so because we're the catholic church, we should be allowed to discriminate

[wannaBeWhateverIWannaBe]

or we'll close our

adoption agencies

BTW dc, i haven't seen you ever ask for advice, what you call giving advice comes accross as condescending patriarchal rhetoric that far from actually give meaningful advice you use as a platform to bolster some point or prove some knowledge.

do me some links - i do apologise when wrong.

regarding the hitory of the catholic church. there have been truly heinus acts committed by trusted members of the church for hundreds and hundres of years. i don't think there isn't a mumsnetter who isn't aware of this. i have never seen one try to fight against the factual heinus history of the church.

however, that wasn't the argument here. it wasnt the discussion. But you see the word chirstian or catholic and its all you can write.

on every thread.
go back
look
in the history of Mumsnet your relatively a new member and yet already your cliched.

Well, I'm relieved and pleased that the cabinet called the cardinal's bluff. I'm glad they've pointed out to O'Connor that he doesn't run the country and the law applies to him and his church as much as it does to everyone else.

Now let's see him take some responsibility for colluding in child abuse.

FWIW, I think the attempts to out DC as a victim of childhood sex abuse were appalling. If you can't defend your position without name calling - and what a thing to try to insult someone with! - then you haven't really got much of a position in the first place.

attempt ( i think) were mine. not my intention to be so appaulling. and for that i truly apoligise

custy what about vatican 2? sin is according to conscience???

it's like that never happened isn't it.

and that is the last time that the pope put his funny hat on and spoke 'from god' isnt it?

i think you mistake what i have said.

i do not attempt to defend the catholic church on matters of sexual abuse.

Well I look at all of this from the point of view of "what is in the best interests of the child?". Because that is what adoption should be about. About finding the best place for a child.

I find it extremely difficult to see what parents' sexuality has to do with the best interests of the child. Whether I sleep with my partner with contraception, without contraception, wearing pvc, upside-down, twice a night, once a decade... none of this has any bearing on how I raise my child. Similarly whether I am married to my partner, unmarried, in a civil partnership because they are the same sex - none of this is, per se, relevant to the best interests of the child. What matters is whether I (and my partner, if I have one, of whatever sex) can offer a secure, loving home suitable for that child. TBH I think there is a more valid argument for saying that adoptive parents should be discriminated against on the basis of race (eg not putting a black child with a white family), because that goes towards the child's sense of self and identity growing up - it is a visible and understandable difference which may have an impact on the child (not sure I agree, but think it is arguable), whereas parents' sexuality does NOT have any direct bearing on a child's sense of self.

Now to the catholic bit - given that homosexuality is just one of a very long list of sins deemed unacceptable by the catholic church, why do they not reject ALL sinners as being adoptive parents? Do they believe that this one sin is so much greater than any other? If they believe that the problem with homosexuality is not the urge but the action - that all sexual activity should be for procreation only - why don't they check the sexual activity and proclivities of all of their adoptive parents? Should infertile couples show that they are celibate? What about all the other mortal sins out there? THere is clearly specific discrimination against homosexuals going on which I think IS a step too far, because it does not fit into the logical argument that they are trying to fit it into. Why is homosexuality so much greater a sin than all the other sins? Because it is basic bigotry.

So that is why I think the proposed exemption is wrong. First, it loses sight of the best interests of the child and thinks instead about the wishes of the adoptive parent and the dogma of the church, which must be secondary considerations, and secondly it allows the church to treat homosexuals in a way which is completely different to any other "sinner", and so is discrimination in its widest sense, and that sets an extremely unappealing precedent going forward.

i think it is entirely fair to interpret DC's rather singular rants about the Church as him having a personal agenda. I never suggested child abuse. I was thinking more of a nasty teacher at school - our childhood role models often have a strong effect on subjective beliefs.

i agree with everything you say pph. however it's not a greater sin. however in catholicism you are committing a sin if you ask gods forgiveness then walk out the door to continue with your lifestyle choice which is a sin in the eyes of the catholic church.

so their is no sin monitor or sliding scale. but what one does promise is to try harder and not to do it again. if you are openly and activley gay - you are not keeping this promise. you are actively sinning in the eyes of the church - openly and flagrently and unapologetically.

What I can see on this thread now is that there is a group of us trying to put forward the position of the church even though we disagree with it, and others straying out of the argument and beating us with child abuse allegations as if it is all our fault.

Yes I have chosen to be a catholic and follow the guidance, for the most part, of the Vatican. I do not agree with their stance on women priests, gay adoption and I think their handling of child abuse is, at best, naive.

But as others have strayed from the original topic which was adoption, allow me to further stray by asking you all - who do you work for? Who do you bank with? Do you buy Nestle? Do you follow the CofE Church and pledge allegiance to the Queen? Do you send your children to Brownies/Cubs/Scouts that have had their fair share of abuse scandals? You choose to associate yourselves with individuals and organisations that also have appauling human rights records, yet you feel sufficiently smug enough to beat us with accusations of everything the church has done.

Would you accuse a German national of abuse because of what their country did in the World Wars? Have Germany apologised for their part? If they have, what is the use of that if all the people involved are now dead?

I have chosen to belong to the catholic faith. I am not here to defend my lifestyle choices. Nor am I here to defend the church, they can do that themselves. But I will not have people venting their anger at me, which is basically what a lot of you are doing, DC and sophable.

I did try to turn this thread round at one point, make it more light hearted and humourous. But it seems to me that a lot of you have issues that need addressing, predjudices you need to face yourselves. There is a lot of anger on this thread and it is being directed at the wrong people.

well said Rhubarb

Rhubarb, who is beating you up? All I can see is challenges and accusations levelled at the church and at those on this thread justifying the church's stance on this. Seriously.

Who has justified child abuse?

Which is the stick you keep brandishing whenever anyone makes a good point.

Get over it.

bloody eck, im avoiding this one PMSL

You're only allowed on 'ere if you've got some issues kittylette!

I wonder if we could get a priest to comment on this? Think I'll email one!

crappin 'ell

not the pope again rhubarb.

"whereas parents' sexuality does NOT have any direct bearing on a child's sense of self"

I think that's a huge assumption PPH and would very much doubt if that were true. Surely our parents' sexualities have a direct bearing on our sense of self, whether we're aware of that or not?

But do we know that? Isn't this all fairly recent, (ie adoptions by gay couples) so there isn't exactly a multitude of studies on it?

There are fewer successful adoptions with older children, and some of these children have incredibly difficult backgrounds. You are putting a very vulnerable child into an environment with say two gay men:- not only will they have the issue of starting school knowing that they are different from the majority of other children (in that they have been in care for several years, and probably been abused before that), but they will also be the only child with 2 dads. That strikes me as an awful lot for a 9 year old to be carrying. I have to say that the fact that we must now ignore the sexual orientation of the parents seems a bit naive, especially as we have been saying for over a decade that it is preferable for children to be adopted by parents of the same race. And sorry pph, but to say that race is visible but sexuality isn't really doesn't make that much sense in the context of homosexuality. I agree that I can't tell if you were PVC in bed just by looking at you, but if you appear at a school event with you wife I think I might have an inclining about your orientation?

I think it is different where a child is born to a gay couple eg by donation/surrogacy. In that instance we are looking at a child who is born into a stable loving relationship which is as equal to any other start in life, and whilst the child may still stand out in the playground as having 2 mums or dads, the child will be relatively secure already. But in the case of adoption, we have a different responsibility to the child. And the child probably won't have been born into a loving secure environment.

But happy to talk to anyone who has been adopted by a gay couple. Are there any studies on this?

I can see what you are saying but I still stand by what I say - I don't think that your parents sexuality has a direct bearing on your own sense of self. As I said I'm not entirely convinced of the race argument either, but I think there is more to argue about it.
And no, I wasn't adopted by a gay couple but my mother is a lesbian so I think I do have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about!

But my issue is more about adoption, and the particular vulnerability of an older child who is desperate for a family. I think that it is totally different if your birth mother has a particular orientation (though given the lack of a father figure is said to have a significant role on single parent families, I'm still unsure as to how your statement holds true). What's the evidence to indicate that adoptions by gay couples have as positive an outcome as other adoptions?

Out of interest was your mother's sexuality obvious (eg at primary school) or was there a father figure around?

that's interesting PPH.

The fact is that a lot of adoptive couples are not prepared to take on older children with issues, profoundly disabled children or other hard-to-place children. They want babies without problems and will adopt abroad because that's what they want. (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that - that's how most of us experience parenthood - a healthy happy baby - and I'm not saying that's easy or anyhting like that). The children most often in care homes are older, disturbed and/or disabled. There are defintiely studies that show that this is the least satisfactory way for a child to be brought up. Do you really really think that a child is better off in a home (which also potentially carries a stigma) than in a stable family of two sorted, calm, strong gay men or women?

In my social circle and DS's school a child with gay parents most certainly would not be the only one anyway.

is she pph

how fabulously 1930's

am rather jealous

I was thinking that enid, v bloomsbury

one of dd2's best friends from nursery has 2 mums and she very proudly goes around telling everyone , I think it's seen as a status symbol among the under 5's

And where's the evidence to say that gay adoptions do not have as good an outcome as other adoptions? Given the gauntlet that gay parents have to adopt, i would imagine that they are pretty damn serious about being good at it and making it work. Sorry - without evidence that gay adoptions are not as sucessful as other adoptions, doubt that they are less succesful is likely to be based on prejudical presumption, is it not? If not, what else?

agree Blu. Lol bundle, that is great.