dairygirl4u2c Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 ty. remember, your responses are more appreciated than a vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathoholic_anonymous Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 (edited) These polls oversimplify things far too much. I would have no hesitation in saying that the first hypothetical situation is immoral. The second one depends on the circumstance. Ideally a child should be brought up in a loving two-parent home, but what if there was a young boy or girl in dire need and the only person in a position to help happened to be single? That's the only question really worth debating, in my opinion. Edited November 23, 2006 by Cathoholic Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 To the first question, yes, becuase the child would be raised by two non-related persons of the same sex which could be an occasion of scandal for others, and also, the child would have two fathers which is wrong. To the second question, no, becuase being raised by one parent if the other has died is moral. To the third question, yes, becuase it would be an occasion for scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I consider it moral if the two straight people living together are blood related (brothers, sisters, cousins) and the kid is also "within the family", like a nephew or cousin whose parents died. The same is true for single people adopting a relative whose parents have died and there is nobody else or more appropriate. However, when I look at how some kids have to survive today with only one parent and/or play the "who has custody of me this weekend" game, I think we need to force the issue of reinstating the traditional family if at all possible. First, having lost my father early in life, I personally know how hard it is in a one-parent situation, so I cannot see the sense of placing a kid in a situation that is not optimal if there are more optimal situations available (this applies to where the kid is not related to the prospective adoptive parents). Second, kids today need to know what a traditional stable family is like. Of course, the above is dependent upon the adoptive parents being fit, meaning no substance abuse problems, criminal activity, physical abuse that would put the kid in danger. Finally, as a single person, I've found that opening up adoptions to single people only [i]jeopardizes the institution of marriage[/i], because when I seek to get married and have kids, it is sometimes said that single people can adopt kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 It shouldn't be apostrophe "s" unless you are making a possessive, which is entirely possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeyeon Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I don't see how any of these are immoral, unless the single person was a pedophile or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertwoman Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I dont see it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now