Posted on 01/16/2006 1:59:16 PM PST by wagglebee
EDINBURGH, January 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A decision by Scottish lawmakers to allow same-sex couples to adopt has been condemned by Roman Catholic prelate Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who warned that the measure would make Scotland’s orphans “guinea pigs in some distorted social experiment.”
The Cardinal has asked that Catholic adoption agencies be allowed a “conscience clause” to exempt them from the ruling, so as not to be forced to place children in homes with same-sex guardians. O’Brien is worried that Catholic adoption agencies would eventually be forced into placing children with same-sex couples.
Galloway Bishop John Cunningham, chair of the national committee for pastoral and social care, stated: “If the proposals go ahead as they stand, the bishops would certainly expect an exemption for faith-based adoption agencies,” according to a Times On Line report. “We are disappointed that the executive do not seem to have recognised the unique contribution that a stable married couple can make to the upbringing of children.
“We also have grave reservations concerning the ability of same-sex couples or unmarried heterosexual couples, however loving they might be, to provide the stability and the role models a married couple can,” he added.
The new law allows all unmarried couples – whether heterosexual or homosexual – the option of adoption. Earlier laws allowed one member of a non-married couple to apply to adopt a child, while the second member applied for a residency order. The UK outside of Scotland brought in a similar law allowing same-sex couples to adopt or foster a child in December.
It has been my lifelong belief, that with VERY FEW exceptions, adoption should be reserved for married couples who cannot have children on their own. All of these other groups are fully capable of having children through normal means, yet they are selfishly denying those who cannot do so.
Ping.
Homosexual agenda ping.
Let me know if you need me to keep pinging.
Well, it's pretty safe to say that the leftists will not permit such a thing and they'll probably get their panties into a wad for the Cardinal daring to imply that favoring normal families is an act of conscience.
There is another solution, of course, just stop placing children in any nation where they'll be forced to place them in the hands of sexual degenerates. Ship them all to foreign counties and to God-loving parents.
Why should a married couple who can have children be denied the priviledge of of adopting a child? Can't they do both?
Can we just cut the crap. Be precise, it's lesbian couples. Most homosexual men are too busy in bath houses. The misandrist lesbians want to assert control over the rearing of children. They want total control.
So, what's new about this? U.S. pubic schools have been experimenting for decades.
I don't know if anybody else remembers this, but in 1975 (not THAT long ago) homosexualty was listed as a mental illness by the American Psych. Assoc. What changed?
THE POLITICS! The Democrats discovered another victim's group.
H.E. Keith Michael Patrick Card. O'BRIEN
I think that H.E. stands for His Eminence, but a Catholic Freeper would have to confirm that.
Now, seriously, when was the last time any of these PC types ever had a conversation on-the-level about this subject with the principle of the child's welfare uppermost in mind?
IMHO I agree with you and would add the codicil that children who can't find married couples willing to parent them really are wards of the government, or of the philanthropic society.
Do you recall how, just about the time this subject came up, that someone ran a press campaign (articles, book, movie rights, etc.) about the horrors of church-run social agencies in Ireland in the 1940's? Remember that one? That wouldn't have been a gay attack on the RCC and its homes for wayward girls, would it? And on the whole idea of pastoral social care in general?
Comments, please.
I imagine there'd be many who would oppose an exemption for Catholic agencies and would be glad to see them get out of the adoption business.
Although I have no real data to prove it, I tend to agree with you. I work in the art/picture framing industry, which alot of gay men work in. I would dare say that the majority of these men do not even like children, much less have the desire to raise them.
Why would someone who is capable of having their own kids... want to covet these children ....from those who can't have their own? (speaking of heterosexual couples, of course)
apparently he's a big liberal who was got his red hat by accident and was subsequently forced to make a profession of faith before actually becoming a cardinal.
on other forums people have said the source is distorting the Cardinal's speech to make him look orthodox
there were threads on OBrien when he got his red hat. maybe someone else can find them
At some point, the Church is going to have to stop taking money, getting tax breaks and funding social welfare activities. Sad but true. The true meaning of the separation of church and state is the recognition that money and politics corrupts the religious. It is not to keep religious speech out of the public square. Take your kids out of public schools. sigh.
True, Ranger, with the exception of a few of our male homosexual legislators, who have kids living with them, for the purpose of using them to further the agenda. One even cried on the floor of our state Congress about "it's for the children, like mine!" It was so obvious that is why they have said children. Those poor babies!.
Then again, some female homosexuals use these kids for the same purpose. Send them to Christian schools under false pretenses, to push their agenda for them. Best line regarding that that I have heard in some time was "If you are a pacifist, you don't send your kids to military school,
Did you know that "ping" is an acronym?
It means Packet InterNet Groper.
That makes a "Homosexual agenda ping" even more poignant.
There are many that do.
Some people must comb their hair differently.
I don't have any of my own kids, but do want to adopt some day. If those kids are going to a good family, I don't care if they have kids or not.
But they could fairly easily have children of their own. Coudln't they?
susie
I think some people who can (and have) had kids of their own want to adopt kids because they feel compelled to help. I have thought of doing foster care for that very reason, even tho my kids are grown, and theoretically I could have another one (maybe). But that may be a very small subset.
susie
I suppose the point is that there aren't enough kids to go around and so they should go to people who can't have them. I'm not sure there aren't enough kids, altho there is a dearth (so I've heard) of adoptable white infants. My brother went thru the foster care system and adopted a little boy who was about 2 1/2. Great kid, btw. If he had been stuck on an infant, I'm not sure he would have one yet. Oh, and yes, he's married, I realize I made that sound like he was single.
susie
Much rather they would be forced to break the illegitimate law by NOT placing children with homosexuals playing house.
In our Catholic parish we have a very nice couple who have two sons. They were also foster parents to children who needed homes during family crises. About 7 years ago they began to bring two children to church with them every Sunday. This happened for at least 15 months, when suddenly it became known that they had applied to adopt the children. The kids were about 3 and 5 when they were adopted. They are biological brother and sister and black children, very well behaved. The adoptive parents' 2 sons are blond boys, the oldest a year older than the black brother and the youngest a year younger than his new black sister. This family is very stable, and I do not think they originally intended to adopt any kids, but over the year that they were caring for these children, you could see the strong bonding which took place between the parents and these two children and the other two boys.
After the adoption was final, they had the two kids baptized. Both of these kids have now also received their First Communion. It was/is a wonderful story.
- Third World Meeting of Families: Conclusions of the Pastoral Theological Congress
Mention should also be made of recent attempts to legalize adoptions by homosexual persons, and this must be strongly rejected. It is obvious that this is not the situation for authentic up-bringing and personalizing growth. “The bond between two men or two women cannot constitute a real family, nor much less can the right be attributed to a union of this kind to adopt children without a family”. With regard to foster care and adoption, the great principle to be applied is always the child’s higher interests which much prevail over other considerations.
- Fourth World Meeting of Families: Conclusions of the Pastoral Theological Congress
We reaffirm the rights and dignity of all children. They should never be neglected and abandoned on the streets. They should be protected, especially when threatened by exploitation through prostitution, pornography, child-labor, drug trafficking, homosexual adoption and immoral "sex education". A new threat to children is posed by the misuse of the Internet, when this intrudes into family life and undermines the rights and duties of parents.Children are the "crown of marriage", the real wealth of humanity. The natural place for their education is the family. It is here, in the community of life and love, that they are formed as members of Christ's Church. It is here that, honoring and loving their parents, they can enrich the lives of all members of the wider family.
- Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons
4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
Like your son, I will love that child like no other when I am finally able to get the opportunity to raise one. Then there will be no more questions of, "Why don't you want children?" or "So you decided you don't want any children?"
I stinking forgot you were a teacher too!! One of the moms of one of my students was not even considering adopting. Then this infant fell into her lap literally. I'm not sure what the circumstances were, but somehow within a MONTH, they got an infant because of some special circumstances. That kid, is doted upon with 5 sisters. The mom said that it was like that her house was where he was supposed to be. I couldn't have been happier for her.
The left has said that we should not be down on the actions of consenting adults (although it became quite clear that was just a ruse as age of consent to homosexual acts is not confined to those over 18).
Where does the child "consent" to be adopted into a household with a same sex couple?
Couldn't tell that from the site I linked. Max Nix I like his position on the topic of this thread.
Easy Cat! You realize this is going on accros the pond as they say, in Scotland?
Homosexual agenda ping.
Also, more unwed mother's who cannot properly care for their children, should considering giving them up for adoption. But in the current moral climate, they won't.
I wasn't saying that was my position, btw, I was just saying where I thought that sort of comment was coming from. I think adoption is great, and I really admire people who adopt an older child, or a child with some sort of handicap etc.
susie
That's neat. My brother's little boy came with a few issues, but they have worked thru them and he is really blooming. My brother and his wife have decided to homeschool him, and he's really doing well (after a rough start in public school).
Anyway, it sounds like God knew exactly where He wanted that baby you were talkng about to be!
:)
susie
Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children
Review of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?
Where Children Have No Voice: The 'Right' of Adoption by Homosexual Partners
Dangers of Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children (Part 1)
Dangers of Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children (Part 2)
Children and homosexual adoption
Homosexual adoption
Trophy children
I'll say.
At a night school I used to work at, this policeman would come around with his little boy. I found out that he had adopted him from Romania. Those two were as close as any father and son that I have ever seen. The last I heard, the boy was doing wonderful in school and the family couldn't be happier. I love hearing stories like your son's and others. They are pretty inspirational.
What about married couples who want to lovingly open their homes and hearts to these children? I have been seriously considering adopting an older child (there is no shortage of people looking to adopt infants). I won't do this until I am married (to a likeminded person), but I don't understand what is selfish or immoral about a couple bringing children into their home who would otherwise languish in foster care.
I've always regarded it as beautiful and special, and I don't really think infertile couples should have a monopoly on loving these children. It certainly doesn't hurt the children, unlike homosexual and to a certain extent, single parent adoptions.
I believe I said in most cases. Of course there should be exceptions. My wife's brother was adopted. My wife's parents had two daughters and wanted a son; however, my mother-in-law had been told that her life and the baby's would be at risk if she became pregnant again. My father-in-law is a physician and he was told of a young unwed mother who was unsure of what to do (she may have been contemplating abortion, but I don't know). My wife's parents paid the young woman's medical bills and adopted her son.
I understand "wanting to help".. but there are a ton of good families just waiting to get a child because they can't have any. Foster care is a different matter altogether.... because it generally involves an older child that needs a whole lot of intervention....emotionally, mentally and spiritually. Very good cause. :)
Notice how politicians and lawmakers don't care about the most and fragile and indefensible elements of society – children.
We are adoptive parents, and we adopted our boys when they were four and seven, and we adopted our daughter when she was a year old. Everyone is now 11, 7, and 2. All are Hispanic.
The reason that there aren't many healthy white babies is abortion. Sad, but true.
If every church in America had one family who adopted an older child, we would no longer have children languishing in foster care with no hope of real permanence.
Gumdrop, tell your friends I say God bless. We wish them the best.
That's great! :)
How sad.
Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.