Homosexuals Adopting

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1299102228' post='2217258']
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]
The point I was attempting to make was more so a scientific one, not a religious one. This "norm" is being entered into with little research and study backing it. One could possibly argue female-female couple adoptions referring to current studies, but such studies are lacking in male-male couples. The burden of proof falls to those who are pushing this "norm", claiming that it is not harmful to children. I do not believe that the research exists, especially in relation to male-male adoptions, or is completed at this point to make that decision. At the time, it seems we are making the statements oking this and hoping that the research catches up.

Edited March 2, 2011 by CatholicCid

[organwerke]

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1299052953' post='2217092']
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.
[/quote]

The fact is that there is a difference between having children by physical reproduction and adopting.
You can't forbid bad parents to have children, but you can forbid bad parents to adopt.
And it is true that unfortunately many bad parents can have natural children, but I don't think they should adopt (and often it would be better if they didn't reproduce at all!).
What I mean is... every time I hear speaking about gay couples adopting children I always see reasons like: "two good same sex parents are better than bad woman/man parents", or "children are better off with two parents of the same sex than with no parent at all"...
I never hear people saying: children are better with two good same sex parents than with two good woman/man parents...and the fact is that they do not say so because they know it isn't true.
And since I think that only good man/woman couple parents should adopt, this is why I think gay couples should not adopt.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1299106911' post='2217300']The point I was attempting to make was more so a scientific one, not a religious one. This "norm" is being entered into with little research and study backing it. One could possibly argue female-female couple adoptions referring to current studies, but such studies are lacking in male-male couples. The burden of proof falls to those who are pushing this "norm", claiming that it is not harmful to children. I do not believe that the research exists, especially in relation to male-male adoptions, or is completed at this point to make that decision. At the time, it seems we are making the statements oking this and hoping that the research catches up.[/quote]Burden of proof is usually with the person making a claim, not the person asking for proof. Proposing that children are harmed by being adopted by a homosexual/homosexual couple is a claim. Anecdotal evidence or reasoning is insufficient, the reason why I specifically asked for something scientific.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1299109209' post='2217309']
Burden of proof is usually with the person making a claim, not the person asking for proof. Proposing that children are harmed by being adopted by a homosexual/homosexual couple is a claim. Anecdotal evidence or reasoning is insufficient, the reason why I specifically asked for something scientific.
[/quote]
The original claim is "Children are not harmed by being adopted by a homosexual couple" and is what requires the burden of proof. This is being accepted as the "norm" and adopted by organizations that argue for homosexual adoption laws. There is, however, little research to fully endorse this claim.

-Edit-
Ok, I see what you are asking. Sorry, I was speaking in generalities and only now realize you are speaking more specifically. Though, it would be hard to respond to a lack of evidence, I will see what I can do.

Edited March 2, 2011 by CatholicCid

[CatholicCid]

This will take a bit longer than expected as I do not have much free time to do such research.

However, here is an article I was already aware of. It is an article that is in favor of homosexual adoption and makes arguments based on a review of 21 research articles over 20 years. To my limited knowledge, the article is well know in the field.

Here is a summary of their research itself and the article in PDF: http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/2657413

"We examined the findings of 21 psychological studies (listed at the bot- tom of Table 1) published between 1981 and 1998 that we considered best equipped to address sociological questions about how parental sexual orientation matters to children."

"Because many more formerly married lesbian mothers than gay fathers retain custody of their children, most research is actually on post-divorce lesbian motherhood."

"The studies we discuss compare relatively advantaged lesbian parents (18 studies) and gay male parents (3 studies) with a roughly matched sample of heterosexual parents."

Acknowledging this lack of research on gay male parents, the article has no issue making claims involving both lesbian and gay couples (lesbigay, to use their terminology) raising children. They provide no direct relationship that would allow the studies of lesbian couples to be utilized for gay couples.

Edited March 3, 2011 by CatholicCid

[Socrates]

[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]
For those constantly trying to find loopholes to justify their dissent from traditional Catholic moral teaching, [i]no[/i] instruction from the Church will ever be sufficiently "clear, explicit, and direct" for their tastes.

For too many "Catholics" on here, whenever there's a conflict between Catholic teaching and current political correctness, political correctness always trumps.

Here's the relevant teaching from that CDF document, which I post links to every time such issues arise, but which is routinely ignored and dismissed by the pc "Catholics" on this board:
[quote]7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1299106911' post='2217300']
The point I was attempting to make was more so a scientific one, not a religious one. This "norm" is being entered into with little research and study backing it. One could possibly argue female-female couple adoptions referring to current studies, but such studies are lacking in male-male couples. The burden of proof falls to those who are pushing this "norm", claiming that it is not harmful to children. I do not believe that the research exists, especially in relation to male-male adoptions, or is completed at this point to make that decision. At the time, it seems we are making the statements oking this and hoping that the research catches up.
[/quote]
Harm can be spiritual and moral as well, and as such will likely not be acknowledged by those who accept contemporary secularist liberalism's ideology.

As Catholic Christians, we should bring moral considerations into how we vote and what we support politically.

The tragedy is that most contemporary American "Catholics" regard [i]that[/i] as a heresy.
As usual for them, amoral secularist pc ideology trumps Catholic moral teaching.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299118818' post='2217340']For those constantly trying to find loopholes to justify their dissent from traditional Catholic moral teaching, [i]no[/i] instruction from the Church will ever be sufficiently "clear, explicit, and direct" for their tastes.[/quote]Your implicit and indirect insults are unbecoming even of you, if you wish to insult me please just do so.[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299118818' post='2217340']For too many "Catholics" on here, whenever there's a conflict between Catholic teaching and current political correctness, political correctness always trumps.[/quote]Communists are hiding in your television too.[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299118818' post='2217340']Here's the relevant teaching from that CDF document, which I post links to every time such issues arise, but which is routinely ignored and dismissed by the pc "Catholics" on this board:[/quote]As I mentioned earlier, read it and looking into it.[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299119206' post='2217341']Harm can be spiritual and moral as well, and as such will likely not be acknowledged by those who accept contemporary secularist liberalism's ideology.[/quote]"contemporary secularist liberalism's ideology", is that a religion you founded in your backyard?[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299119206' post='2217341']As Catholic Christians, we should bring moral considerations into how we vote and what we support politically.[/quote]Meaning... block vote. Perhaps the most self-defeating example of why American democracy suffers.[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299119206' post='2217341']The tragedy is that most contemporary American "Catholics" regard [i]that[/i] as a heresy.
As usual for them, amoral secularist pc ideology trumps Catholic moral teaching.[/quote]Communists everywhere!!!

Edited March 3, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299118818' post='2217340']
For those constantly trying to find loopholes to justify their dissent from traditional Catholic moral teaching, [i]no[/i] instruction from the Church will ever be sufficiently "clear, explicit, and direct" for their tastes.

[/quote]
I know I'm going to regret saying this in the morning, but I absolutely agree with Socrates. I'm now going to pop myself in the head with a fireplace poker in punishment.

[tinytherese]

I did some looking up and so far I've found this eighty page research review on homosexual parenting, adoption, and foster care. I'll have to read the whole thing at some point.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ResearchReviewHomosexualParenting.pdf

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299119206' post='2217341']
Harm can be spiritual and moral as well, and as such will likely not be acknowledged by those who accept contemporary secularist liberalism's ideology.

As Catholic Christians, we should bring moral considerations into how we vote and what we support politically.

The tragedy is that most contemporary American "Catholics" regard [i]that[/i] as a heresy.
As usual for them, amoral secularist pc ideology trumps Catholic moral teaching.
[/quote]

I agree. However, being at a Catholic site and knowing people here can argue the Faith on this issue much better than I, I wanted to give some insight into the "science" aspect as well. I also believe that the science will eventually support our own position.

One interesting to note on such "scientific" articles is that they do not attempt to question the spiritual or moral aspects of the participants. They also assume the morality of the acts. For example, the article I cited notes that, while the young female children involved did not identify as homosexual, they would admit to experimenting with their sexuality and have a more "open" sexual orientation. The researchers, showing their own bias, acknowledged this as a "positive" result while we know that it is actually spiritual and morally harmful to the individuals.

Edited March 3, 2011 by CatholicCid

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1299120512' post='2217346']
Your implicit and indirect insults are unbecoming even of you, if you wish to insult me please just do so.Communists are hiding in your television too.As I mentioned earlier, read it and looking into it."contemporary secularist liberalism's ideology", is that a religion you founded in your backyard?Meaning... block vote. Perhaps the most self-defeating example of why American democracy suffers.Communists everywhere!!!
[/quote]

Most of those comments don't strike me as mature or charitable responses. That's only going to make the conversation worse.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1299123458' post='2217360']Most of those comments don't strike me as mature or charitable responses. That's only going to make the conversation worse.[/quote]Tongue and cheek, tit for tat, and I doubt their responses could qualify as mature or charitable either.

[Papist]

The Church's position on marriage is that it is between a man and a woman … and the importance that the family be based on a father and a mother. Shouldn't the ideal family be the where we should place children?

Gay parenting does affect children differently
[url="http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html"]http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html[/url]

This link directly from the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association shows how much more homosexuals have mental and physical issues in comparison to heterosexuals. These conditions are not the ideal parenting material.
[url="http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=690"]http://www.glma.org/...Page&pageID=690[/url]

Edited March 3, 2011 by Papist

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1299120512' post='2217346']
Meaning... block vote. Perhaps the most self-defeating example of why American democracy suffers.
[/quote]
Tried to attach a file here, but it didn't work.
I'll email a copy of "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe to anyone who wants it.


Edit: Here's a link.
[url="http://www.4shared.com/document/2tdDX1qy/HOPPE_Hans-Hermann_Democracy_-.html"]http://www.4shared.com/document/2tdDX1qy/HOPPE_Hans-Hermann_Democracy_-.html[/url]

Edited March 3, 2011 by Nihil Obstat