Oh Isn't It Wonderful - Elton John And His Husband

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1293686705' post='2195123']
given what we do know---Elton John is living the homosexual lifestyle and he and his gay lover have procured for themselves a chid to raise. Apparently one of these men's seed was implanted in a woman's egg in order for her to give birth since homosexuality is deviant, and no life comes from homosexual unions.

None of this is natural, none of this is according to God's will, and because of that, I cannot celebrate it. This poor child will be just another addition to Elton's fantasy world. He's living the lie that homosexuality is normal. Homosexual relationships are "normal." There's nothing normal with the way this child came into existence. Men have to stop playing the role of God. He is the creator of Life. Not some modern medical technique that allows children to be born without the sexual act. This is an abomination, and this child needs prayers. I cannot be happy that he/she is born into a "loving" family. Anyone who thinks that is disillusioned...there is nothing normal or "loving" about this situation...
[/quote]

God forgive any child who is "not normal"

@Ed Normile

I've heard a lot of heterosexual couples are unstable to, something like 50%. I don't think they're prime candidates for adoption either.

[liseski]

The Sun and The Telegraph make the National Enquirer look like The New York Times
Awful rags........

Edited December 30, 2010 by liseski

[4588686]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1293690698' post='2195148']
I appreciate your need to defend them, in however you see fit. [/QUOTE]

I'm not defending them. I've never had a very positive impression of Elton John. Don't know him. Don't know much about him. His heyday was before my time.

I'm attacking your claim, made without evidence or argument, that he and gay and celebrity couples in general, view their adopted children as pets.

[QUOTE]It is against God's rule. It is not a Christian nor Jewish or even muslim situation. It is 2 men playing god.[/QUOTE]

Never said anything about the morality of the situation.

[QUOTE]New press release. Elton is spending $70K on the nursery. Haven't you heard? See, a pet.[/QUOTE]

No, I haven't heard. I have better things to do with my time than follow the latest celebrity gossip. I'm glad that you have lots of time to waste though.

I also hadn't heard that if people spend a lot of money on their kids then that means that they view them as pets. Maybe you could back that up with some data or argument.

[QUOTE]And by the way, I am so honored that you seem to zero in on my posts constantly.


[/quote]


I'm not on here enough to 'constantly' zero in on your posts. I do comment on many of the posts that you make that I see because they tend to contain bizarre and/or hyperbolic claims.

Like this one.

[QUOTE]
Have a Happy New Year.
[/QUOTE]

You too.

[tnavarro61]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1293558428' post='2194787']
Why they have a new baby boy. Aren't we all happy for them. TWISTED!
[/quote]

[rachael]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1293687569' post='2195127']
See that is not actually correct. One of my friends is a adoption caseworker, and my neighbor in her 70s just adopted a child 2 years ago.
Adoptions are actually not expensive if you go thru the state, so money is not a great issue. Most people start out as foster parents, and many adopt these kids when they become available.
The red tape is not that difficult but it does take time: you need a place to live, some sort of income, references, home study etc. My neighor said it was easier to adopt a child than apply for and get a mortgage.
[/quote]
It can still cost $$$ to adopt a child, even if going through the state. It also varies state by state.

http://www.adopting.org/adoptions/learn-about-adoption-costs-and-fees-2.html

http://costs.adoption.com/
http://www.theadoptionguide.com/cost/
http://www.theadoptionguide.com/files/SAMPLE_Domestic.xls

Edited December 30, 2010 by rachael

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1293691458' post='2195149']
God forgive any child who is "not normal"
[/quote]

check your reading comprehension, I said the way he came about was "not normal...." because homosexual sex does not produce human life....hmmm.....I wonder why??

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1293687569' post='2195127']
See that is not actually correct. One of my friends is a adoption caseworker, and my neighbor in her 70s just adopted a child 2 years ago.
Adoptions are actually not expensive if you go thru the state, so money is not a great issue. Most people start out as foster parents, and many adopt these kids when they become available.
The red tape is not that difficult but it does take time: you need a place to live, some sort of income, references, home study etc. My neighor said it was easier to adopt a child than apply for and get a mortgage.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say Rach is entirely incorrect. I think it's a sad fact that most people want to adopt babies so older children get stuck in the system longer. My aunt adopted twice and it took them years both times to get a child. At least twice the biological mothers changed their minds and took the baby back. I don't know how much money they spent on it all, but I know for at least one they paid for all the maternity care on top of the adoption costs (this was for one of the women who changed her mind). It certainly was not cheap. (That was NY, I also have relatives in MI and VA who looked into adoption and said it was expensive. I don't know who they were working with, I just have their word on it.) All in all, as Rach noted above, I think a lot of that can vary by state and where you are getting your child from (locally vs. overseas, etc.).

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' timestamp='1293724291' post='2195206'] At least twice the biological mothers changed their minds and took the baby back. [/quote]
I think this is one of the reasons people look overseas to adopt... This and many don't want to deal with open adoptions which are pretty much the norm. There are people who are very willing to open their homes to a child, but who don't really want to open their homes to all the potential chaos that comes with a domestic adoption.

[rkwright]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1293718240' post='2195193']
check your reading comprehension, I said the way he came about was "not normal...." because homosexual sex does not produce human life....hmmm.....I wonder why??
[/quote]

ds yous so smartz

[Brother Adam]

StMichael may be out of line calling the child "a pet" even if he has a valid theological point, only because doing so is inflammatory. There is a legitimate reason that same-sex partners (it is important to identify that Elton John does not have a husband, he is fornicating with another man) should not be permitted to have any children. We are all flawed and need to work towards holiness, but we accept our flaws and the damage they cause our dignity as flaws in our being. Those who practice debased sexual acts on a regular basis, even to the point of incorporating it into the way they live their life and define themselves are not mentally prepared to raise a child. Just because the DSM-IV no longer lists homosexuality as a mental illness, does not mean that it should have been removed. A child deliberately brought up in such an environment will likely have serious lasting problems, and no, will not be taught the truth about God or the way to eternal life. The child's very family life is a false image of the domestic church and heavenly kinship. There is no way the child will not be negatively impacted in such an environment. That is why Catholic orphanages would rather shut down than be complicit in the serious sin of adopting children to people in serious sin who are unrepentant. Not only are there theological difficulties in this child's situation, but children as a whole do not thrive as well in an environment where a mother or a father is lacking. Children need both maternal and paternal influences in their life, and it is best given by their own mother and father. That is not to say that those raised in one parent, adoptive, or other homes cannot thrive - they can, but it is a grave injustice to deliberately place a child in a home with very serious problems. In this situation this child is a victim. Communal living in an ideal orphanage situation would be far healthier for a child.

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1293735698' post='2195243']
StMichael may be out of line calling the child "a pet" even if he has a valid theological point, only because doing so is inflammatory. There is a legitimate reason that same-sex partners (it is important to identify that Elton John does not have a husband, he is fornicating with another man) should not be permitted to have any children. We are all flawed and need to work towards holiness, but we accept our flaws and the damage they cause our dignity as flaws in our being. Those who practice debased sexual acts on a regular basis, even to the point of incorporating it into the way they live their life and define themselves are not mentally prepared to raise a child. Just because the DSM-IV no longer lists homosexuality as a mental illness, does not mean that it should have been removed. A child deliberately brought up in such an environment will likely have serious lasting problems, and no, will not be taught the truth about God or the way to eternal life. The child's very family life is a false image of the domestic church and heavenly kinship. There is no way the child will not be negatively impacted in such an environment. That is why Catholic orphanages would rather shut down than be complicit in the serious sin of adopting children to people in serious sin who are unrepentant. Not only are there theological difficulties in this child's situation, but children as a whole do not thrive as well in an environment where a mother or a father is lacking. Children need both maternal and paternal influences in their life, and it is best given by their own mother and father. That is not to say that those raised in one parent, adoptive, or other homes cannot thrive - they can, but it is a grave injustice to deliberately place a child in a home with very serious problems. In this situation this child is a victim. Communal living in an ideal orphanage situation would be far healthier for a child.
[/quote]

So people with mental illness should not have children?

And what about many children raised by gay parents who have no social, or emotional issues? As well as go on to have perfectly heterosexual relationships and even are devoutly religious?

(inb4 ITS A MIRACLE!)

[liseski]

^ I was kind of wondering the same things

[StMichael]

pet n.
1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.

While the child is not an animal, and I mean this figuratively, this is how I see it. Sorry. There is no other reason why these 2 men, one 63, the other 48 would "need" to have a child.

There is no question or doubt that the ideal scenario for a child is via God's way of procreation where there is a mother and father. Certain circumstances might not allow for this as a parent dies, but creating a child in a tube, implanting it, and then handing it over to be in a home that is God less is certainly not ideal nor to be celebrated nor embraced.

As for children who are cursed growing up in a gay home, God has to work very hard to reach them, if at all possible. To claim they are just as normal as a child growing up in a nuclear family, is simply just a claim and unprovable. Unless you are getting your research from GLADD or some other gay oriented group.

While we are called to love and respect the homosexual, we are not to be involved in the promotion nor assistance of their wants.

I pray for the child. But see no way to defend this scenario whatsoever.

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1293743518' post='2195262']
pet n.
1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.

While the child is not an animal, and I mean this figuratively, this is how I see it. Sorry. There is no other reason why these 2 men, one 63, the other 48 would "need" to have a child.

There is no question or doubt that the ideal scenario for a child is via God's way of procreation where there is a mother and father. Certain circumstances might not allow for this as a parent dies, but creating a child in a tube, implanting it, and then handing it over to be in a home that is God less is certainly not ideal nor to be celebrated nor embraced.

As for children who are cursed growing up in a gay home, God has to work very hard to reach them, if at all possible. To claim they are just as normal as a child growing up in a nuclear family, is simply just a claim and unprovable. Unless you are getting your research from GLADD or some other gay oriented group.

While we are called to love and respect the homosexual, we are not to be involved in the promotion nor assistance of their wants.

I pray for the child. But see no way to defend this scenario whatsoever.
[/quote]

I don't think anyone is defending it. It's not a perfect scenario, but how many kids do you know who come home to a Mom, Dad, 2 siblings and a white picket fence?

EDIT: Also I don't think anyone "needs" to have a child. Wanting to raise a family is something people want, that doesn't change if they're gay or straight.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Semper Catholic

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1293742603' post='2195256']
So people with mental illness should not have children?

[/quote]

That is correct, people with certain types of mental illnesses should not attempt to raise children for their own good as well as the good of the child. People who are engaging in immoral behavior such as fornicating with people of the same sex are not suitable to be adoptive parents for the reasons in my above post.