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

[Fear No Evil]

While I support gay marriage and adoption, I do believe there is a distinct difference between men and women and children having parents of both sexes is certainly a GOOD thing. Having 2 fathers or 2 mothers simply doesn't give the child exposure to the differences and I think that hurts them.

That being said, I don't think there should be a restrictions against gays from being foster parents or adopting children. Having 2 loving parents is certainly better than zero. But I also don't think the government should tell an organization they should be forced to place children in gay families either. Nature is pretty consistent on it taking a male and a female to make a child, I don't think an organization requiring that is being any more bigoted than mother nature herself.

I'm sure there are other organizations out there who will assist gay couples in fostering/adopting and ultimately the benefit of this organization assisting to placing children into foster care outweighs the downside of them not being open to gay parents.

 

[zsdersw]

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'd rather adhere to their core values than help all children. That's indeed very stupid.

 

[classy]

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

Children are the product of a MALE and FEMALE, that is the natural order. No matter how gay or flaky the examples of the animal kingdom or some lonely penguin, children are proof of what is truly intended. Those who through medical reasons can't have any still reside within the God given or nature chosen intended relationship. Nothing will ever change that.

And while you're at it, if you have such a problem, why don't you and Jack make your own. And the by the way let me take away your access to anything from the female gender. Then in 100 years we'll see whose line is still living

 

[PokerGuy]

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.

Stable income and nice house and all that doesn't mean a hill of beans if the situation is immoral to begin with. Two drug users could also have great income and a nice house. The point is, they don't believe it is morally right to put a child in a situation without a loving, married mother and father. You can disagree with that view all you want, but asking them to set aside their moral convictions to suit your view of what is morally right is absurd. Instead, they are forced to stop providing a good service and everyone loses. That's just how our society works these days.

 

[zsdersw]

While I support gay marriage and adoption, I do believe there is a distinct difference between men and women and children having parents of both sexes is certainly a GOOD thing. Having 2 fathers or 2 mothers simply doesn't give the child exposure to the differences and I think that hurts them.

That being said, I don't think there should be a restrictions against gays from being foster parents or adopting children. Having 2 loving parents is certainly better than zero. But I also don't think the government should tell an organization they should be forced to place children in gay families either. Nature is pretty consistent on it taking a male and a female to make a child, I don't think an organization requiring that is being any more bigoted than mother nature herself.

I'm sure there are other organizations out there who will assist gay couples in fostering/adopting and ultimately the benefit of this organization assisting to placing children into foster care outweighs the downside of them not being open to gay parents.

If that organization is receiving public funds, then yes.. the government can tell them that.

 

[Fear No Evil]

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.

This doesn't make any sense. As long as the church is using their own money as well, it certainly DOES make them a charity. If it costs $20,000 to place a child into foster care, the government provides $10,000 of that, and the church the rest, its certainly better for taxpayers that the church is providing the service.

 

[PokerGuy]

They'd rather adhere to their core values than help all children. That's indeed very stupid.

No, it is not. Is it that hard to understand that making a choice to not do something you consider immoral is perfectly logical? You really think they should say "yeah, I know this is a religious group and all, and we'd be going directly against our religious beliefs and what God commands us to do, but oh well, we'll do it anyway"?

 

[zsdersw]

Stable income and nice house and all that doesn't mean a hill of beans if the situation is immoral to begin with. Two drug users could also have great income and a nice house. The point is, they don't believe it is morally right to put a child in a situation without a loving, married mother and father. You can disagree with that view all you want, but asking them to set aside their moral convictions to suit your view of what is morally right is absurd. Instead, they are forced to stop providing a good service and everyone loses. That's just how our society works these days.

All they're forced to do is find alternative funding for it.

 

[classy]

While I support gay marriage and adoption, I do believe there is a distinct difference between men and women and children having parents of both sexes is certainly a GOOD thing. Having 2 fathers or 2 mothers simply doesn't give the child exposure to the differences and I think that hurts them.

That being said, I don't think there should be a restrictions against gays from being foster parents or adopting children. Having 2 loving parents is certainly better than zero. But I also don't think the government should tell an organization they should be forced to place children in gay families either. Nature is pretty consistent on it taking a male and a female to make a child, I don't think an organization requiring that is being any more bigoted than mother nature herself.

I'm sure there are other organizations out there who will assist gay couples in fostering/adopting and ultimately the benefit of this organization assisting to placing children into foster care outweighs the downside of them not being open to gay parents.

I said the same exact thing a while ago. I also believe two parents is better than zero, but a man and woman is the very best thing for the child. As long as they are equal in all other areas. And I bet there are organizations out there whose sole purpose is to only help gay couples shunning straight couples. But lets keep pretending that gay people are without blame and only capable of pure love as bright as a rainbow.

 

[zsdersw]

No, it is not. Is it that hard to understand that making a choice to not do something you consider immoral is perfectly logical? You really think they should say "yeah, I know this is a religious group and all, and we'd be going directly against our religious beliefs and what God commands us to do, but oh well, we'll do it anyway"?

If their goal is to do God's work by helping all children and families, their religious beliefs shouldn't come first.

 

[zsdersw]

And I bet there are organizations out there whose sole purpose is to only help gay couples shunning straight couples.

Those organizations shouldn't receive public funding either.

But lets keep pretending that gay people are without blame and only capable of pure love as bright as a rainbow.

Where did anyone pretend that?

 

[Atreus21]

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.

So which gender are they discriminating against?

 

[zsdersw]

So which gender are they discriminating against?

The one that isn't where they want them to be.

 

[Atreus21]

The one that isn't where they want them to be.

So it's not gender-discrimination. It's the lifestyle that this particular person chose.

The fact that the lifestyle is indicative of gender doesn't mean it's gender-discrimination.

 

[JD50]

They'd rather adhere to their core values than help all children. That's indeed very stupid.

So would you. Actually, that's exactly what you're doing.

 

[zsdersw]

So would you. Actually, that's exactly what you're doing.

No, "I".. by which we really mean the state of IL.. am saying that if they're not going to help all children they must find other sources of funding.

 

[PokerGuy]

If their goal is to do God's work by helping all children and families, their religious beliefs shouldn't come first.

Heelllooooo.... are you that dense? They don't view putting children in amoral situations as God's work, it goes against what God told them to do so they don't do it. They are the ones being perfectly logical, you're the one trying to impose your view of morality on them.

 

[JD50]

No, "I".. by which we really mean the state of IL.. am saying that if they're not going to help all children they must find other sources of funding.

Wow, you can't even see it.

 

[zsdersw]

So it's not gender-discrimination. It's the lifestyle that this particular person chose.

Wrong. They're discriminating against a man when it's two men and a woman when it's two women.

 

[PokerGuy]

All they're forced to do is find alternative funding for it.

Which they tried to do previously and were unable to. So, they stopped the service. You just seem bent on forcing them into your moral views. They did exactly the right thing, perfectly logical, keeping with their religious convictions and not violating any laws. Unfortunately, a side effect of removing funding for their organization is that everyone suffers, but that's IL's fault, not theirs.

 

[zsdersw]

Heelllooooo.... are you that dense? They don't view putting children in amoral situations as God's work, it goes against what God told them to do so they don't do it. They are the ones being perfectly logical, you're the one trying to impose your view of morality on them.

Heelllooooo... are you that stupid? They're perfectly free to do their view of "God's work" with their own money.. not everyone else's.

 

[zsdersw]

Wow, you can't even see it.

Wow, you can't even see it.

 

[Atreus21]

Wrong. They're discriminating against a man when it's two men and a woman when it's two women.

That's not gender discrimination. That's lifestyle discrimination.

Gender discrimination would be, "You're a woman. You can't adopt."

 

[ShawnD1]

though i have to say Il Foster care is fucked up. To qualify to be a foster parent its rather easy. I know a few who just house the kids for the money (can make decent amount if you have a few kids) and don't give a shit about them.

One of my childhood friends had a family like this. His blood-related family took in foster kids to make some money. It was nice the foster kids had a place to stay and they weren't physically abused, but they were never treated as equals. The kids who were related to the parents had more freedom and more authority than the foster kids.

Getting money to take on foster kids seems to attract the worst kind of trash.

 

[zsdersw]

Which they tried to do previously and were unable to. So, they stopped the service. You just seem bent on forcing them into your moral views. They did exactly the right thing, perfectly logical, keeping with their religious convictions and not violating any laws. Unfortunately, a side effect of removing funding for their organization is that everyone suffers, but that's IL's fault, not theirs.

I don't want to force anyone to do anything.

Let's say your life's mission is to plant trees in people's yards. Let's also say I decide to pay you to do so if you plant trees in the yards of everyone who wants them. You want to only plant them in what you consider ideal yards. I, then, refuse to pay you anymore. I didn't force you to do anything.