Catholic Charities In Rockford Ending Foster Care, Adoptions Over Gay Rights

[PokerGuy]

So basically it's a lose / lose for everyone. The kids will no longer have the foster care available through that organization, the state is going to end up spending more money, and some good parents will not be able to take care of kids that need a home. But hey, at least political correctness has been served!

It's a religious organization. You can't ask them to do something that goes against their religion. If that means they don't get funding because of some narrow minded groups, so be it, we all lose.

 

[classy]

Uh.. ever heard of Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington DC?

Illinois is very close to approving civil unions, too... so your argument about what the public wants fails too.

Through legislation, not a public vote.

 

[boomerang]

I heard we're fighting wars overseas and our soldiers are being killed.
I heard that our financial condition here in the U.S. is in dire straits.
I heard that severe weather has torn through many parts of the nation resulting in many people losing everything they have. I heard that they lost their homes and in some cases their jobs too because the businesses they worked for were also destroyed.
I heard that unemployment is sky high and unemployment benefits are going to run out. What will these people do?
I read that we're borrowing $0.40 of every dollar we're spending.

I have many of these I could list. I could then rate in them in order of importance. Somewhere way, way down at the bottom of the list. In small little letters almost impossible to read would be the issue in Rockford.

There are big problems facing our nation and then there are small ones...

 

[classy]

And the bottom line here is they wanted to place kids only with homes where the couple was married and it was a man and woman. Not single, not gay. They stayed within their core belief. What is wrong with that? Its like being hetrosexual to you folks is some kind of disease. Give me a break........................

 

[Zebo]

So basically it's a lose / lose for everyone. The kids will no longer have the foster care available through that organization,

How is that a loss exactly? You don't think they try and indoctrinate those children with fairy tales, total regulation of life and false explanation of the universe? Not to mention bigotry and hate?

 

[zsdersw]

And equally sad that we defund an organization that helps children sheerly on the basis that they don't agree with the the public stance on same-sex couples.

No, what's sad is they want to use others' money how they want, not necessarily how everyone else does.

Ironic that religious people get criticized for imposing morality on others. Of course they do. Just like everyone else.

This is no more an imposition of morality anymore than an employer firing an employee for being unwelcoming to customers is imposing his morality onto the employee. It's about the one who holds the purse strings setting the rules.

 

[zsdersw]

Through legislation

... that was not challenged by a public vote.

 

[Jaskalas]

Placing children in homes should be a discriminatory process. Both a mother and a father should be a basic requirement.

 

[zsdersw]

You can't ask them to do something that goes against their religion.

If they want public funding, yes, you can.

 

[zsdersw]

I heard we're fighting wars overseas and our soldiers are being killed.
I heard that our financial condition here in the U.S. is in dire straits.
I heard that severe weather has torn through many parts of the nation resulting in many people losing everything they have. I heard that they lost their homes and in some cases their jobs too because the businesses they worked for were also destroyed.
I heard that unemployment is sky high and unemployment benefits are going to run out. What will these people do?
I read that we're borrowing $0.40 of every dollar we're spending.

I have many of these I could list. I could then rate in them in order of importance. Somewhere way, way down at the bottom of the list. In small little letters almost impossible to read would be the issue in Rockford.

There are big problems facing our nation and then there are small ones...

... and threads about all of them here in P&N.

 

[PokerGuy]

How is that a loss exactly? You don't think they try and indoctrinate those children with fairy tales, total regulation of life and false explanation of the universe? Not to mention bigotry and hate?

Having personally worked with an organization that does this, I can say your assumptions about what they do or don't do are patently stupid. Dislike religion all you want, but don't disparage every organization (most of which do absolutely great work) based on your idiotic notions.

 

[Craig234]

I heard we're fighting wars overseas and our soldiers are being killed.
I heard that our financial condition here in the U.S. is in dire straits.
I heard that severe weather has torn through many parts of the nation resulting in many people losing everything they have. I heard that they lost their homes and in some cases their jobs too because the businesses they worked for were also destroyed.
I heard that unemployment is sky high and unemployment benefits are going to run out. What will these people do?
I read that we're borrowing $0.40 of every dollar we're spending.

I have many of these I could list. I could then rate in them in order of importance. Somewhere way, way down at the bottom of the list. In small little letters almost impossible to read would be the issue in Rockford.

There are big problems facing our nation and then there are small ones...

I'll take away your right to have children and we'll talk about it being a small problem.

 

[Craig234]

Placing children in homes should be a discriminatory process. Both a mother and a father should be a basic requirement.

List your reasons.

I'll start - your bigotry. I think that completes the list.

 

[PokerGuy]

If they want public funding, yes, you can.

... and thus they said "no, we can't compromise on our core beliefs, so keep your money, and we won't be able to offer these services anymore". What's the problem again?

 

[PokerGuy]

I'll take away your right to have children and we'll talk about it being a small problem.

Nobody took away anyone's right to have children. Idiot.

 

[Anarchist420]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/catholic-charities-in-roc_n_867755.html



I realize this is from HuffPo, but if it's all as the article says, its pretty stupid of these charities. What part of if you get state funds, you can't discriminate is so difficult to understand?

The Roman Catholic church is one of the phoniest, shittiest institutions there ever was. They need to stop calling themselves a charity if they take tax-payer money.

 

[zsdersw]

... and thus they said "no, we can't compromise on our core beliefs, so keep your money, and we won't be able to offer these services anymore". What's the problem again?

Who said there was a problem? I do think it's stupid that they put their stupid beliefs ahead of helping children, though.

 

[Atreus21]

No, what's sad is they want to use others' money how they want, not necessarily how everyone else does.



This is no more an imposition of morality anymore than an employer firing an employee for being unwelcoming to customers is imposing his morality onto the employee. It's about the one who holds the purse strings setting the rules.

I guess then my question becomes on what basis should foster care organizations be allowed to receive public funding and still discriminate against single adopters and unmarried adopters, if discriminating against gay couples is grounds for defunding?

 

[zsdersw]

I guess then my question becomes on what basis should foster care organizations be allowed to receive public funding and still discriminate against single adopters and unmarried adopters?

Discrimination on the basis of the gender of the two who are in a relationship is what's wrong... as gender is not a choice. Being single is a choice.

 

[Jaskalas]

Placing children in homes should be a discriminatory process. Both a mother and a father should be a basic requirement.

List your reasons.

I'll start - your bigotry. I think that completes the list.

I need reasons to follow the natural state of things?

Children must be raised by both sexes, this is my opinion and nothing will change that.

 

[PokerGuy]

Who said there was a problem?
I do think it's stupid that they put their stupid beliefs ahead of helping children, though.

Oh yeah, it's so stupid that they put their core values ahead of the beliefs you want to impose on them. Of course, that makes sense.

They view placing a child in an amoral home the same as placing it in any other bad situation. Your idea of what is immoral is not the same as theirs, and that's fine. Instead of being pressured to put kids into a situation they view as immoral, they stopped offering the service. That makes perfect sense.

 

[Atreus21]

Discrimination on the basis of the gender of the two who are in a relationship is what's wrong... as gender is not a choice. Being single is a choice.

No, it is not their gender with which catholic charities disagrees. It's their lifestyle. And that is a choice.

 

[Craig234]

I need reasons to follow the natural state of things?

Children must be raised by both sexes, this is my opinion and nothing will change that.

The 'natural state of things' is overrated, but includes heterosexuals and homosexuals.

I was correct, that completed the list.

 

[Craig234]

I guess then my question becomes on what basis should foster care organizations be allowed to receive public funding and still discriminate against single adopters and unmarried adopters, if discriminating against gay couples is grounds for defunding?

There are many studies on which environments are best for the child. Gay couples are just as good for the child. Single households on average are not, if I understand.

 

[zsdersw]

No, it is not their gender with which catholic charities disagrees. It's their lifestyle. And that is a choice.

Wrong. The Catholic charity disagrees that it's two men or two women in a relationship... even if their lifestyle includes two stable incomes and a nice house in a good neighborhood.