Homosexuals Adopting

[havok579257]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1299124456' post='2217367']
Tongue and cheek, tit for tat, and I doubt their responses could qualify as mature or charitable either.
[/quote]


YOu do understand that until just recently adoption by homosexuals was not allowed in out secular society. Then suddenly its deemed ok by extreme liberals and homosexual advocates and that to you justifies it? By your logic, since homosexual adoption was not allowed before it should not be allowed now, most of all without any research. your arguement fails on this level.

and socrates is exactly right in what he wrote about church teaching and people trying to find loopholes. the church teaches homosexual unions are a grave sin, they are inherently wrong. nothing inherently wrong can be good.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1299166601' post='2217444']YOu do understand that until just recently adoption by homosexuals was not allowed in out secular society.[/quote]Not relevant to what I proposed, but yes I was aware. [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1299166601' post='2217444']Then suddenly its deemed ok by extreme liberals and homosexual advocates and that to you justifies it?[/quote]Then surely there was good cause for it other than anecdotal evidence, religious motivation, and just discrimination? [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1299166601' post='2217444']By your logic, since homosexual adoption was not allowed before it should not be allowed now, most of all without any research. your arguement fails on this level.[/quote]No... by my logic the burden of proof falls upon the person making a claim. I haven't claimed either way, except that I can find no good cause to impede adoption of children, teenagers, or older teenagers who may never have a home when there are people willing to be legal guardians for them. Increasing the burden of the state, making their lives more difficult, and without reasonable cause discriminating against a group of people for purely religious motivation. That I find unacceptable.[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1299166601' post='2217444']and socrates is exactly right in what he wrote about church teaching and people trying to find loopholes.[/quote]The term "[i]loophole[/i]" is not a good term to use in your tirade, you should pick something better.[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1299166601' post='2217444']the church teaches homosexual unions are a grave sin, they are inherently wrong. nothing inherently wrong can be good.[/quote]Personally, I want to see state institutionalized unions and marriages abolished, I see no cause for the state to be involved in it. It's something personal, religious, or cultural. I am an advocate of a free society, thus unless good cause can be presented, I think the state should take a giant step back from the matter.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1299084937' post='2217162']
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.
[/quote]
You are assuming that the foster home that a child is already in is somehow a worse place than a same -sex house? Why?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1299169227' post='2217453']You are assuming that the foster home that a child is already in is somehow a worse place than a same -sex house? Why?[/quote]Not necessarily that... but I assume that legal guardians have more time, energy, resources, money, freedom, and flexibility to raise children than the state or a charity does. It allows them to be a member of a household and to really have a home. Older teenagers are rarely if ever adopted, why should they be denied a home because we want to make it clear we morally want families to be headed by a married christian man and woman who can pass a test?

If we have falsifiable and demonstrable good cause, then that needs to spear head this entire discussion. But I find, as in this discussion, it never comes to that. Moreover such as in this discussion, I am not necessarily defending homosexuals adopting nor am I proposing that they should, I am just presenting there doesn't seem to be good cause to deny them... and currently the general social norm is that they can and society hasn't completely broken down yet.

In spite of this... people are willing to paint me as whatever it deems most suiting to create a pseudo-defense of their case. It just falls to the bottom of the hierarchy of disagreement.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[cmotherofpirl]

[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:

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]

WORD!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299132888' post='2217395']
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]
[/quote]
Quite frankly I wish that Catholics [i]would[/i] vote as a block according to their moral principles. Not saying that they should necessarily all support the same candidate in every election, but if all Catholics in this country would all uniformly vote according to Church moral teaching in non-negotiable areas - against abortion, against "gay marriage," etc. - and would consistently refuse to support any bills or politicians that directly support these grave evils, our country's politics would be in much better shape.

Only a fool or a liar would say that America is currently suffering from an excess of Christian moral principle in its politics.

The idea that it is somehow necessary for "Democracy" that Catholics or Christians in general all abandon their moral principles and vote no differently than atheists or pagans is utterly nonsensical.
(But of course, that is exactly what many are doing these days.)
"Democracy" after all means nothing more than mob rule, and can in itself give no higher value. As Catholics, we should be more concerned with Christian virtue than with worshiping that false idol.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1299120793' post='2217349']
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.
[/quote]
How's your head doing?

Not sure what the big deal is with agreeing with my posts. I agree with the majority of what you post.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299176350' post='2217503']
Quite frankly I wish that Catholics [i]would[/i] vote as a block according to their moral principles. Not saying that they should necessarily all support the same candidate in every election, but if all Catholics in this country would all uniformly vote according to Church moral teaching in non-negotiable areas - against abortion, against "gay marriage," etc. - and would consistently refuse to support any bills or politicians that directly support these grave evils, our country's politics would be in much better shape.

Only a fool or a liar would say that America is currently suffering from an excess of Christian moral principle in its politics.

The idea that it is somehow necessary for "Democracy" that Catholics or Christians in general all abandon their moral principles and vote no differently than atheists or pagans is utterly nonsensical.
(But of course, that is exactly what many are doing these days.)
"Democracy" after all means nothing more than mob rule, and can in itself give no higher value. As Catholics, we should be more concerned with Christian virtue than with worshiping that false idol.
[/quote]
Agreed. All Catholics should refuse to support every immoral act of the political class.
I do think that these days "democracy" has been raised to a sort of idol. If you question the assumptions of the democratic state, you're a heretic, and you're a dangerous radical. No thanks, I'll stick with the real Law.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299176350' post='2217503']Quite frankly I wish that Catholics [i]would[/i] vote as a block according to their moral principles.[/quote]Only if there was a "[b]make my nation a catholic theocracy[/b]" check box on your ballot. Shameful.[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299176350' post='2217503']Not saying that they should necessarily all support the same candidate in every election, but if all Catholics in this country would all uniformly vote according to Church moral teaching in non-negotiable areas - against abortion, against "gay marriage," etc. - and would consistently refuse to support any bills or politicians that directly support these grave evils, our country's politics would be in much better shape.[/quote]So much for free and open government.

Catholics are free to vote however they choose, but hopefully they are responsible voters.[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299176350' post='2217503']Only a fool or a liar would say that America is currently suffering from an excess of Christian moral principle in its politics.[/quote]Since you're the only one who said it, respectfully agreed.[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299176350' post='2217503']The idea that it is somehow necessary for "Democracy" that Catholics or Christians in general all abandon their moral principles and vote no differently than atheists or pagans is utterly nonsensical.[/quote]Right again, the reason why you're the only one who proposed it.[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299176350' post='2217503'](But of course, that is exactly what many are doing these days.)[/quote]Voluntarily and regrettably.[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1299176350' post='2217503']"Democracy" after all means nothing more than mob rule, and can in itself give no higher value. As Catholics, we should be more concerned with Christian virtue than with worshiping that false idol.[/quote]1570s, from M.Fr. démocratie (14c.), from M.L. democratia (13c.), from Gk. demokratia "popular government," from demos "common people," originally "district" (see demotic), + kratos "rule, strength" (see -cracy). [url="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=democracy"][b]Online Etymology Dictionary[/b][/url]

Democracy is idol worship?


When in the course of asking for some remote substantiation or living in a free society suddenly oppress Catholics like Socrates and Nihil Obstat? Then again, maybe this really is Catholicism to such fundamentalist and fanatics of Catholicism. Reason and freedom is something to be shunned and feared.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Brother Adam]

[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]

It's called pre-marital counseling.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1299178305' post='2217516']
Only if there was a "[b]make my nation a catholic theocracy[/b]" check box on your ballot. Shameful.So much for free and open government.
[/quote]

The Catholic Church does not teach the separation of Church and State.

We also seem to be having Catholic vs Catholic debate about a Catholic topic that is closed to discussion, with Catholics who carry Church Militant tags.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1299169512' post='2217460']
Not necessarily that... but I assume that legal guardians have more time, energy, resources, money, freedom, and flexibility to raise children than the state or a charity does. It allows them to be a member of a household and to really have a home. Older teenagers are rarely if ever adopted, why should they be denied a home because we want to make it clear we morally want families to be headed by a married christian man and woman who can pass a test?

If we have falsifiable and demonstrable good cause, then that needs to spear head this entire discussion. But I find, as in this discussion, it never comes to that. Moreover such as in this discussion, I am not necessarily defending homosexuals adopting nor am I proposing that they should, I am just presenting there doesn't seem to be good cause to deny them... and currently the general social norm is that they can and society hasn't completely broken down yet.

In spite of this... people are willing to paint me as whatever it deems most suiting to create a pseudo-defense of their case. It just falls to the bottom of the hierarchy of disagreement.
[/quote]
You make a lot of assumptions, starting with the idea that a foster home is not a home, and that two homosexuals living together consitutes a family. I have yet to see any reason to accept that pairing as a home in which to raise children is superior to a foster home. None. It never has been acceptable, and I see no reason why that should change.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1299103910' post='2217269']
The majority of straight couples shouldn't be having children.
[/quote]

are you counting your parents in this "majority?"

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1299187352' post='2217568']The Catholic Church does not teach the separation of Church and State.[/quote]Does it have to? But the investitures issue I thought was rather separating, just me though. [quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1299187352' post='2217568']We also seem to be having Catholic vs Catholic debate about a Catholic topic that is closed to discussion, with Catholics who carry Church Militant tags.[/quote]Respectfully disagreed, this seems more akin to misunderstanding and disagreement than a debate.[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1299188505' post='2217582']You make a lot of assumptions[/quote]I hope not.[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1299188505' post='2217582']starting with the idea that a foster home is not a home[/quote]From the people that I've heard, met, and know. It is nothing like having your own home or household to go to.

But sure, home can be anywhere. [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1299188505' post='2217582']and that two homosexuals living together consitutes a family.[/quote]Respectfully disagreed. I don't recall implying that. [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1299188505' post='2217582']I have yet to see any reason to accept that pairing as a home in which to raise children is superior to a foster home.[/quote]Really? [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1299188505' post='2217582']None.[/quote]Really really?[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1299188505' post='2217582']It never has been acceptable, and I see no reason why that should change.[/quote]I agree, right now it is illegal to discriminate against anyone based on gender, martial status, orientation, belief, or otherwise when adopting. Which if you are really want to change that it seems you may want to strengthen the case.



This discussion is about making a case for explaining Catholic discrimination against homosexuals in adoption. But apparently that is beyond peoples maturity to engage a discussion with questions looking for more explanation. Which some people did offer, like BrotherAdam and others. But okay I will take my leave in this topic.

Apparently tinytherese you need to just keep repeating that you can't allow it as a good Catholic?

Edited March 3, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[MithLuin]

Yeah, seriously, back to the topic at hand. As could be asked of the people throughout most of history, 'How Christian are these Christians?" People who do not practice their faith or adhere to the moral principles dictated by it are no more fallen than the rest of humanity...but then, we are all no less fallen than the rest of humanity too, and that's worth bearing in mind. Redemption can be quite a rocky road.

As I see it, the most concerning issue here is that Catholic adoption agencies are being put into an untenable position by the state - allow homosexual couples to adopt, or close your doors. Having all the Catholic adoption agencies shut down is [i]not[/i] a good thing (no matter how you look at it), and having them continue by acquiescing to the demand to place children in homosexual households is also not a good thing.

[url=http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3985]HERE[/url] is the 2007 letter from Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster about the UK's new adoption laws.

In 2008, adoption agencies had to either close their doors or disassociate from the Catholic Church...there was no exemption. [url=http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/may/08052606]Article here[/url]

By 2010, the last appeal (of the oldest Catholic adoption agency in Leeds) failed. [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/22/catholic-adoption-agency-_n_689711.html]Article here[/url]

There are now NO Catholic adoption agencies in England. In less than four years...everything was changed.


On a smaller scale, something similar happened in Boston in 2006 - Catholic Charities stopped its adoption services because of the state's mandate that homosexual couples be considered as adoptive parents.

There's not much of a line between allowing gay couples to adopt...and enforcing that adoption agencies place children with gay couples.

Mexico permitted adoption by legally married homosexuals in August [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/mexico-gay-adoption-law-u_n_683926.html]Article here[/url]

Florida decreed its ban of gay adoption unconstitutional in 2009 [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/florida-gay-adoption-ban-unconstitutional_n_735751.html]Article here[/url]