Gay marriage

[Milltown Row2]

There are plenty of married couples where one of the parents is gay anyway so it does happen.

[Billys Boots]

The facets required for becoming parents and being parents are different - there is nothing inherent in homosexuality that would preclude gay people from being adequate parents, any more than heterosexual people. 

[EC Unique]

There are plenty of married couples where one of the parents is gay anyway so it does happen.

That does not make it right.

It is a tricky matter that people will have strong opinions on. As far as I know it is still illegal in Ireland for a gay couple to adopt children. Long may that remain the case...

[The Iceman]

What about Catholic and Christian Charities who are being forced to go against their beliefs to accept gay adoption?
Is it right in those cases to force opinion on an institution or charity?

[Puckoon]

IM - What do you mean? What "Christian" organizations are being forced to go against their beliefs to accept gay adoption? I don't understand your question.

[Maguire01]

Some ridiculous comments on this thread. How do you define normal? And how many families are normal? Would a single parent be better than a gay couple? Or what about a 'normal' couple where one of the parents is a drunk, a junkie, or an abuser?

As for the bullying argument... well as Puckoon said, children get bullied for a multitude of reasons. Maybe their parents are poor and can't afford to keep up with the latest trends - should that be a reason to stop them being parents? Should the narrow mindedness of other people be a deciding factor?

And if children are getting bullied by other children because their parents are a gay couple, it's because people (like those on here) with such opinions are passing those same opinions on to their own children.

[J70]

There are plenty of married couples where one of the parents is gay anyway so it does happen.

That does not make it right.

It is a tricky matter that people will have strong opinions on. As far as I know it is still illegal in Ireland for a gay couple to adopt children. Long may that remain the case...

There's nothing tricky about it.

Your view appears to be firmly held, so it should be easy enough to outline your case against gay adoption.

[The Iceman]

Christian based adoption agencies throughout America and throughout the UK like Catholic Care are being forced by the Government to comply with recently passed legislation to allow same sex couples to adopt children from their agencies. Even though this directly conflicts with their religious opinion, practice and code.
These agencies have been forced to close in many cases. These instances go back to 2007 in England when Catholic Care clashed with the government on this very issue. The Government insisted that if they wish to continue to work with local authorities, Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provide gay adoption services.

There are agencies who provide and cater for gay adoption. I don't have to agree with them. But at the same time Christian based charities who provide services should not be forced surely down that road?

[J70]

What about Catholic and Christian Charities who are being forced to go against their beliefs to accept gay adoption?
Is it right in those cases to force opinion on an institution or charity?

I would think that as long as they're not getting public funding for their activities there should not be a problem.

[Maguire01]

IMO one of the fundamental aspects of adoption is giving the child a loving mother and father. It is not fair for a child to be adopted by either two men or two women and thus be deprived of a loving father/mother figure in their childhood.

So what about single parent families? Is that unfair? What should be done about such children?

[Puckoon]

IM - J70 beat me to it - if public funds are being poured into the coffers of the charities - then they should abide by the laws of the state/country. If the catholic church received money in California, from the state of California - it should be required to perform gay marriages. As it does not - the catholic church can refuse to perform gay marriages on the basis of it's belief system.

[The Iceman]

What if they are not receiving funds? State law is state law and country law is country law.
Should they still be forced to against their beliefs?

[nifan]

Should religion be above the law Iceman?

[heganboy]

What about Catholic and Christian Charities who are being forced to go against their beliefs to accept gay adoption?
Is it right in those cases to force opinion on an institution or charity?

In the US the law states that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, that includes suitability for adoptive parents. Church charities who are apparently quite active in the adoption facilitation process are asking that they be exempt as it goes against their "principles"

Additionally churches in the US also "direct" parishioners to vote based on candidates position on Roe vs Wade, (which is the case law that allows abortion). However no such direction is provided on candidates who support the death penalty.

This is an email that I got a couple of weeks back, forwarded to all parents of my sons' school. It is about the new healthcare law that the universal church came out against as it would force them to cover abortion, sterilization and contraception. never mind that it would provide healthcare for the poor...

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in
the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of
any faith. The federal government, which claims to be "of, by, and for the people," has just dealt a heavy
blow to almost a quarter of those people-the Catholic population-and to the millions more who are
served by the Catholic faithful.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all
employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees' health coverage that
includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be
forced to include those "services" in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be
forced to buy that coverage as a part oftheir policies.
In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, denying to Catholics our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious
liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our
consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The
Administration's sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.
We cannot-we will not-comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second
class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will
in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to
these shores to help build America's cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and
culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has
always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and
trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren
deserve nothing less.
And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit
ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored.
Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend
visiting www.usccb.org/conscience, to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how
to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration's decision.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely in the Lord,
Most Rev John J Myers,
Archbishop of Newark

I have also received emails about gay marriage, I am awaiting emails any time now asking me to lobby against capital punishment, pollution, poor education systems, prison reform, tax etc etc.

I may be waiting for quite a wee while.

[Maguire01]

What if they are not receiving funds? State law is state law and country law is country law.
Should they still be forced to against their beliefs?

I don't think the receiving of public funds is that critical here. Should the law not apply to a religious organisation when they don't receive public funds?