Because the Catholics use public taxes they are required to allow adoption to Civil Union couples. Illinois will begin allowing couples to adopt beginning this week. On the same day The Catholic Charities in Chicago will no longer be in business.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/religion/ct-met-rockford-catholic-charities-st20110526,0,6858349.story

I remember hearing when Gay Marriage laws were being passed in other parts of the USA they were afraid of losing their religion. Mormons and other religious groups will be able to discriminate as long as they don't use tax dollars.

I think it's sad that they're willing to deny children who need loving parents the option to have them. The children are the ones being harmed by their bigotry, not homosexuals or the Church.

Without their Service Organizations they only have superstition left, and people will see through that! Don't you think?

Whenever government steps in to do things religion once did, and often do a better job than religion, without prejudice, religions will get into politics. They hide behind political parties. We get a worse government while the religious work day and night to take away rights for anyone who doesn't follow their way. You don't have to be a Catholic or whatever, but you have to agree with them.

"NO POLITICS"...Opps!

The Catholics have been providing a great service. Be thankfull that they have done this service. They are not to be scourned for discontinueing this service.

Those that believe in Gay marriage and such should get off their butts and create an adoption service to replace what has been pushed out.

The Catholics aren't denying anybody anything. Those that knowingly create the child are the ones creating the need for adoption services.

I agree with this statement. If you are really upset by this, then create a foundation that lets gay people adopt!

Even as an atheist, I think that the ideal family IS with a father and a mother. It makes sense that the Catholic adoption services don't adopt children to gay couples.

If I had a baby and gave it up for adoption, I would want it to go to a married man and woman, not a single mother/father, gay couple, or boyfriend and girlfriend.

this shoudln't be a shock, people.

I completely disagree with your post on principle. Why? Let's change the variables a bit.

Let's say the Catholic church, or the Mormon church for that matter, opposed facilitating the adoption of children to inter-racial couples, or couples with one partner over age 65, or couples with one infertile member. (Infertility used to be grounds for separation, to a Catholic...) I think many of us would be appalled. Not just because it's unfair to discriminate on the grounds of age, race, or bioloical ability, but because what matters in terms of child care is whether the child will be loved and cared for.

To wit, I know of many cases where the supposed heterosexual "ideal" has lead to child abuse and neglect. I know just as many instances where same-sex couples adore their children -- and raise them to be successful and happy adults.

Furthermore, I think disputing stereotypes--for instance, the stereotype that heterosexuals are *inherently* better parents--is the first step in the fight for equal treatment, respect, and human dignity for everyone. Let's not legitimize discrimination or kowtow simplisitic world views -- shall we? That's why I left Mor(m)onism.

Let's embrace supple, humane, compassionate solutions.

Equal treatment for all!!!

Oh, come now. I don't think this poster was saying that heterosexuals make better parents. I think his/her point was that a family environment that contains members of both genders is optimal for child development. Although I'm not sure I agree with that statement at all, I'm at least capable of understanding the distinction between it and your mischaracterization of it.

I am pretty sure I favor letting gay couples adopt, especially older children who might not get adopted otherwise. I also don't believe in making private organizations do things that violate their principles. Because it was dependent on public funds but did not want to submit to public mandate about those funds, Catholic Charities is closing. I see this as an entirely appropriate response, even though I think I support letting gay couples in happy civil unions adopt.

is appropriate. I am saddened that they would chose to do so rather than find loving homes for needy children in a wider adoption base but it is their choice to make.

And there are secular agencies in place who can find loving homes, regardless of sexual orientation, for parents who are seeking children. Hopefully they won't be overwhelmed by the need.

I agree with you completely: "his/her point was that a family environment that contains members of both genders is optimal for child development."

I am just saying I see no evidence for that. I know plenty of so-called "optimum" arrangements of the family that are abusive. And I know plenty of so-called "non-optimum" gay families that are loving and healthy.

I oppose blanket generalities. And I prefer that we adopt a more subtle approach to human relations -- adoption included -- one that seeks-out loving families of all varieties, and more importantly, one that is blind to prejudice.

Equal treatment for all!!!

Good point wrote:

"If I had a baby and gave it up for adoption, I would want it to go to a married man and woman, not a single mother/father, gay couple, or boyfriend and girlfriend."

Seems you're missing the point.

If you had a baby and gave it up for adoption, nobody would give a s**t where or with whom you wanted the baby to go.

You don't do anyone, least of all the baby, any favors by producing offspring and leaving it up to others to raise.

You've got to be either catholic or mormon to to raise such a ridiculous point.

Timothy

Not so..babies are big business now..they can cost a while loy of money..open adoption, paid surrogates..young girls keep their babies..and we get to pay for them.

Could care less if gays adopt..but believe of a group doesn't chose to do that..their business...

stormy

What scientific studies prove the ideal way to raise a child is both a mother and father? Have you researched this topic using credible sources?

As a child and teenager I was abused, and during those years I LONGED for someone to love me, as I'm sure every child wants and deserves.

I agree with plt981, loving parents are the ideal.

...then we shouldn't consider it a religious charity at all. They certainly cannot take credit for the job if it's payed by the state. That's not doing charity that's being a social worker.

I agree completely. Thanks for pointing out.

When the government starts to force religious organizations to violate their beliefs, these organizations need to stand up for what they believe in.

The ideal situation is a mother and a father; the church wants to ensure that the children they place have that advantage.

out

The government is forcing nothing. They are just saying that Catholic Charities may not carry on as usual with public tax dollars.

CC may continue to do as they please with private funds. Evidently, CC is electing not to pursue this course of action. Their choice.

I've personally known two sets of gay parents, and they've both been exemplary. For one couple, they are both certified public school teachers with master's degrees.

As an urban teacher, I've also seen some truly horrible heterosexual parents. Drugs, neglect, very early parenthood, you name it.

There are many different ways to life a life, and there are far worse things in life than having two loving parents.

How does that change the arguement? You'd have to assume all gay parents are exemplary. No drug use, neglect, or abuse of any kind. Highly doubtful. Ideal is still a mother and father.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2011 08:04PM by verdacht.

No: the ideal is two loving parents. Gay or straight.

Sorry I disagree. Loving parents, gay or straight, is certainly better than no parent or bad parents but the ideal certainly has to be a good mother and father.

They compliment each other and bringing different things to parenting.

You said: "They compliment each other and bringing different things to parenting."

This is very weak evidence to support your claim. Any two people raising children are different and necessarily bring "different things to parenting." Needless to say, their genitalia has very little to do with it.

Your argument ends up policing gender in a way that makes me very uncomfortable. It could even end up with children of (good) gay parents being re-assigned to (good) straight parents -- because we assume one is preferable to the other by default.

Down with stereotypes.

Equal treatment for all!!!

I believe all that they've done is place limitations on where public monies can be spent. The government does that all the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2011 07:01PM by Rebeckah.

Was it over single people or single gay people being allowed to adopt? I don't remember, but it seems like they're always quitting over something.

Those that favored civil unions/gay marriage and such should set up a adoption service to replace what is being lost. It goes against the Catholics principles to place children in homes without mothers and fathers. Those that think that placing children in home with mothers OR fathers is Ok, quit bitching and go for it. Remember you will need to race half of the money privately.

How about the Catholic church unlatches itself from the government teat and quit accepting govt cash for their services.

This is why they are not allowed to discriminate. If they wish to discriminate, then they need to finance their own operation.

And you can rest assured that as soon as discriminatory adoption policies are abandoned (gay couples cannot adopt in the state of Utah, nor can they foster children), there will absolutely be MORE adoption services available for gay couples than there already are.

Yes, they accepted government money. If I understood right, about half the money came from the government. "there will absolutely be MORE adoption services available for gay couples than there already are". Actually there is one less service for adoption. I still say set up an adoption service, fund half of the service privately. You could set it up for exclusively for gay couples.

Or better yet, for loving and capable parents regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. What a concept, an adoption agency that focuses entirely on what adults seeking children can actually meet the child's needs!

Let's make clear that this happened in one town, not in the entire Catholic church. Let's exaggerate a bit shall we? BTW, I don't agree with them, but it is their perogative as I understand the law.

The catholic church can do whatever they like with their own money, I don't care. Actually I do care when their money actually goes to sustaining HIV and overpopulation in africa, but as far as charity goes I don't care much. BUT the catholic church has lots of money. It's probably the richest organisation in the world, why on earth can they not pay for the charity themselves??

Because this *IS* one state Catholic Charities have stopped their adoption services in Illinois, but it's also a good indication they will do the same in other states with Civil Unions.

There is not one reason why a person chooses to give a child up for adoption, but I can't help but think because the Catholic Church discourages family planning, their teachings have something to do with the cause for the necessity of adoptions.

Starting my own adoption services isn't necessary. Ever hear of "Craig's List"? Pup an add in with photos, hire an attorney to draw up the paperwork, have everything paid for by the person doing the adoption, and DA-DAaaa. Who needs religion? Just sayin.

They left the ball and went home. Pick up the ball and play. At least they were serving a need. I would rather they stayed and played. It would seem that very few(like 0) of the folks adopting their children out will sign off on anything but a married couple(husband and wife).

Relatively few parents give their children up for adoption voluntarily and even fewer have ANY say in who adopts their child. The vast majority of children seeking adoptive parents are in the system because one or both of their parents were utter failures as parents and often because one or both parents was harmful to the child.

As for them "leaving their ball", hardly. They want to close their doors and flounce off in a huff. Good for them -- don't ask me to respect their hypocrisy.

Adoption agencies are SUPPOSED to be in the business of providing for children and biological parents are historically not a big priority to them. Some agencies work hard to make the process easier on the biological parents but that is rarely the focus.

It's apparently more important to them to deny help to gays trying to adopt children than it is to help anyone else. That's really showing their true colors.

Would you expected anything different? The adoption service is there to help the children and their biological parents. It is not there to help the people adopting.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2011 10:42PM by Makurosu.

They were certainly willing to accept those tax dollars but are not willing to abide by the set rules for accepting those dollars.

It's time for religion to get out of the adoption business.