My response to "A Response to the gay adoption article" in this week's Felix

Re: Letters to the Editor, Felix #1373 and "Gay Adoption - Where's the Crime?", Felix #1372


The Felix is getting out of hand recently. Earlier this academic year, it allowed a writer to come forth and write most insensitively about Islam. All further editorial responses to the mass of letters to the editor were mostly defensive with liberal use of "freedom of opinion and speech" and further ridicule of the writers of the letters.

Last week in Felix #1372, an anonymous writer addressed the issue of the Catholic Church's stand on gay adoption. While it is fine to question the controversy, I believe it is not in any way alright for one to use this issue to belittle Christians and Muslims (as the article also added).

The real issue in the article, as Andy Sykes suggests, is "that adoption cases should be sonsidered on an individual basis, whether they come from hetero- or homosexual couples". However I am of the opinion that the editor failed to recognise that the writer was attacking the Christian community under the pretense of addressing the adoption issue.

Much of the article did not include the Church's true statements on the adoption issue, nor the government's stand (led by a Catholic nonetheless) but instead merely focused on the homophobic Christian/Catholic Church.

It IS a misconception that Christians are homophobic. What Christians condemn are polygamous sexual relationships, which happen to both hetero and homosexual couples. The main problem that Catholic adoption agencies have with placing a child in the care of same-sex couples is that, after much research, the Church has found same-sex relationships to be very unstable. Using the same argument, Catholic adoption agencies are unlikely to place children in the care of unstable hetero-sexual couples.

The reason for such stringent regulations is not deeply rooted in the Church's moral beliefs (as many would like to resent) but in the fact that children from Catholic adoption agencies are usually the most difficult cases to place (i.e. children with disabilities, etc.). Rather than risk putting a difficult child with an unstable couple, the agencies would rather safe guard against it.

There is nothing immoral to be viewed about this entire situation nor the Church's view on morality. However it amazes me what little it takes to provoke any form of resentment against the Church. If freedom of opinion and speech are so greatly prized, then freedom for Christians to believe should not be compromised either.