Homosexuals Adopting

[tinytherese]

So I was asked point blank by one of my peers at dinner in the cafeteria if I thought that homosexuals should be able to adopt children. He is a person with same sex attraction himself and want to adopt children with whoever he gets into a relationship with.

I responded that I didn't believe that that was the best for the children. He and others at the table brought up how there are so few married heterosexual couples who would make good parents and that the children are better off with two parents of the same sex than with no parent at all. Just think of all of the kids waiting to be adopted in an orphanage or out on the streets.

They said that the common objection that they heard was that kids should be raised by two parents of each sex, but they asked if that means that single parents shouldn't adopt then. Kids being raised by one parent are exposed to plenty of problems that they wouldn't have with two parents after all. My thoughts on that are that yes these problems are apparent especially when being raised by only one parent and that parenting is difficult enough parenting with someone else let alone by yourself, but if the parent is loving, responsible, and responsive that it can be done. Yet knowing them they may say the same for gay couples.

[Catholictothecore]

The problem isn't a matter of a child being adopted by a single parent or a two-parent family. It isn't about how much the adopting couple can provide. If it were simply a matter of this, I would say yes, two parents are better than one and especially better than none.

Eventually, homosexuals will be allowed to adopt because society refuses to acknowledge the REAL issue here; homosexuality is not a natural way of life. Up till now, they have not been allowed to adopt or call themselves "married" because society has, to some extent, known that it is not natural and tried to stay in line with it's own expectations. Now days, the only expectations are what is politically correct and "civil." Two men can not be "parents" for the same reason they can not be "married." The very basics of their partnership is lacking a fundamental element of love and creation: one woman.

And isn't amazing how all these "rights" we are supposed to be giving the homosexual community are our fault? They say let them be married as there are plenty of heterosexuals that don't deserve to be married, end up divorced and bitter and broken. Let us adopt! There are plenty of heterosexuals who don't know how to raise their children right. As if it is evolution selecting the next step of humanities existence.

It simply boils down to the fact that it is metaphysically impossible for homosexuals to become "parents," just as it is metaphysically impossible for them to be "married."

[CatherineM]

I don't think single people should adopt either.

[Mr.Cat]

As a Catholic with an appreciation and cherishing of the traditions of Catholicism, I find these question difficult. But after careful consideration, someone who can reasonably meet the standards of the State in adopting and raising a minor, I don't see any reason to impede them that wouldn't be discriminatory. There are many children, teenagers, and even older teenagers that would benefit from any kind of household. It takes some burden off the state and potentially puts them into loving, caring, and attentive household to their needs and development.

Regretfully I am already aware of the religious objections to this position, however without clear, explicit, and direct instruction from the Church on this matter I don't see a need to change. Regardless if we believe or accept it, homosexuals generally are allowed to adopt and raise minors. Unless an actual scientific study, survey, or research can be produced indicating otherwise... which would seem to be the burden of proof in this case.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1299084937' post='2217162']
Regardless if we believe or accept it, homosexuals generally are allowed to adopt and raise minors. Unless an actual scientific study, survey, or research can be produced indicating otherwise... which would seem to be the burden of proof in this case.
[/quote]
This seems to be the cart before the horse, though. There are few, if any, research studies involving adoption and male-male couples. Even if we ignore the religious objections, until there is research done on the results of such adoptions, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not accept an attitude of "it's ok"? The burden of proof would first belong to those who wish to push ahead with this.

There is a wider range of studies involve female-female couples and adoption, but those studies are also still in their "infancy" in a sense (the children involved are reaching their twenties). Even then, we would have to identify a universal list of what would be considered "risks" and "benefits" to make determinations on these studies.

Edited March 2, 2011 by CatholicCid

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1299084937' post='2217162']


Regretfully I am already aware of the religious objections to this position, however without clear, explicit, and direct instruction from the Church on this matter I don't see a need to change.
[/quote]

This is completely the wrong attitude to take and why such division exists in the Church today. The Church does not need to make any such statement for us to follow Catholic Tradition. This isn't about fair - it is about God and eternal salvation.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

[Lilllabettt]

when a single person adopts they do not permanently deny the possibility of their child having two parents of either sex.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1299088707' post='2217177']This seems to be the cart before the horse, though. There are few, if any, research studies involving adoption and male-male couples. Even if we ignore the religious objections, until there is research done on the results of such adoptions, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and not accept an attitude of "it's ok"? The burden of proof would first belong to those who wish to push ahead with this.

There is a wider range of studies involve female-female couples and adoption, but those studies are also still in their "infancy" in a sense (the children involved are reaching their twenties). Even then, we would have to identify a universal list of what would be considered "risks" and "benefits" to make determinations on these studies.[/quote]Respectfully disagreed, it is Catholics in this thread advocating a change. The norm right now is that homosexuals and in most places homosexual couples may adopt. More importantly, if we are to discriminate against someone I would prefer that it have more than purely religious motivation.[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1299092954' post='2217201']This is completely the wrong attitude to take and why such division exists in the Church today. The Church does not need to make any such statement for us to follow Catholic Tradition. This isn't about fair - it is about God and eternal salvation.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html[/quote]Respectfully disagreed. Loyalty to the Church is always the right attitude and behavior of Catholics. When we start to interpret the Church for ourselves and worse impose it onto others is why such divisions exist.

The document you cite is primarily focused on "[i]homosexual unions[/i]", not adoption. However it does seem to suggest the Church against "[i]children[/i]" being adopted by "[i]homosexual unions[/i]". It does seem quite relevant and I will be looking into this a bit more, thank you for sharing.

We live in a free society, theology does not belong in our Constitution or laws, but because it is a free society you can believe and advocate that it should. However, it doesn't change the laws currently in place and that imposing such discrimination would be purely religiously motivated. Though the document you bring up mentions some outside sources, I will also be looking there.[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1299093523' post='2217205']when a single person adopts they do not permanently deny the possibility of their child having two parents of either sex.[/quote]Respectfully agreed.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Lil Red]

my first thought is to read what the Catechism says on the subject of parents, children, and the 6th commandment.

[quote]Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143[/quote]

[quote]2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153[/quote]

[quote]2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. [b][size="4"]These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage.[/size][/b] They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169

[size="4"][b]2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."[/b][/size]170[/quote]

[Semper Catholic]

Honestly married couples in any situation should be screened and evaluated to see if their households are natural, normal, and loving.

The majority of straight couples shouldn't be having children.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1299103910' post='2217269']Honestly married couples in any situation should be screened and evaluated to see if their households are natural, normal, and loving.[/quote]Respectfully agreed.[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1299103910' post='2217269']The majority of straight couples shouldn't be having children.[/quote]Can you give good cause for that?

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1299103973' post='2217271']
Respectfully agreed.Can you give good cause for that?
[/quote]

The divorce rate for straight couples is over 50%

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1299103910' post='2217269']
Honestly married couples in any situation should be screened and evaluated to see if their households are natural, normal, and loving.

The majority of straight couples shouldn't be having children.
[/quote]
i have a big problem with this. what i read from this (and perhaps not what you intended?) was that, marriage between a man and a woman [u]could[/u] be defective, and so all persons should be screened before having children.

the 'default' position of heterosexual marriage is that it [u]is[/u] normal - not defective/disordered, unlike homosexual 'partnerships' or 'marriages' where the the 'default' position is [u]ab[/u]normal.

i dunno if i am explaining myself correctly though. lol.

edit: i just wanted to add that if you were speaking specifically about adoptions, then i understand what you are saying.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Lil Red

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1299104065' post='2217274']
The divorce rate for straight couples is over 50%
[/quote]
most likely because most straight couples do not truly understand what marriage, particularly a sacramental marriage, entails.

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1299104146' post='2217277']
i have a big problem with this. what i read from this (and perhaps not what you intended?) was that, marriage between a man and a woman [u]could[/u] be defective, and so all persons should be screened before having children.

the 'default' position of heterosexual marriage is that it [u]is[/u] normal - not defective/disordered, unlike homosexual 'partnerships' or 'marriages' where the the 'default' position is [u]ab[/u]normal.

i dunno if i am explaining myself correctly though. lol.
[/quote]

Just because 2 people are capable of reproducing with each other does not make them normal.