• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

'Judge Won't Hear Gay Adoptions Because They're Not in a Child's 'Best Interest'"

C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
CogentPhilosopher said:
Actually your article claims that the government was what caused them to shutdown.
Click to expand...
But it didn't.
Nobody stopped the RCC from arranging adoptions except the RCC. They could have continued if their goal was making life better for kids. But instead they decided that enforcing their definition of marriage was more important than that, so they stopped the adoptions.
Nobody made them do that.
Tom
 
CogentPhilosopher

CogentPhilosopher

Philosophy Student
columbus said:
But it didn't.
Nobody stopped the RCC from arranging adoptions except the RCC. They could have continued if their goal was making life better for kids. But instead they decided that enforcing their definition of marriage was more important than that, so they stopped the adoptions.
Nobody made them do that.
Tom
Click to expand...

I mean it seems like something they would do, but i'm not really seeing any evidence of it Tom.

I mean you linked me this article which while is uselessly biased in terms of evidence was against your own position.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
CogentPhilosopher said:
I mean it seems like something they would do, but i'm not really seeing any evidence of it Tom.

I mean you linked me this article which while is uselessly biased in terms of evidence was against your own position.
Click to expand...
Really?
You don't see evidence that the RCC stopped arranging adoptions in 2006?
That is the claim I was backing up. "Pulled their license " was pcarls claim.
Tom
 
CogentPhilosopher

CogentPhilosopher

Philosophy Student
columbus said:
Really?
You don't see evidence that the RCC stopped arranging adoptions in 2006?
That is the claim I was backing up. "Pulled their license " was pcarls claim.
Tom
Click to expand...

Yeah but all you quoted was this article where the RCC claims that it was basically a "You can't fire me, I quit." moment. Also it claims that on the federal level they where given the boot.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
CogentPhilosopher said:
Yeah but all you quoted was this article where the RCC claims that it was basically a "You can't fire me, I quit." moment. Also it claims that on the federal level they where given the boot.
Click to expand...
You asked me to back up my claim that the RCC stopped arranging adoptions.
I showed you when the RCC stopped arranging adoptions. In their own words.
If you want to claim that the state "pulled their license" feel free to link to some evidence. But I don't think that there is any because, like I said earlier, that didn't happen.
Tom
 
CogentPhilosopher

CogentPhilosopher

Philosophy Student
columbus said:
You asked me to back up my claim that the RCC stopped arranging adoptions.
I showed you when the RCC stopped arranging adoptions. In their own words.
If you want to claim that the state "pulled their license" feel free to link to some evidence. But I don't think that there is any because, like I said earlier, that didn't happen.
Tom
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that they did, do not strawman me.

I am saying that this article does not support your claim.

Discrimination Against Catholic Adoption Services

Please read before you link.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
CogentPhilosopher said:
More specifically you claimed that they voluntarily closed their doors.

And thank you.
Click to expand...
How is that different from they chose to close up shop rather than follow the law?
They didn't have their license pulled, which was a claim made by another poster. Massachusetts passed a law that the RCC didn't want to abide by so the RCC stopped doing something. They weren't forced into doing anything.

I found it morally reprehensible myself. They abandoned needy children in order to reassert their "moral authority" in the wake of the pedophilia scandal is what I think. I believe that the archdiocese of Boston was selling Bernard Law's lavish mansion to pay off the lawsuits about the same time. But that is speculation. I don't claim to know that.

What I know is that the RCC decided not to arrange adoptions in Massachusetts, but nobody stopped them but the RCC. Which is not what pcarl claimed.
Tom
 
P

pearl

Well-Known Member
My goodness, I didn't mean to create such a brouhaha. columbus is correct as the state did not technically pull their license, but;

To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination--including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/banned-in-boston/article/13329
 
P

pearl

Well-Known Member
It all represents an ongoing argument over religious freedom. Our new Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch, represented Hobby Lobby against the mandatory offering of contraception coverage. In my mind this was more political and had nothing to do with religious freedom. In prior years insurance through Hobby Lobby covered contraception.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
columbus said:
Why this is true isn't hard to figure out.
Gay parents are constantly under the gun. They aren't likely to get pregnant by accident.
Gay parents really want to be parents and are generally given every out from parenting possible. When they stay parents in the face of all that social blowback it's because they really love kids and want to take on the responsibilities of child care.

As opposed to normal parents who may well just be going through the motions because they think that they have to.
Tom
Click to expand...
The big problem is that gay parents spend all their time grousing on the internet.
They'll just raise kids who behave like RF posters, instead of productive citizens.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Who cares if something someone does is icky? If it's not hurting anyone, why become so obsessed over what you find "icky" that you end up hurting yourself?
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, I find religion icky....
...the deluded symbolism...oaths....professing love of for <insert deity here> ...
....undignified prostration....absurd clothing....minding the business of others....
....belief that fairy tales are inerrant truth....
Churches of all kinds (even Unitarian) give me the creeps.
But I continue to work on tolerance for these things.
(It helps to avoid them.)
 
Last edited:
Father Heathen

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Valjean said:
The criterion is harm. Not ickyness. Pedophilia is harmful.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Key words are informed, consent, and adult. When it comes to law, what should be important is whether or not something victimizes or violates the rights of the innocent people. Not if someone finds something to be "gross" for whatever reason.
 
Father Heathen

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
KenS said:
One could say that in one's view, someone's ickiness is another's harm
Click to expand...
So you really don't see a difference between raping a child (causing harm and trauma to an innocent victim), and consensual sex between too adults (causing harm and trauma to no one)?
That is very subjective :)
Click to expand...
There is nothing subjective about consequences that can be experienced and observed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top