jasJis Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 This is from the Vatican Document link in the Topic about the Vatican condemning same sex marriages. Within it, the concept of legally allowing actively homosexaul couples to adopt children. From the biological and anthropological order 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. What are your opionions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 oooh...REALLY touch subject...this is one of those bite my tongue chew my nails wait for somebody to say something stupid threads... I'm not sure what my opinion is....I'm inclined to say two parents is better than none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 touch should be touchy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted August 3, 2003 Author Share Posted August 3, 2003 Hopefully we can get some intelligent discussion. I kinda posted thought provoking choices. Hopefully we can discuss the reasonably anticipated moral and social consequences of SSC (same sex couples) and BSC (both sex couples). It's not a cut and dried easy answer, and thought and effort needs to be expended to come up with solutions to all the possible problems and pitfalls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
credo Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 No. Not because such a situation would 'create' more homosexuals, but because such a home would be lacking in something I feel is neccesary in child development. A mother offers things only a mother can offer, and a father offers things only a father can offer. The best situation for an adopted child is a home with a mother and a father. I don't feel the homosexuals should be able to adopt because it preverts the idea of the family. It sends the message that living out the homosexual lifestyle is something healthy and moral, and it could cause confused feelings from kids. It also could be the cause of, what could be avoided, critisizm from peers. Kids are mean, lets face it. Further segreation like we are now seeing in New York with a 'Gay School' is not the answer either. I don't know what the answer is, there aren't enough homes to go around as it is, but I don't feel homosexual adoption is the solution. I think it creates more problems then it would solve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 I'd just like to say, that I am in a chaste Same-Sex relationship, we are raising my partner's five yearold child together, in a few months we could very well be raising my newborn niece/nephew. My family is not "perverted", it isn't "messed up". Is it ideal? No, but neither was the family I grew up in. Sinners raise children, everyday everywhere. Also, does divorce not pervert the family, who is advocating that once a person gets a divorce they never again be allowed to raise a child. This like most of my posts is an emotionalistic, a-rational (not irational), personalism. Back to listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 It is better than abortion, but I don't think that is a real reason for it. As far as God is concerned, it would put a stumbling block infront of children. A child needs a mother and a father figure, not father/father or mother/mother. Also I think that a man and woman who are not married should be allowed to adopt because it puts a stumbling block infront of the child. Nor should single people be allowed to adopt. Granted, these are general "rules" per say, I could see where a child could benefit from it, like if a Priest were to adopt a child. I think the major problem with adoption these days is the problems parents have adopting. I have a friend at work, him and his wife were trying to adopt a child for years. He's a devout baptist, his wife is a housewife, he has a good career, they love kids. They had to go to Korea to get a child because for some reason they didn't get approved here. There are plenty of good families that want kids, it's the people who are in control of the adoptions that are causing the problems. There are more than enough families seeking adoption for the children in the US. I've got a theory that they dink around with it, because it all comes down to every child has a dollar mark on their head. I get this theory because of the way the school system works in this area. Every kid is worth 30,000 to the school; if a kid is labelled "special" it's like an additional 5-10k. The school systems here have plenty of money, though they claim they don't; they spent like 90k on Playstations, and a bunch of other unnecessary stuff. If the adoption people at the state level found homes for all the kids, then they wouldn't receive as much money. There are too many good families out there that want kids and are denied, or made to wait years to get one. ...just my two cents. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Every child needs a mom, a female biological parent. Children can survive without a father. Notice I didn't say thrive or prosper, but survive. Males for other than fertilization, are not biologically necessary. Sorry guys. If you want the child to thrive, a father is necessary. Yes I know people who have done quite well in a one-parent home, but I think they are the exception. Kids need to see both sides in operation, the give and take of a relationship, to flourish as a man or woman. Kids get special things from each parent that are unique. Mothers teach girls how to be women, and boys how to relate to women. Fathers teach girls how a man should treat them when they are older, and boys how to treat all women starting with their mothers. Most of the kids who are my extra kids, are here because there is something drastically wrong with the female parent in their lives. It has nothing to do with sinners, and evenything with how God made us to function as a family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
credo Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 I'd just like to say, that I am in a chaste Same-Sex relationship, we are raising my partner's five yearold child together, in a few months we could very well be raising my newborn niece/nephew. My family is not "perverted", it isn't "messed up". Is it ideal? No, but neither was the family I grew up in. Sinners raise children, everyday everywhere. Also, does divorce not pervert the family, who is advocating that once a person gets a divorce they never again be allowed to raise a child. This like most of my posts is an emotionalistic, a-rational (not irational), personalism. Back to listening. The difference between a divorce and adoption is that with a divorce you still have biological parents. To remove a child from its biological family just because of divorce would be wrong and immoral. Adoption on the other hand is not a right. Anyone can create a baby, but it takes a lot to be able to raise him or her right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 I agree with iron , the adoption stuff in this country is a bunch of BS. People have to jump thru hoops here to get an American child. THe foster care and adoption system stinks, it creates a lot of jobs for a lot of people, and I don't mean the foster parents, but the bureaucrats. The foster parents are getting diddly. Not all school districts are alike; we would be happy just to have enough books for all the kids. Again the bureaucrats get rich, and the rest of us suffers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 (edited) Iron Monk, This maybe slightly off topic, but I happen to work in foster-care and adoption. The truth is that most people who call me seeking to adopt want a new born, white baby (usually a girl) with no problems. I could place children everyday with families, if I could find the families to take them. As you have stated so many times, please use facts to back up your statements. peace... edit to respond to Cmom, I for one am not getting rich. Foster Parents in Indy make $31 day which is supposed to serve as reimbursement for raising the children. When we relax the "hoops" we run the risk of allowing "scary" people to adopt these kids. Like I've said elsewhere, I hate the system, but I don't know how else to care for these kids. Edited August 3, 2003 by PedroX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Credo, So what if the biological parent who cared enough to stay is a homosexual, what then of the partner of that operson adopting the child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
credo Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Credo, So what if the biological parent who cared enough to stay is a homosexual, what then of the partner of that operson adopting the child? That creates problems, yes, but all divorce creates problems. I don't think a child should be removed from his or her biological parents unless something is seriously wrong. Adoption is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 In Homosexuality and Hope: Statement of the Catholic Medical Association, Section 2, we're told that alienation from the father in early childhood for boys, the absence of the mother for girls, or separation from either parent by either gender during key developmental periods can all cause homosexuality. In fairness, this means that homosexuality could result from divorce or other things that happen in society, not just from same-sex adoptions. However, I think that same-sex adoptions are not a good idea, because there is evidence (as presented in this article) that it could indeed cause the child to be homosexual. I say this as a child who went through a key developmental period (adolescence) with an absentee father due to divorce, and with my mother and her lesbian partner as the parents... and now I suffer from same-sex attractions. So yes, objectively because of science and subjectively because of my own experience, I think that same-sex couples adopting is probably not a good idea for the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 (edited) Iron Monk, This maybe slightly off topic, but I happen to work in foster-care and adoption. The truth is that most people who call me seeking to adopt want a new born, white baby (usually a girl) with no problems. I could place children everyday with families, if I could find the families to take them. As you have stated so many times, please use facts to back up your statements. peace... edit to respond to Cmom, I for one am not getting rich. Foster Parents in Indy make $31 day which is supposed to serve as reimbursement for raising the children. When we relax the "hoops" we run the risk of allowing "scary" people to adopt these kids. Like I've said elsewhere, I hate the system, but I don't know how else to care for these kids. I do have facts of my area. This family was looking for a child or newborn. I'm speaking from reports that I have watched, and read about. Some of which what I said was speculation, as I mentioned 'theory'. And when I speak of money for the program, I'm talking about the people running the show, high up the chain... not the social workers or parents. I know that some safety measures need to be in place, but my friend looks nothing like a risk, and I've met others through them that are in the same boat. I think it comes down to many of our social programs need an overhaul. I also think that there should be a set psychological profile looked for when choosing a social worker. I'm not saying this is a general thing, but I have seen some social workers that have no business being a social worker, some have hidden agendas, others have some serious isses. I believe most of them mean well, but just because they mean well, does not mean it's the best thing for the child. I'm sure that you do a great job with what you can. I mean your Catholic , you've got the right foundation of morals to do the job. God Bless, ironmonk Edited August 3, 2003 by ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts