MissileMan
Senior Member
- Sep 11, 2004
- 2,939
- 224
- 48
Gem said:MissileMan Wrote:
So basically, you would rather have an agency that placed the most difficult to place children in loving, supportive homes closed forever than simply allow them to apply for a religious exemption?
Come on, Missleman, you can not honestly believe this. How can it be better to leave children in need without help simply to prove a point?
When are we going to grow the f*ck up, admit that the world isn't black and white, and do what really is best, even if it ruffles a few feathers.
The Catholic Charities should be able to continue to do their good work - even if it upsets gays and their supporters. As the law permits in Massachussettes, gay couples should be able to adopt from adoption agencies that either a) have decided to support them or b) are run by the state or receive money from the state.
What would have been wrong with that compromise? Its common freaking sense. You don't cut off your nose to spite your face, you don't stop an agency that does wonderful work for children in need to pacify an incredibly small number of people who can get the exact same services elsewhere.
I'm sorry, I'm ranting now...but sweet jesus, to quote a great movie - Doesn't anyone else see it? I feel like I'm taking CRAZY PILLS!
It's interesting isn't it, that over the last decade (?) this same organization placed 13 out of 720 hard to place children into homosexual households and noone was freaking out until it was made public knowledge. The 42 member board that runs the Charities voted to continue to allow homosexual adoptions, but they were over-ruled by the bishops. The agency was not forced into a shutdown, the bishops elected to do so.