Duggar scandal

[franciscanheart]

I don't think the children are safe in either. Even if they are safe physically in the second case, they are not morally safe. That's not of light importance.... What I would support more are maybe Catholic or pro family organizations that can remove the children from the danger but place them in families that will help their moral spiritual and emotional growth. I have read of people who grow up in same sex households (with a same sex couple) and there is much risk of them either being sexually confused or desensitized regarding Catholic moral teaching or both. One young man in particular spoke of his experience and the effect on him. He is still dealing with it years later. It affects a child's psychology, and their view of families, men, women, themselves...

​Are you a young person? Besides thinking that growing up with two healthy, well-adjusted, loving adults who encourage growth and  help to realize potential is a terrible thing that could permanently damage a child coming from an impossible situation, I can't understand why you think that designating a Catholic organization is the only way to handle these situations.

My mind is seriously boggled by arguments like these. I just can't understand where people go in their minds to twist thinking into such a pretzel of Catholic superiority. Removing a child who is being left alone to fend for himself, to feed herself and wash her own clothes, who does shopping himself or cares for her siblings alone -- maybe even while mom shoots up and dad is in prison and her uncle rapes her -- is so... I just... what?

[hotpink]

​Are you a young person? Besides thinking that growing up with two healthy, well-adjusted, loving adults who encourage growth and  help to realize potential is a terrible thing that could permanently damage a child coming from an impossible situation, I can't understand why you think that designating a Catholic organization is the only way to handle these situations.

My mind is seriously boggled by arguments like these. I just can't understand where people go in their minds to twist thinking into such a pretzel of Catholic superiority. Removing a child who is being left alone to fend for himself, to feed herself and wash her own clothes, who does shopping himself or cares for her siblings alone -- maybe even while mom shoots up and dad is in prison and her uncle rapes her -- is so... I just... what?

​Its a tough situation.  If we pretend that's the only solution...two men or women of the same gender vs horrible abuse, then its still a bad situation.  Not as bad, but not ideal.  To say it's ideal is silly.  This is where people need to step up and be part of the solution, or support orders that do.  You're right the "Well too bad that gay people care we can't let them care" is hartless.  Why we need to set up such a false dicotomy?

Honestly, the healthiest people who recover are those who have both a positive male and female influence in their healing, regardless of the victim's gender.   I would say that a single guardian who seeks out oppurtunites for that child to get good influneces from the other gender.  They see the need.  I suppose that 2 parents of the same gender could do it, but they often don't becuase they say 2 parents well, we're good.   So in practice...I think the danger is not just moral, it's huberuis.  It's pretending gender don'st matter and that 2 parents are just all that's needed.  It's not true.  Girls and boys need women and men. 

[beatitude]

​Its a tough situation.  If we pretend that's the only solution...two men or women of the same gender vs horrible abuse, then its still a bad situation.  Not as bad, but not ideal.  To say it's ideal is silly.  This is where people need to step up and be part of the solution, or support orders that do.  You're right the "Well too bad that gay people care we can't let them care" is hartless.  Why we need to set up such a false dicotomy?

​But the problem with this dichotomy is that it isn't real. Gay people are eligible to foster and adopt if they meet the same criteria as other prospective parents, yes, but MarysLittleFlower wrote that she has heard of kids from 'good families' (orphans with no legal guardian) being placed with gay couples,as though this is some massive phenomenon. It isn't. To begin with, it's extremely rare for a child to be orphaned and completely alone in the world with no relative at all to take care of them, and of this particular minority of kids in foster care, the percentage of children being placed with same-sex couples has got to be tiny. Even in cases of abuse, foster care, especially long-term foster care, is a last resort - it is a myth that social workers are desperate to muscle in on families and take children away; and again there is no major phenomenon of same-sex couples adopting in their droves. So why do we talk about it as if it is happening all over the place and is the single biggest issue about the foster care system?

[PhuturePriest]

[hotpink]

​But the problem with this dichotomy is that it isn't real. Gay people are eligible to foster and adopt if they meet the same criteria as other prospective parents, yes, but MarysLittleFlower wrote that she has heard of kids from 'good families' (orphans with no legal guardian) being placed with gay couples,as though this is some massive phenomenon. It isn't. To begin with, it's extremely rare for a child to be orphaned and completely alone in the world with no relative at all to take care of them, and of this particular minority of kids in foster care, the percentage of children being placed with same-sex couples has got to be tiny. Even in cases of abuse, foster care, especially long-term foster care, is a last resort - it is a myth that social workers are desperate to muscle in on families and take children away; and again there is no major phenomenon of same-sex couples adopting in their droves. So why do we talk about it as if it is happening all over the place and is the single biggest issue about the foster care system?

​Maybe becuase it's been popularized by media.  Almost all "family" comercials these days have some sort of recognition of same-sex parents with their new kids...either foster or as infants.  There's a whole show about it on ABC family...and besides that if you actually look at some adotion listings there are preferences given to singles and same gender couples for several children due to their belief systems or past history.

[CrossCuT]

I don't think the children are safe in either. Even if they are safe physically in the second case, they are not morally safe. That's not of light importance.... What I would support more are maybe Catholic or pro family organizations that can remove the children from the danger but place them in families that will help their moral spiritual and emotional growth. I have read of people who grow up in same sex households (with a same sex couple) and there is much risk of them either being sexually confused or desensitized regarding Catholic moral teaching or both. One young man in particular spoke of his experience and the effect on him. He is still dealing with it years later. It affects a child's psychology, and their view of families, men, women, themselves...

​I think the assumption that homosexual couples are detrimental to child development is on par with some of the worst racist stereotypes.

I guess Id just like to point out that before homosexuals could adopt or have families, homosexual children were "sexually confused" while being brought up by straight people. Its not really a factor of who is raising the child that leads them to become homosexual, its a factor of genetics, self realization, and being in an atmosphere where they are not afraid to truly understand what they are feeling without pressure or suppression.

Developmental psychology is a complex thing and Ill note that I am not an expert. But I think we do a huge disservice to so many people when we assume and hold extremely negative and detrimental stereotypes over peoples heads. 

[franciscanheart]

​Its a tough situation.  If we pretend that's the only solution...two men or women of the same gender vs horrible abuse, then its still a bad situation.  Not as bad, but not ideal.  To say it's ideal is silly.  This is where people need to step up and be part of the solution, or support orders that do.  You're right the "Well too bad that gay people care we can't let them care" is hartless.  Why we need to set up such a false dicotomy?

Honestly, the healthiest people who recover are those who have both a positive male and female influence in their healing, regardless of the victim's gender.   I would say that a single guardian who seeks out oppurtunites for that child to get good influneces from the other gender.  They see the need.  I suppose that 2 parents of the same gender could do it, but they often don't becuase they say 2 parents well, we're good.   So in practice...I think the danger is not just moral, it's huberuis.  It's pretending gender don'st matter and that 2 parents are just all that's needed.  It's not true.  Girls and boys need women and men. 

It's not the only solution. It's never been the only solution. I dare say it's a rare solution. I know from personal experience that children are more likely to be placed with a heterosexual couple or a single person than a gay couple. That may be different in different parts of the country and may be changing, but to act as if every single child in an extremely dangerous situation is being pulled from their home and immediately injected into a homosexual couple's arms is downright ludicrous. That's not how the system works, for starters, and it's definitely not every day that a gay couple gets to serve in that way.

People need to recover knowing lots of healthy people of both sexes -- not just one or the other. That said, many do need positive influences from one side more than the other. Maybe it was their father who beat them and their mother every day. Maybe it was mom who was shooting up and sending them on drug runs. Who knows? Every situation is different.

I think you've been unfairly presumptuous about the ability of a gay couple to care for children and to include role models from both sexes in the child's life. You've decided -- and without any real evidence, best I can tell -- that gay people are incompetent when it comes to raising healthy, well-adjusted children. You've assumed that they assume they are enough. What parent ever assumes that?

I just... I don't even know how to address this. I really hope someone who is less boggled by your false bravado can reply to you. The ignorance runs too deep for me. 

​

​Maybe becuase it's been popularized by media.  Almost all "family" comercials these days have some sort of recognition of same-sex parents with their new kids...either foster or as infants.  There's a whole show about it on ABC family...and besides that if you actually look at some adotion listings there are preferences given to singles and same gender couples for several children due to their belief systems or past history.

​Wow. Okay. How do you know those ACTORS in commercials are foster kids? Have you ever heard of adoption? It's a thing that happens sometimes. Like, every day, actually. Adoptions happen at all ages, too. I can't believe we're actually going here with this. Someone please tell me how this happened. I just... WHAT?

Foster care isn't ideal. Having to remove a child from his or her home is not IDEAL. No one wants to have to do it. It's a last resort that, all too often, is sometimes necessary. No one wants to find reasons to pluck children from their established families and put them into a foreign world with complete strangers. No one wants to do that. But praise God there are healthy, loving, safe adults to take those kids in. Too many of them end up in group homes and shelters for way too long.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Im sorry but I'm very surprised that on a Catholic board , I have to defend the view that homosexual couples are not beneficial for children to be living with. I don't really care if in the world this is seen as homophobic etc because its not based on any "hatred" of homosexuals but is derived from Catholic moral teaching. 

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuals should live chastely as everyone else. For them this is expressed as living celibately. Claiming anything else is false compassion for them because love and truth must go together. Saying that its not a big deal for any person to harm their souls, risk their salvation, and offend God, is not helping them. 

Since being in a homosexual relationship is not chaste and is therefore sinful, and since our society has lost the idea of what a family truly is the way God made it, it makes no sense to put children in this situation.

I never said children should be left in abusive situation. I said that they should not go from that to this, but to a family that is loving and structured as a family... The Catholic definition of one. Not the modern view.

As for how often this happens, I went to a talk put on by my parish and a lawyer said it happens. There are places where its hard for strong pro life Christian families to adopt because of their views, and easy for homosexuals to adopt. I have heard various things about Quebec in Canada for example and this is where our society may be headed.

Our Lord had very firm words to say about leading His little ones astray. Teaching them that homosexual relationships are "okay", is an example of leading them astray because its not a moral truth. A child living in this would be taught that. So I can't support it. No I don't want children to stay in abusive situations. I also don't want them going from physical to moral or emotional abuse. Because this is what it is when people teach children that wrong is right. 

I really don't care if people see me as homophobic or whatever. Our duty is to follow God and the Church not the world. Its not hateful to believe certain actions are wrong and should not be promoted. It is the Catholic view and always has been..

[MarysLittleFlower]

If something is wrong then its scandal to give children the impression its "ok".

Also as Archbishop Sheen said its a modern error to think that everything is ok provided we "love". Love needs to be charity and God should come first. Its never right to offend God and promote a sinful lifestyle or action in the name of "love" - that is not ordered to loving Him which is the first Commandment. That is not helping the person and love and truth are not separate. Fearing to hurt peoples feelings by saying the truth is not helping them, its promoting their error. It is a work of mercy to correct them. Good is always good and evil always evil, and we would be offending God by switching them and calling that "love"... God's love is never untruthful and never against His teachings.

[puellapaschalis]

Im sorry but I'm very surprised that on a Catholic board , I have to defend the view that homosexual couples are not beneficial for children to be living with.

​Amen. Recent posts suggest a real non-Catholicism going on. Which, if that's the game some people want to play, go and play - but then be honest about it.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Parents are either biological or adoptive mother / father. Then there are cases where only mother or father are left. But the idea of a man living with another man in a sinful relationship as a "family" that is not supported by Catholicism. God decides what a family is. And after reading the experiences of someone who grew up in this situation I don't think its safe, no. Not only did that *contribute* to sexual and emotional confusion, but the poor child witnessed things that were traumatizing - not only were they not monogamous but a child can sense its against natural law for two men to act like that. The boy saw stuff happen thar was explicit sexually. Children can have a sense of natural law until adults convince them its not real.

[franciscanheart]

I'm sorry -- did you just suggest that I'm non-Catholic because I don't see where the harm possibly inflicted by living with a well-adjusted, healthy, loving gay person is greater than the harm of the situations most of these kids are pulled from?

[franciscanheart]

Parents are either biological or adoptive mother / father. Then there are cases where only mother or father are left. But the idea of a man living with another man in a sinful relationship as a "family" that is not supported by Catholicism. God decides what a family is. And after reading the experiences of someone who grew up in this situation I don't think its safe, no. Not only did that *contribute* to sexual and emotional confusion, but the poor child witnessed things that were traumatizing - not only were they not monogamous but a child can sense its against natural law for two men to act like that. The boy saw stuff happen thar was explicit sexually. Children can have a sense of natural law until adults convince them its not real.

​Then that wasn't a healthy home for that child to be in anyway. How do you not see the difference?

[beatitude]

As Catholics we can and should affirm our belief that marriage is sacred and between one man and one woman.

The problem comes when we try to use pseudo-science and sketchy anecdotal evidence to try and claim that there are major medical or psychological reasons behind the belief. I see people doing this most often with abortion. They make the argument that women who have abortions are more likely to develop mental health problems afterwards. That's objectively not true. The reason we oppose abortion is because it's the taking of a human life, but people seem determined to make psychological claims about it that just don't hold up - as though the ethical argument against not killing people becomes stronger if they can give it a medical basis somehow. A similar thing is happening here.

MLF, there are people who were raised by gay couples who have nothing but good things to say about the parenting they received, but you wouldn't accept same-sex parenting as legitimate just because you read a few articles that described positive nurturing experiences. Yet this is the quality of evidence on which you're basing your arguments against gay adoption. It's a lot more complicated than that. Kids who end up in the foster care system have usually come out of terrible situations to start with, and consequently it is very difficult to point at any one aspect of their foster care placement and say "This caused them to have XYZ problems" - they are likely to arrive in the placement with significant difficulties as it is. As I mentioned in an earlier post, long-term fostering and adoption by same-sex couples is not a common thing. The concern about it happening is wildly disproportionate to the frequency with which it actually happens, and suggesting that people might be justifiably reluctant to report child abuse to the authorities for fear that the child might be taken from the family and rehoused with gay people goes beyond disproportionate to the simply bizarre. In short, I don't think it's your idea that parenting should be done by a man and a woman that franciscanheart is taking issue with, it's the reasoning behind that idea.

[Ice_nine]

hmmm I don't think this is about gay parents not being able to raise healthy, well-adjusted children. I don't think  that's the debate here. I just don't think that being healthy and well-adjusted is going to save your soul. That's the crux of the issue isn't it? I don't know if mary'slittleflower is saying children of gay parents can't be emotionally balanced, contributing members of society. If that's what she is saying then yes it's problematic. But if she's saying that it's a major impediment to the salvation of the child, then as a Catholic wouldn't you have to agree? Does abuse endanger the salvation of children. Undoubtedly yes and it endangers them in other ways too. So it's a tough situation.