organwerke Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1299214452' post='2217738'] Of course, those same Christians would prefer a child to be adopted by a chain-smoking Pentacostal heterosexual couple who goes to church twice a year and who supports their family through the father's work as member of a predatory bank who gives out high-interest loans to impoverished minorities who will certainly have to default a few years down the road. Ya know, because it's all about having the right genitalia. [/quote] This is wrong. I firmly believe that children should be adopted only by the "perfect parents", so it's not at all only about having the good genitalia. Harsh as it could seem, I think that orphans live better with nuns, volounteers, social assistants etc. than with bad families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1299246907' post='2217817'] This is wrong. I firmly believe that children should be adopted only by the "perfect parents", so it's not at all only about having the good genitalia. Harsh as it could seem, I think that orphans live better with nuns, volounteers, social assistants etc. than with bad families. [/quote] How many orphans live their whole lives in temporary foster homes that receive little or no money to actual rear the child? How many orphans are deprived of the love and trust that even a single adopted parent could provide? I know that we should be looking for the best situation for these kids, but as the famous saying goes, "2 out of 3 ain't bad;" I think finding anyone who would love, cherish and support these children would be better than living life in the institution. If they're not perfect, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1299209155' post='2217704'] Communism!!! [/quote] I don't think the US will ever be able to stomach Communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299210519' post='2217711'] You sound like one of those beaver dam anarchists! [/quote] Not at all. It is common knowledge why the public school system exists and its history, and I am not advocating anarchism as all. I am advocating that parents educate their own children, or that they be sent to private Catholic schools. It was easier to put up with public school indoctrination back when they were more in line with Judeo-Christian values because of the Christian founding of this country. That has all been stripped out of the school system and replaced with a liberal atheism that will teach your preschoolers that it is okay to play with themselves and there is no reason Susie shouldn't have two daddies. Do you remember the scene from the Emperor's Club where the senator gets furious with the school teacher because the teacher suggests that part of his job is to teach the senators son values for how to live his life. The senator responds that it is the role of the teacher to teach ABC's and 123's - and that he will teach his own son those other things. If we leave the ethical and moral foundation of our children to teacher's unions and the UN Population Fund, they will teach them to reject God and family and embrace immorality. After all the UN was just quoted as stating that family and God must be gotten rid of if the homosexual agenda is going to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1299254133' post='2217865']I don't think the US will ever be able to stomach Communism.[/quote]Actually, I was thinking of Charlie the Unicorn, the episode celebrating YouTube live. Some of my friends are reminded of me in Charlie the Unicorn, and I can sort of see why. But I respectfully agree, I would classify as a liberal libertarian/neo-capitalist, I don't want communism. Which hypothetically, practically, and in practice seems to be deficient and dysfunctional. Like you may have noticed I am very much for free and open society, government, and business. Also very much for individual liberty and voluntarism. More importantly, the American Communist party is a joke, even to other communist groups. We are in no danger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
organwerke Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1299250145' post='2217835'] How many orphans live their whole lives in temporary foster homes that receive little or no money to actual rear the child? How many orphans are deprived of the love and trust that even a single adopted parent could provide? I know that we should be looking for the best situation for these kids, but as the famous saying goes, "2 out of 3 ain't bad;" I think finding anyone who would love, cherish and support these children would be better than living life in the institution. If they're not perfect, so be it. [/quote] As I said in the other thread, there are many ways to help and give love to these children. If these foster homes have no founds, why don't help them? Giving money, visiting these children regularly...this too is a very lovely action, and you can give joy to so many children doing so. What I have learned doing this on a regular basys is that you wouldn't be able to choose a child to adopt when you have known so many children to love, and you would like to adopt all...adopting only one would be a sort betrayal for the others who would like to have your exclusive affection. But I am sure and I have personally experienced that you can do a lot of good to many children even if you don't have them physically in your home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1299268761' post='2217941'] . But I am sure and I have personally experienced that you can do a lot of good to many children even if you don't have them physically in your home. [/quote] Your ideals are very good and I would agree with them. But the problem is as always, lack of resources. How many children get placed into 'Good families' only to be abused by that family and neglected by the organisation that put them there? The latter through lack of resources. I think Kujo is correct in an imperfect world. You are a pristine and angelic person, I know that, yet God placed you in an evil and imperfect world. He did that so that you will grow and learn to oppose those evil forces. A majority of natural families are far from ideal, so is there any advantage in trying to give orphans a better start in life than natural family children? To make the best steel you have to put the ore through the forge. In adoption it can only be practical to try to weed out the obvious very bad carers. Over regulation usually ends in paranoid regulation which fails worse than neglect. Just take a look at the crazy political correctness we have to endure now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
organwerke Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1299273128' post='2217976'] Your ideals are very good and I would agree with them. But the problem is as always, lack of resources. How many children get placed into 'Good families' only to be abused by that family and neglected by the organisation that put them there? The latter through lack of resources. I think Kujo is correct in an imperfect world. You are a pristine and angelic person, I know that, yet God placed you in an evil and imperfect world. He did that so that you will grow and learn to oppose those evil forces. A majority of natural families are far from ideal, so is there any advantage in trying to give orphans a better start in life than natural family children? To make the best steel you have to put the ore through the forge. In adoption it can only be practical to try to weed out the obvious very bad carers. Over regulation usually ends in paranoid regulation which fails worse than neglect. Just take a look at the crazy political correctness we have to endure now. [/quote] Mark, I too appreciate your person a lot, you know, and you know also that we have the same ideas on almost all the things. The fact is that what you say is absolutely true, that we live in an imperfect world. What I can't understand is why people see that there are many problems in many natural families, and don't see that the same problems can happen with gay couples too. Also gay couples can abuse children, can divorce and so cause much pain to the children etc., they are no beautiful and lovely and altruistic simply because they are gay, and so, even if it is a bit utopistic, I still think that children should be adopetd only by the "perfect parents". In my country adoption laws are very strict, and I can tell you our adoption system works very well and is commended also abroad: the parents are always monitored and there are always very rigid controls, and for this I can assure it is very rare to know that abuses or violence happen with adopted children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParadiseFound Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 You seem perfectly fine with homosexuals being prevented from adopting, but as soon as something similar to you lot you're all up in arms about it...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='organwerke' timestamp='1299275722' post='2217998'] Mark, I too appreciate your person a lot, you know, and you know also that we have the same ideas on almost all the things. The fact is that what you say is absolutely true, that we live in an imperfect world. What I can't understand is why people see that there are many problems in many natural families, and don't see that the same problems can happen with gay couples too. Also gay couples can abuse children, can divorce and so cause much pain to the children etc., they are no beautiful and lovely and altruistic simply because they are gay, and so, even if it is a bit utopistic, I still think that children should be adopetd only by the "perfect parents". In my country adoption laws are very strict, and I can tell you our adoption system works very well and is commended also abroad: the parents are always monitored and there are always very rigid controls, and for this I can assure it is very rare to know that abuses or violence happen with adopted children. [/quote] So we agree; there's no "perfect parents," just different couples who are just as likely to succeed or fail based on the collective effects of original sin. Abuse, neglect and improper rearing are problems that have nothing to do with your sexuality, so it should be a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1299303661' post='2218127'] So we agree; there's no "perfect parents," just different couples who are just as likely to succeed or fail based on the collective effects of original sin. Abuse, neglect and improper rearing are problems that have nothing to do with your sexuality, so it should be a moot point. [/quote] However, in a sacramental marriage great grace is provided to the couple, and a natural marriage is properly ordered, which means the same as "not disordered". Since a homosexual union is necessarily considered disordered, it stands to reason that this disordered environment is less beneficial to a child than a properly ordered one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts