Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

I think an argument could be made stating that more adoptions may take place through other agencies now that Boston has removed a barricade to "non-traditional" adoptive families. I wonder where they stand on single-parent adoption issues?
 

I think that's probably right. It's not like the church, any branch, has the monopoly on doing the right thing. And that's the shame of it all. Being Christlike has nothing to do with any temporal manifestation of the Church.

X-Files movie, BTW: Very good. And Dan is still H.O.T. :-)
 

First, I do so hope you meant "Dana" and not "Dan" . . . Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Second, it's no shock that FoF and Catholic Charities are denying same-sex couples adoption privileges. They are at least consistent, even if they are off track.

One could be really snarky and claim that Catholic Charities doesn't want to have gay couples adopt, because of the experience of so many young boys at the hands of pedophile priests, but that would mean I was equating being gay with being a pedophile, which I do not.
 

I happen to agree with Catholic Charities.

Surprise.

Not.

They have to draw the line somewhere and it might as well be consistent with their religious views since it is a religious organization.
 

Oh, I think it's perfectly logical for a religious organization to draw a line, around itself.

And I think it's perfectly within its rights.

I also think it's sad and tragic.
 

I'm not sure if you've ever heard of, or seen the show "30 Days", produced by Morgan Spurlock of "Super-Size Me" fame.

The premise of the show is bringing together people who strongly disagree with each other on some issue to live together for a month.

In a recent show, a Mormon woman who is against gay adoption lived with our friends Tom and Dennis and their kids (at least a couple of whom are special needs kids) for a month. What was truly remarkable was that, after seeing how great and healthy and happy and stable and loving their family was for a whole month, at the end, she still believed the kids would be better off in foster care.

I believe this (and the Catholic Charities) are prime examples of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Except it isn't the folks who run the Catholic Charities, or FotF who suffer, it's the kids. How easy it must be for James Dobson to believe that it's better to live in foster care than be adopted by loving parents. Just more proof that this isn't really about kids ... it's about hating the gays.

I have to disagree with Frenzied Feline. One cannot ignore the stupidity of these folks supposedly being anti-abortion but anti-adoption at the same time. Consistent? Not hardly. (And not surprising.)

BTW, if you're lucky enough to catch a re-run of the show, you'll get to briefly see the smartest and cutest Goddaughter on Earth. Not that I'm biased or nuthin'. :)
 

Alan, I am glad and proud that you and I are blogpals.
 

And I'm glad to be blogpals with Frenzied as well. I certainly understand her belief that Catholic Charities must operate in line with their religious views, and I do not fault them for that. But folks, they are not the only adoption organization in town. Those who wish to adopt and create their families in line with Catholic principles certainly have every right to do so. But as I said, I think other adoption organizations will step in the help in the creation of families in other ways.
Just replace the name "Catholic" charities with any other religious group -- Buddhist, Jewish, Unitarian .... I'm not so sure the same "how dare they" stance would apply.
 

Well, I'm glad Frenzied and I are bloggy buddies, too! To each his or her own.

But, re: "Just replace the name "Catholic" charities with any other religious group -- Buddhist, Jewish, Unitarian .... I'm not so sure the same "how dare they" stance would apply."

If it's my stance, the attitude would apply.

There are good reasons to deny different kinds of people the privilege, and right, to adopt. They have to do with behavior, not state of humanity. Any label, religious or otherwise, that looks to behavior as a limitation on adoption, I'll listen to.

Any label, or state, that looks at another label, or state, as a limitation, I'll listen to -- and praise or cringe over as necessary.

We're all free to help, or not, as wee see fit.
 

Seems to me that if you are providing a public service,in the public interest, for which you have public licensing, then you should not be able to discriminate based on private prejudices.
 

I'm not so sure Catholic Charities IS a public service. And I certainly don't think the public is allowed to dictate its policies, any more than the government can dictate any religious organization's policies or beliefs.

I've pondered this through the night and one thing keeps coming back to me. I'm seeing a touch of exactly what you rail against, EHR, in that you're starting to insist that those who disagree with you should be forced to comply with YOUR beliefs.

And again, for some unknown reason, what pops into my mind is the issue of cockfighting.
 

Re, "Seems to me that if you are providing a public service,in the public interest, for which you have public licensing, then you should not be able to discriminate based on private prejudices."

Well, I think that's why Catholic Charities is getting out of the adoption gig entirely. They do not want to play by the public rules.


And, Trixie, you're flat wrong. I am not, have not, and do not, presume to tell Catholic Charities, or anyone else, what to do! I am, howevfer, free to shame the, and I do. And Dr. ER, as a cradle Catholic, isn't too keen on this either. "Boston Catholics are hard core," she said. Boston everythings are hard core.
 

EHR, be real now. You shame them because you are trying to change their behavior! Otherwise, it would live and let live.
 

I just don't see it that way. In my lil bitty way, I'm holding them up to the light of scrutiny.

Good Lord. Are you saying that everyone with an opinion who disagrees with someone else with an opinion, and expresses it, is out to change the other's mind? Or is it just me?

I rail against FOTF a lot. Do I want them to shut down their political machine? Well, yes, I do. But do I think I have any moral authority to try to persuade them to do so? No. Nor. Do. They. Have. Any. Moral. Authority. The difference is they think they do. They put themselves in the position of arbiter between right and wrong. They can take, then, my lil heat.

As for Catholic Charities: They can do as they like. But to me it's the same as if they were donating to a food bank, and then decided to quit because they learned that homosexuals were getting some of the food. And that ain't right.
 

Why doesn't a gay rights group start a adaption agency exclusivity for gay couples. Since there is apparently a huge demand in the gay community for raising children.

It would be interesting to see how many people would trust that agency over the Catholics.

FYI, I think Focus on the Family is a protestant organization.
 

Re, "Why doesn't a gay rights group start a adaption agency exclusivity for gay couples."

That would be about as wrong in my estimation as one for heteros only. It'd be descrimination, either way.


And Focus on the Family is a POLITICAL organization. James Dobson happens to be Protestant Christian.
 

And Dan is still H.O.T. :-)

Why, Thanks, EHR...
 

"Why doesn't a gay rights group start a adaption [sic] agency exclusivity for gay couples."

Because the fundies have already cornered the market on exclusivity. We're about opening doors, not closing them. Don't worry, Eddie, if a gay rights group started an adoption agency, they'd even allow straight people to use it. ;)

"It would be interesting to see how many people would trust that agency over the Catholics."

ROFL. These days? Yeah right. I think most people would trust nearly anyone over the Catholic Church when it comes to child welfare. Thanks for the laugh. You were joking, right? ;)
 

The whole process of adoptions is based on discrimination. Poor people cannot adopt. In many cases even the handicapped cannot adopt.

Why not just end screening for adoption all together?

Did it ever occur to you that the wishes of the birth parents may have been that the children grow up in a Christian house (I mean for real Christian, the one that thinks homosexuality is a sin)
 

DANA Scully is hot! :-)


Drood, re: (I mean for real Christian, the one that thinks homosexuality is a sin).

Excellent beginning. Now, complete your personal list of things one must think to be a "real" Christian.

This oughta be good.
 

"The whole process of adoptions is based on discrimination. Poor people cannot adopt. In many cases even the handicapped cannot adopt. "

The "screening" that is done is performed in order to insure that the prospective parents can provide a happy, healthy, loving, nurturing home to the child without significant hardship of one kind or another. But your assertions are plainly lies. One does not have to be rich to adopt, nor does one have to be free of any kind of handicap to adopt. The point should be to find the very best homes for kids, which has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the parents.

"Did it ever occur to you that the wishes of the birth parents may have been that the children grow up in a Christian house"

Well first of all being Christian has never been a prerequisite for adoption. Second of all, if the birth parents still wanted to have a say in how their child was going to be raised, then perhaps they shouldn't have given that child up for adoption in the first place. And third of all, what ER said. Of the gay couples I personally know who have adopted, every one of them are far more faithful Christians than most of the fundies I know (fundies who, I might add, are supposedly against abortion but refuse to adopt kids themselves.)
 

I suggest the gays start their own adoption agency from the offspring of their own kind. How's that for a suggestion?
 

"Well first of all being Christian has never been a prerequisite for adoption.'

These prerequisites exist only in your mind. All adoptions are different. That’s why people choose religious organizations when giving their children up for adoption. This way they have some say in the life their children will have.


"if the birth parents still wanted to have a say in how their child was going to be raised, then perhaps they shouldn't have given that child up for adoption in the first place."

Way to degrade the personal sacrifice a parent is making. You can tell that to a terminal cancer patient who knows they will not be there for his/her children, or the young girl who knows she is incapable of raising a child.
Alan:"don’t want your child raised by some gay guys, well you should have thought about that before you got cancer”

”Of the gay couples I personally know who have adopted, every one of them are far more faithful Christians than most of the fundies I know”

Really, most the gay guys I know are whores. Does that prove anything? Nope, like your quote this is a blanket statement; or as I call it: meaningless drivel.


”fundies who, I might add, are supposedly against abortion but refuse to adopt kids themselves.”

Are you under the impression that there is a surpluses of kids out there waiting for adoption? Couples wait for years (sometimes in vain) for the chance to adopt a child. There are far more couples waiting for children then children waiting for parents. Less abortions could solve that problem.
 

Drood, why do you hang out with whores?

Let's have some numbers.

I know ... one, two, three, four ... five ... maybe six gay peeps. In the RW and online That's all, that I know of.

One is single and, like many heteros, has had a series of monogomous relationships. One is in a longterm monogamous relationship (hi Alan!). One used to go to my church but, like many heteros, a new young love interests appears to have gotten his attention and I haven't seen him in awhile. One is in seminary. The other two I know nothing about dating-romance wise, but each holds down a respectable job.

Not one whore, or even a slut, among 'em.

Drood. Dude. You need to meet some more gays, and quit hanging out in the gutter.
 

Well, keep assuming that the dregs of society you claim to know are the norm, anyway.

Oh, just thought of two more: a gay couple raising two adopted children. They're lawyers. The parents, I mean, not the children.
 

For someone who claims such education you have a hard time reading and comprehending. Let me spell it out to you.

When responding to a comment I made a like comments and pointed out it too was "meaningless drivel". Blanket statements like the ones Alan and I made are logical fallacies.


I’m starting to doubt your credentials Doctor.
 

Seriously ER, how could you misinterpret this:
“Really, most the gay guys I know are whores. Does that prove anything? Nope, like your quote this is a blanket statement; or as I call it: meaningless drivel.”

Perhaps you are trying to divert attention away from the subject of your own post?
 

"Really, most the gay guys I know are whores."

ROFL. You know, I've been making the case for a long time that fundies like you -- those who continually obsess over homosexuality -- are just closet queens. Now you admit to hanging out with gay whores. Thank you for proving my point. I guess you've demonstrated that Ted Haggard wasn't the only fundie closet case with a taste for rough trade.

Given the company you keep, I'm sure you'll understand if I don't really take your opinions on adoption seriously.
 

Can either of you read? Maybe the word “whore” was just too much for you. Allow me to revise my statement:
“Really, most the gay guys I know are Philatelics. Does that prove anything? Nope, like your quote this is a blanket statement; or as I call it: meaningless drivel.”
 

Allan, given your attention span (ie. easily distracted by one word) I doubt you are capable of understanding most opinions, much less take them seriously.

You don’t like me ergo you don’t like my argument. That makes two logical fallacies

1) Hasty generalization or Biased sample
2) Ad Hominem or Shoot The Messenger.

Is any of this sounding familiar Doctor? I doubt it since your entire post is based on these two fallacies.
 

Nah, seriously Edwin, that was too easy, but funny. I was totally kidding though. ;) Don't worry, you have completely convinced me that, unlike nearly every other fundie out there who is obsessed with homosexuality, you're completely straight. Seriously. Well... you and mom2 .... and Larry Craig. ;)

Anyway, joking aside, I'm more than happy to give you some instruction in logic, something you so obviously and desperately need (in addition to a decent spell-check. But I'll refrain from flaming someone about poor spelling, even though that's generally accepted as perfectly appropriate when someone like you is unsuccessfully attempting to demonstrate their supposed greater intelligence.)

Let's recap your ridiculous contributions to this conversation so far, shall we?

You wrote, "Did it ever occur to you that the wishes of the birth parents may have been that the children grow up in a Christian house?"

Now, see in that question you're insinuating that gay adoptive parents cannot simultaneously also be Christian.

Then you attempt to claim that my statement that I in fact know several gay adoptive parents who are indeed Christian is an overgeneralization.

However, Edwin (still with me? I'm trying to use small words so you can follow) all I have to do to prove your claim is wrong is to find one and only one example of a gay household that has adopted children that is also Christian. And, not only do I know one, I know several. Thus your claiim is toast. Got it? Good, I knew you could.

(As an analogy, if you were to claim that all red dogs are small, all I need to do is point out my buddy Clifford, the Big Red Dog in order to disprove your claim.) Often we refer to this as "falsification." Karl Popper was a big fan of this notion. You might try looking up his name on the internet to learn more about these ideas. ;)

So, I'm not generalizing from anecdotes or from personal experience. And I don't need to do either because doing so is totally unnecessary to disprove your stupid assertion.

I would recommend, before attempting to criticize someone else's statements as faulty logic that you first spend some time learning the meaning of the word logic. Maybe you can even stop hanging out with your gay whore friends long enough to read a book about it. ;)
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Oh Edwin, Edwin, Edwin...so little time, so much stupidity.

I have not made a single ad hominem attack.

See an ad hominem attack would be an attempt to disprove your argument by pointing out a flaw in your character. First of all, clearly no one needs me to point out the obvious the flaws in your character, but in any event, I have done no such thing.

You made a claim about gay Christians adopting, I disproved it. No hasty generalization and no ad hominem attack. The fact that you appear to be yet another fundie closet queen was based on your own admission about hanging out with gay whores, and it had nothing to do with your so-called "argument" about gay adoption. Thus, it wasn't an ad hominem attack on your argument.

You should quit while you're behind, Edwin. You're 0 for 2 right now.
 

Um, who the heck are you calling "Doctor," and why?
 

What hoot this!

Knowing a few terms of logic is one thing. Knowing how and when to use the tools those words represent is another.

I mean, I knew the word "tractor" before I was totally clear on what all such a machine was capable of -- and waaaaay before I ever drove one. Sheesh.
 

Wait a minute. Most of the gay guys Drood knows are stamp collectors? Do what??

LOL
 

This entire post is based on 1., hastry generalization, and 2., an ad hominem attack, Drood Dude says.

Huh.

This is the entire post:

"Catholic Charities of Boston, and Focus on the Family, choose dogma over placing orphans in loving homes. ... Surprise. ... Not."


Point 'em out. Put up or shut up.
 

"Um, who the heck are you calling "Doctor," and why?"

Yeah, I wasn't sure about that either. If you mean me, Edwin, then once again you can't get even simple facts right. But I appreciate the promotion. Unless you meant medical doctor, then sir, I object to such slander. LOL

"Wait a minute. Most of the gay guys Drood knows are stamp collectors? Do what??'

I just assumed it was some sort of twisted euphemism he and his gay whore friends use. Clearly you and I aren't up on all the hip lingo the kids are using these days, ER. Probably best not to think about it too much. :)

"Knowing a few terms of logic is one thing. Knowing how and when to use the tools those words represent is another."

Exactly. Have you noticed that this has become a common tactic with the fundies lately? I think they just randomly throw a dart at a dart board any time they want to call any statement with which they disagree a logical fallacy. Rather than actually refuting the assertion, they just randomly pick one of the classical logical fallacies and start repeating those words over and over. It doesn't matter that they clearly have no idea how such fallacies are actually structured or what the words mean. I'm guessing they found a website with the names listed, posted it on a dart board, and that's enough for them. (The irony that, not only can they not construct a logical argument, but they're also unable to even recognize a logical fallacy is lost on them, I guess.)

Actually, I've taken to to playing something I like to call "Fundie Logical Fallacy Bingo". Take your bingo card and fill it in with a bunch of logical fallacies (ad hominem, hasty generalization, etc.) There is no free space in the middle of the card, instead just put "STRAW MAN!" there. It's used so often you don't really need a free space. Generally you don't get more than about 3 comments from these folks before you get a Bingo! ;)
 

LOLOLOL. Perfect timing! A fresh fallacy, hot off the Focus-on-the-Family griddle!

"As marriage declines, church attendance falls."

Read it here:

http://www.citizenlink.org/
CLtopstories/A000007940.cfm


Ahem, allow me: False cause. AKA "cum hoc ergo propter hoc."


And here is a good discussion on the fallacy, and the misuse of the fallacy claim itself as a dodge.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2008/
06/on-the-correlation-is-not-causality-dodge.html


Now, having not seen the actual research the FOTF people used, I honeslty can't say whether it showed actial causation, and not just correlation. But, considering the source, it's probably as sound of science and statistical robusticity as everything else FOTF coughs up.
 

http://worthwhile.typepad.com
/worthwhile_canadian_initi
/2008/
06/on-the-correlation
-is-not-causality-dodge.html


Maybe that'll work better.
 

Oh they *love* blaming lower church attendance on all sorts of things. A year or so ago, they were blaming the decline in numbers in mainline churches on liberal theology (another correlation/causation problem. In fact 75% of the decline can be directly attributed to simple demographic factors like the fact that liberal moms generally aren't expected to be baby factories.) Now they're blaming the decline on later marriage. (One wonders what this guy thinks the prescription is then, "Rush headlong into marriage kids! The Church needs you!")

From the article: "Marriage is a gateway into family life, and family life, in turn, is often a gateway into church attendance..."

To bring us back to the topic, I assume that the author would be in favor of both gay marriage and gay adoption then. :)
 

Well, here I come back to make another comment. You'll pardon me for not pulling out all the expressions people learn in debate class, however.

Here's a solid truth that the hateful anti-gay faction is forgetting: Not every gay person wishes to adopt. The ones that have been described so hatefully probably are not interested in having children in their households.

Gay couples who wish to raise children through adoption are rarely as described by the hateful anti-gay faction represented here. Gay couples who wish to raise children through adoption often have more stable, loving and yes, even Christian, homes than many of the so-called straight Christians who seem to know nothing about how human beings should be treated (EDWIN DROOD, ARE YOU LISTENING?)

Stop with the hate, if you are a Christian. Jesus would be embarrassed for you.
 

Exactly. Gay couples looking to adopt are being examined FAR more thoroughly for fitness as parents than nearly any other straight couple in the country (who can have kids by accident for crying out loud.)

"Gay couples who wish to raise children through adoption often have more stable, loving and yes, even Christian, homes than many of the so-called straight Christians who seem to know nothing about how human beings should be treated"

As we say in my house, "Preach on, girlfriend!"
 

"Gay couples who wish to raise children through adoption often have more stable, loving and yes, even Christian, homes than many of the so-called straight Christians who seem to know nothing about how human beings should be treated"

There is absolutely no evidence to support this. That makes it a "Bare assertion fallacy", ding ding ding #3. I know this fallacy thing is getting old, but I feel like I'm on a role.

Yes Alan, spelling has always been a problem of mine. I have come to terms with it. Now you too must deal, good luck.

Stop with the hate? Oh so I have a different opinion and all of a sudden I'm so filled with hate. God forbid someone disagree with you. Quick lets label them so we can all feel better about ourselves.

The point is, Catholics have their beliefs whether or not you agree with them. All of you seem to know gay people who have already adopted (Trixie apparently knows all of them and Jesus).

The question (Trixie) is: Gay couples want to adopt. Why does the Catholic church have to broker the deal?

4 out of 5 alter boys agree. Gays and Catholics just don't mix. Maybe they should just stay away from each other.
 

OK, first, yes, I know Jesus, and Jesus knows me. Let's just get that clear.

Second, if you've read the other comments, you apparently missed my earlier posts which said that I don't believe Catholic Charities need to bend their policies to accommodate anyone or any belief that does not correlate with their religious beliefs. Try re-reading. You'll see it right there.

Third, yes, I know a lot of gay people (many, many more than ER does) and a lot of gay couples, and yes, even gay couples who have adopted. And I'll stand by my statement that not all gay people, not all gay couples, will be lining up to adopt. Most of the gay people I know are happily single or happily couples who prefer not to raise children.

Fourth, pedophilia is a problem which has become very public in the Catholic Church in recent years. Pedophilia is quite different from homosexuality. Gay people are no more likely to be pedophiles than straight people. If anything, I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who would say that children needing adoptive homes may be safer going through a non-Catholic agency, because of the dark cloud that hovers over the Catholic priesthood these days. I'm not saying that because I doubt the pedophilic priests really have much to do with Catholic Charities' adoptions.

I believe Catholic Charities has every right to make whatever policy it wishes which conforms to their religious and social policy beliefs. I do not believe they have the right to make adoption policy for everyone, however.
 

I'm always late with these postings... We just adopted a beautiful daughter in November 2007, from the US. (We're Canadians).

As Christians, we chose a "secular" adoption agency in Chicago (FRC) over the Christian ones we looked at (it's not just the Catholic, but basically all the Christian ones - Shepherd's Care etc.) because of what is to us a blatant disregard
1)for the welfare of children at risk
2)the right of the birth mother to choose

Some US adoption facts: Americans will go to Russia and China before
adopting at home, because it's a faster way to adopt "white" or "almost white" kids.

There are so many AA infants to be adopted that adoption agencies offer grants to families willing to adopt these babies - on the adoption pyramid, AA children are the least wanted in the States - then the's a huge gap, and then there are the biracial of any race, and the top would be the caucasian children, who are in high demand and very few.

Because the birth mother/parents get to choose, and depending on you're race/health/age choices for the child, you could wait from a few hours to a few years for AA or Bi-racial, many years for a caucasian or asian child within the US. We only had to wait 3 months for our lovely AA baby daughter, even though we're "older" (don't feel that old though, at 45!)

We had a fantastic experience adopting from the States, the adoption agency (non-Christian) was highly ethical, professional and respected us and the Birth Mother.
The Birth Mother, a very intelligent, conscientious young AA woman, with two other children, researched her decision carefully, and chose the agency for the same reasons we did.
We (ultra white by the way - Dutch and Scandinavian heritage) choose to be in contact with her forever, and both she and we feel that we've expanded our family connections through this adoption.

As a Christian I think it's wrong to say that it would be better for children to grow up in foster care (Birth Mom "graduated" from the foster care system and had an overall bad experience) only to be dumped at 19 and to be left without any family at all - than to have a loving, stable family where the parents may be same-sex, or single.
 

Karen! Better late than never! And I'm really glad to see ya. Been missin' ya around here. :-)
 

Thanks Er, have got to finally get this MA Thesis done, before they kick me out of the program, so I haven't been indulging!
But today I only have about 15 pages left (out of 90) and feel freer...
 

Hee hee. My history thesis was 226 pages! Nyahh! ;-)

Good luck! Keep me posted!
 

Yeah, but in English right? Mine's in academic French, which takes me a bit more time!
Right now I just keep wondering why I ever decided to do any of this in a foreign language.
 

LOL YOU WIN!
 

Although, I did learn a little Choctaw for mine. :-)
 

That's so cool!