosexuality doesn't. I don't believe in segregation and separating us on islands, it was an example. In reality, I believe that gay people have the right to do as they want right now... but that I have the right to not publicly or politically endorse, recognize, support (financially or in any other way) their union. I believe they should be free to live accordingly... but not to force society to recognize and sanction their union.

Children deserve mothers and fathers. I see nothing hateful or bigoted about that.

charlie91342
Sylmar, CA

I certainly don't understand how this organization can accept $30 million in taxpayer funds, some of which is paid by gay people, and then think they can discriminate against gays. makes no sense to me.

re - A voice of Reason | 2:49 p.m
"Say the potential adopter was a prostitute, would it be be against the welfare of the children then?"

prostitution is illegal. being gay isn't.

"If homosexuality was indeed a sin and a choice, then the adoption agencies would be doing nothing wrong."

a "sin"? your (or Catholic charities) idea of sin is irrelevant. If it is legal, and the organization takes taxpayer funds (paid by the "sinner") then the organization cannot withold services from that taxpayer.

I don't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

"Every child inherently deserves and is entitled to a father and a mother"

we are talking about adoption. if the parents wanted the child, they wouldn't be up for adoption.

"Gay couples? They can't have children because of a choice to engage in an activity that is not heterosexual."

...hence the need to adopt... Do you really hate gays so much you would take it out on the children? (I'm not gay)

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'...but that I have the right to not publicly or politically endorse, recognize, support (financially or in any other way) their union.' - A voice of Reason | 3:48 p.m.

Then, do not have a gay marriage.

And yet, homosexuals pay full taxes, because we do not have ACCESS to the tax breaks given with marriage.

Dosen't that mean one group has 'special rights?' And it is NOT the lgbt community.

'Children deserve mothers and fathers. I see nothing hateful or bigoted about that.' - VOR

But these children...

do not HAVE, mothers and fathers. They are wards of the state. Wanting what's best for the child is fine...

but as charlie91342 | 4:21 p.m. has pointed out, that ideal has failed.

Supported by a 50% divorce rate.

And 40% of children in the US being raised by single parents. Source? CDC.

And these children, have neither. Nor, do they have the PROMISE of a mother and a father.

So, once again, we have example that some people would want children to have NO parents...

instead of two gay ones who would love them.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

"Do you really hate gays so much you would take it out on the children?"

1) That statement assumes that I have hatred toward this group. I don't appreciate it, and it's entirely untruthful.

2) I believe that being gay is a lifestyle choice that people make, which is essentially giving into a very lustful temptation which offers a path of life which does not produce actual happiness and promotes things I attest. Attesting a decision is not attesting the person. People argue that they have no choice. I argue otherwise. But in the end, supposing my beliefs to be correct, under that premise... one must deductively conclude that placing children under such care would be harmful and certainly would not be fair to the children.

"hence the need to adopt" should say "hence the need to cheat" - explain how two men, without any other people living on this planet could 1) come to exist and 2) reproduce.

The 'religion of LGBT' teaches a false doctrine, one that has no biological support and one that destroys the rights of voters. The people have the right to not support/promote their behavior and to give children to proper parents.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'2) I believe that being gay is a lifestyle choice...' - A voice of Reason | 7:58 p.m.

Ah. You 'believe.'

So, once again, you have no EVIDENCE.

'Psychologists nix gay-to-straight therapy' - AP - 08/05/09

'The American Psychological Association slams technique that seeks to change sexual orientation. No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.'


How you can 'give a child proper parents...

when they DON'T. HAVE. ANY.

Your logic is self-indusive.

It makes the assumption that 1) LGBT choose to be gay, which you cannot prove.

and 2) that there ARE 'proper parents' waiting for that child, where there often times, cannot be.

The question is:

Would you rather a child have NO parents, or gay ones?

Your chronic reply of 'proper parents' implies that a child should have...

no parents...

instead of gay ones.

As a child put UP for adoption, by definiation,

have

no

parents.

charlie91342
Sylmar, CA

re - A voice of Reason | 7:58 p.m
"I believe that being gay is a lifestyle choice that people make"

is you being heterosexual a lifestyle choice? I couldn't be gay if you paid me a billion dollars. I could fake it, but I couldn't be gay. So to say people select that "lifestyle" is simply ridiculous.

"which is essentially giving into a very lustful temptation which offers a path of life which does not produce actual happiness and promotes things I attest"

I assume you mean "detest" not "attest". and you speak of "lust". You do realize that sex/lust has very little to do with being gay (or heterosexual) right? It has to do with who you are comfortable with and want to spend your time with, not just a sexual attraction.

"That statement assumes that I have hatred toward this group. I don't appreciate it, and it's entirely untruthful"

you detest them. that is a form of hatred. and you want to be allowed to be with who you want to be with, while denying them the same right. that's bigotry.

I'm not gay but I recognize they should have the same rights I have.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

So, they are not objecting to fact that they are gay - they are objecting to the fact that they are not married, but instead only have a civil union.

For all of you who ask what rights married people have that people with a civil union don't have and who want to know why marriage is so important - there is your answer.

Civil unions are not equal to marriage, but are of lesser value. Once again it is proven that separate is not equal.

@ A voice of Reason: You state that you support Catholic Charities not adopting to gays, how do you feel about them adopting to singles?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Civil unions are not equal to marriage, but are of lesser value.' - Kalindra | 10:28 a.m.

Supported.

*'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal challenges' - By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10

'The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.'

Medicare
Recognition across state lines
And now...adoption.

All PREVENTED due to the substitute of marriage, civil unions.

And WHO, most likely advocated against gay marriage...

could it be some (not all) Catholics?

Who then, turn around and want to DENY adoption to LGBT because they are not...

married.

Again, you cannot find FAULT with someone who is not married...

after you actively engage to PREVENT them from being ABLE to get married.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

"Civil unions are not equal to marriage, but are of lesser value."

Nor should they be equally valued. I don't support the idea that government should make everyone feel good about themselves... I support the idea that government is supposed to protect our rights as citizens to live a free life. Gays can get married today, but the people don't want to recognize it. You can't be pro gay and anti polygamy, it doesn't work. You either support the concept that state recognition is not a right, or you support that rights are arbitrary and that we can create whatever rights we want. Man makes union, then others feel entitled to it. Man invents wheel, people feel entitled. The U.N. recently declared that Internet Access is a right... I'm sorry but that is absurd, a joke, unintelligent, and a flawed way of viewing the origins of liberal thought.

-----

If a single person wants to adopt and not get married, then they don't understand what it takes to raise children or what children deserve. But I suppose all those who disagree with you are bigots and haters, right? Heaven forbid a different opinion on rights and equality.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ A voice of Reason: I have to give you kudos for being consistent - I disagree with you, but you are consistent.

I disagree with the stance of the Catholic Church also, and they are most definitely not consistent - which is part of the reason why people speak so negatively of them.

The Catholic Church will allow a single gay to adopt, but will not allow a gay couple to adopt. (The Catholic Church also opposes adoptions by opposite sex couples who opt for a civil union instead of a marriage.)

So if you are single, you can be gay or straight, but if you are married you must be straight, and if you are straight and in a relationship you must be married if you want to adopt or foster through the Illinois state contract with the Catholic Church.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments