Homosexuals Adopting Children

[Mary's Knight, La]

Few things from me:

1. Hyper's right this is a really touchy subject

2. Hyper's right again, 2 parents of the same sex is not an ideal parenting situation but neither are a lot of other parenting situations.

3. Hyper must be doing good to be right twice

4. However, JPII has shown that a lot about God is revealed in the way He designed us male and female, and having two parents of the same sex does deny a child the ability to see those revelations since the father/mother relationship is the relationship a child will see most.

5. one of the duties of parents is to teach right from wrong, can two parents of the same sex who are not in a chaste relationship teach kids that homosexual intercourse is wrong?

6. even if the parents are in a chaste relationship, how big of a jump is it from a chaste relationship to a non-chaste relationship in terms of teaching morality...?

is having two parents of the same gender preferable to having no parents, or parents who are incapable of fulfilling their duties? Again Hyper's right it's a touchy question, but in terms of setting policies I'm inclined to say that the problems it presents for the child can outweigh the benefits...

[Good Friday]

I think a big issue is that anomalies in the family (i.e. same-sex couples, divorce, single parenthood, or a child raised by say a mother and a grandmother with no male influence) can lead to same-sex attractions in the child, which means that these anomalies could be predisposing our children to sin. Take it from someone who knows, it is extremely difficult not to sin when you have same-sex attractions.

That's why there needs to be legislation against these anomalies that threaten the family, and I don't just mean against active homosexuality.

- Marriage is the only civil contract in this country that can be terminated by one party without any good reason and often without any repercussions. How sad is that? It's too easy to divorce here; it needs to be made more difficult, there needs to be good reason like abuse or adultery, otherwise both spouses should be penalized in some way for the divorce, especially if children are involved who would be negatively affected by the divorce. If there were stronger penalties against divorce without good reason, or if there were legislation against remarriage after divorce, then perhaps married couples would work harder to accept and use the grace God is offering them to preserve their marriages and their families.

- If a divorce is going to happen, I think strong rights and strong responsibilities should be assigned to the parent without custody of children... for instance, I think my father should have had the right to see me more than just on the weekends, and I think he should have had the responsibility, under penalty of law, to participate in my upbringing and care, not just to pay child support every month (which he didn't do anyway, and the government didn't punish him for it).

- Single mothers should not be given more Welfare benefits because they're single rather than married. It's like the government is penalizing marriage, and many single mothers will not marry because the government will cut their benefits. That needs to stop.

- The government should require, under penalty of law, that there be some sort of adult influence from both genders for all children. The influence of both genders is crucial to the development of the child, and without the influence of both genders the child is at great risk of developing homosexuality.

- The government should make it more difficult to give one's child up for adoption (and obviously this means they should also end abortion, otherwise the abortion rate would climb). Why? Because if they're going to have sex, then they need to deal with the possibility of children. If young men and young women were forced to deal with the children that could result from sex, the premarital sex rate would drop rapidly, I guarantee it. Adoption, in and of itself, should not be necessary in a Christian society. There shouldn't be any reason to give your child up for adoption. Children should be born into stable families bound by the Sacrament of Matrimony. If it were more difficult to just give up your child, maybe normal families would be the norm.

- Only after all of this has been done to assure that children will have a home, then I think (if it's even still necessary) that legislation should be enacted to prevent homosexuals from being able to adopt, because the strong one-gender influence without the influence of the other gender is not beneficial to children.

But I don't think we should legislate against same-sex couples adopting right now, because there are too many children without homes. Denying children to same-sex couples is, at the moment, equivalent to denying children a stable home. But we have to think of what's best for children, not what's best for us. It is not best for children to be raised by a same-sex couple, because the lack of a parent of the other gender predisposes the child to homosexuality. Nor is it best for children to be raised by only one parent.

Overall, our society needs to start thinking more about children and less about ourselves. It's all about what we want, often at the expense of our children.

[hyperdulia again]

wow i'm soooooo done with this thread.

[VanHooty]

It's too easy to divorce here; it needs to be made more difficult, there needs to be good reason like abuse or adultery, otherwise both spouses should be penalized in some way for the divorce, especially if children are involved who would be negatively affected by the divorce.

<snip>

The government should require, under penalty of law, that there be some sort of adult influence from both genders for all children.  The influence of both genders is crucial to the development of the child, and without the influence of both genders the child is at great risk of developing homosexuality.

The government should make it more difficult to give one's child up for adoption (and obviously this means they should also end abortion, otherwise the abortion rate would climb).

*newbie pops in*

In response to the first point I quoted, as a quasi-liberal Catholic (particularly in regards to economic issues) I say we create a divorce tax. The taxation rate should depend upon the couple's income bracket. Or something like that.

As for the second quoted point... ick. Under the penalty of law? And... what exactly do you mean by "some sort of adult influence." Early in my childhood, I hardly ever saw my father as he was busy working his butt off to pay the bills. I cannot really say he was any sort of direct influence. The point I am trying to make, I suppose, is that such a thing would become a legislative mess.

As for making adoptions more difficult... blargh! I'm an adopted child myself, and I want adoptions to be encouraged (if not made easier, necessarily). People are prone to making grave mistakes and there should be some sort of remedy that will not result in the crippling of, say, a single mother economically or will not result in that same mother aborting. Making it harder for one to give up a kid for adoption will not necessarily discourage premarital sex; as, like I just said, we humans tend to be prone to making mistakes. Furthermore, we currently live in a culture that encourages premarital sex. No amount of legislation can counter the influence of society.

And, of course, making adoptions more difficult *will* increase the abortion rate, and will only give fuel to any blackmarket for abortions if the procedure is outlawed.

Now, going back to the issue at hand. Homosexuals adopting kids. I'm rather torn with this one. I'm passionately opposed to banning such adoptions, but I'm also against banning a lot of other things I would rather not like to happen.

We firstly have to acknowledge that as long as homosexuality is not considered gravely disordered, there is no reason to limit adoptions (or something...). Which means that we have to make the argument that homosexuality is disordered. Only after such a claim is made and substianciated (sp?), do we have a reason to limit SSC's adopting children. Then, I think the argument has to be made that being raised by a SCC will be harmful.

What do I think? Again, I don't really know. I guess, in the end, we have to "prove" (or something) that Catholic morality is "better" (again... or something) then other beliefs or types of morality. And, maybe, I don't think we can solve the problem through legislation, or at least legislation alone. If we want anything to happen, there needs to be a complete and total cultural conversion in Western society. And, as a pessimist, I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Guest *StarryEyedAngel*]

No, thats VERY wrong. Homosexuals should not, I repeat NOT adopt children. In doing so the "parents" are inflicting a violence upon the child. The Pope is every bit against such a thing. I cannot even begin to imagine what that poor soul would go through.... :(

[hyperdulia again]

so now i'm being violent?

[cmotherofpirl]

Divorce is way too easy in this country. Fathers walk out everyday on their kids.

Abortion is way too easy in this country. A man can see his child killed and have no recourse.

VanHooty :Homosexuality is gravely disordered, a homosexual couple is not the normal state of affairs and they have no right to adopt children.

Being raised in a foster home or orphanage is not the end of the world.

Hyper I don't think they mean pyhsical violance, but violance to standards of normality.

[Guest *StarryEyedAngel*]

Hyper I don't think they mean pyhsical violance, but violance to standards of normality.

Exactly. :o

[hyperdulia again]

i'm not an idiot, i knew exactly what she meant, i still found it offensive.

[ironmonk]

i'm not an idiot, i knew exactly what she meant, i still found it offensive.

Bro,

I think you are the exception to the general rule...

Please try to understand that we don't want to offend you.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary,

ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

Hyper dear you know you are sensitive on this issue. Therefore you got to learn not to take offense at things that are not generally offensive. We all have triggers and sore spots in our life. We all have to see what the other person to trying to get across, and not necessarily the exact words that they use.

I always know WHAT I want to say, its just getting the words out that are a problem. Internet speech is a hybrid of sorts. If you write an actual letter, you go over it and over it. If you have a verbal conversation you just rattle out words, usually without editing. Internet speech is the rattling without the editing with the disadvantage of being permanent.

Do you have any clue to what I just said, cause I don't think I do. :blink:

[hyperdulia again]

i know what you and monk mean, but this is the sorest spot in my life, i'd die for that little girl...i'd die for anyone else i become responsible for and i have a bad habit of seeing the word homosexual and replacing it with michael and jon...theses are not issues i am dispassionate about, removed from, or intelectual in my approach towards.

[VanHooty]

VanHooty :Homosexuality is gravely disordered, a homosexual couple is not the normal state of affairs and they have no right to adopt children.

I already know as much. However, I see much point in the idea of me telling a homosexual couple that their relationship is wrong because, in their eyes, some ancient and archaric institution with a neo-conservative leadership seeking to assert a dying culture says so.

I am of the opinion that people have a right, of sorts, to believe whatever they want to believe and life however they want to live. Granted, this means I think people have a sort of "right" to believe in wrong and erroneous ideas and live in a fashion that is harmful towards themselves. The line, I suggest, must be drawn when it comes to hurting other individuals.

Now, the question that must me asked is, how is it harmful for a child to be raised by a SSC? Which also begs the question, how is homosexuality harmful to society?

I am torn on the issue because I don't have answers to those questions other than your typical and canned "its in the Bible," "God wills it," and "because it is against the natural state of things." If anyone would care to enlighten me, please do so. Hence the phrase in the sig. :)

[jasJis]

Now, the question that must me asked is, how is it harmful for a child to be raised by a SSC?  Which also begs the question, how is homosexuality harmful to society?

Exactly. That is the question, and the answers need to be discerned as best you can. Are you sure you're a kid?

I sincerely believe that in forming a moral conscience, that's the question that needs to be asked. But that does not mean we can easily go against what the Church teaches. Any benefit of doubt goes to the Church for two reasons. One is the belief the Holy Spirit is actively working in the clergy, and two, a lot more learned persons applied more knowledge and study to the question than my single brain did. That doesn't make them right in all cases, but it makes them least likely wrong.

I think the answer lies in the perspective of 'Greater Good' when viewed in the context of society. On an individual basis, instances can easily be found where a homosexual couple might be better than an even worse situation. There are many moral evils that are practiced that are much worse than homosexuality. Just because a broken leg is less harmful than two broken legs, doesn't make a broken leg desirable to a broken finger. I have actively praciting homosexaul friends and family that I would rather have take care of my kids then other family members who aren't actively homosexual, and it doesn't take a moral theologian to acknolwedge a SSC is better than some of the alternatives.

But to seriously consider the entier question one has to consider:

A) How is a SSC harmful to a child?

B) How is Society harmed by SSC's?

C) How is a child harmed in other "care" situations, and what are they?

D) What is the BEST situation for a child, and how can that be encouraged?

The answer to A, lies in the answer to B. If society is harmed by same sex couples, then a child would be harmed by a SSC because it would be raised to accept and approve of a SSC as good and desireable.

So how is Society harmed by SSC or active homosexuality. Please note, I'm trying to draw a distinction between active homosexuals which are considered to embrace a same sex attraction lifestyle, and those with same sex attraction who do not actively embrace or are struggling to chastely deal with it.

The Catholic Church teaches that society is built on human nature, or natural law, that we are endowed with by God as a fact of our creation. It is one of our Natures we share with God. This is also reflected in the basic social organism, the Family. Even the Trinity is seen as a Family. Though as purely Divine beings, sexuality is moot, but as Divine and Human, sexuality is important, hence the reason God chose to enter the world through Woman. This is an important point to misogynists and femi-nazi's. Though different, both sexes are created as equally important. God could have chosen any number of "a-sexual" ways to enter the world, but He purposely chose to enter through Woman, who is the opposite sex of how we see God the Father when viewed in human terms. Two sexes are important to God as Genisis tells us: He created male and female. The societal nature of humans is also taught in Genesis. Adam (male) is incomplete without Eve (female). 'It is not good for man to be alone' is almost literally understood as humans are created as social creatures. God created us to be of opposite sexes and to be incomplete unless we join. I could go on with other examples, but I'm sure we've got the picture.

Clearly, the ideal for human society is the creation of families, male and female parents having and raising children. Legal recognition of SSC elevates that social organism as equally ideal in the construct of our society. By it's nature, we know it is disordered and not ideal, but society is now defineing it as not disorded and equally ideal. It is not a different, but equal state, like being male or female.

This post is long enough, I won't discuss C and D yet.

[cmotherofpirl]

Van would it ever occur to you that the "typical" answers are the correct ones?

That for thousands of years families had been a male and female team, for a reason?