Is It Wrong For Gay/lesbian Couples To Adopt?

[Kitty]

I do not have a problem with gay couples (I think they should be allowed to marry), and they do not love children any less than heterosexuals do, as I've witnessed before how much many gay people really do love children. However in the case of adoption it's a bit complex. I do think that children need to be raised with a male and female. Perhaps if the gay couple had a opposite sex friend who played a stronger than usual role in their child's life, that would help.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Kitty

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1601321' date='Jul 16 2008, 05:28 PM']Considering gay/lesbian couples (by their very existence) are [b]wrong[/b], then yes, it is wrong for them to adopt.[/quote]
Heres where you are wrong...just because they are gay or lesbian doesnt make everything they do wrong. Yes they may be sinning by commiting homosexuality, but you cant say that it is wrong for them to buy a hot dog because they are gay! I think that many people in this world think the way you do.

[mortify]

To allow such couples to adopt children would signify an acceptance of their lifestyle.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='mortify' post='1618703' date='Aug 5 2008, 09:55 PM']To allow such couples to adopt children would signify an acceptance of their lifestyle.[/quote]

You beat me to it.

[havok579257]

[quote name='mortify' post='1618703' date='Aug 5 2008, 09:55 PM']To allow such couples to adopt children would signify an acceptance of their lifestyle.[/quote]


and yet we allow a non-married couples to adopt. so by your logic, we are supporting people not marring and living together as a couple.

[mortify]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1618820' date='Aug 5 2008, 11:05 PM']and yet we allow a non-married couples to adopt. so by your logic, we are supporting people not marring and living together as a couple.[/quote]

I know nothing about the laws concerning adoption, so I'm not sure what you're saying is accurate, but if it's true I'd find it problematic as well.

My question to you is, how does this problem justify making it worse by including couples with a grave moral defect (= homosexuality) into the picture?

[havok579257]

[quote name='mortify' post='1618841' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:26 AM']I know nothing about the laws concerning adoption, so I'm not sure what you're saying is accurate, but if it's true I'd find it problematic as well.

My question to you is, how does this problem justify making it worse by including couples with a grave moral defect (= homosexuality) into the picture?[/quote]


grave moral defect? wouldn't the same be said of sex outside marriage? we support that. how is that not problomatic?



my query is this: it is hipocritical for us to say gays/lesbians should not adopt because we view that as morally wrong when at the same time we have no problem letting un-married couples adopt children. both are mortal sins in the eyes of the church. which means doing either without absolution will send you to hell. so if both are mortal sins, how can we sit here and say no way should one group of people be allowed to adopt, but allow another when both are against church teaching?

either ban all un-married couples from adopting or allow gays/lesbians to adopt. if not, then we are pushing our desires onto the laws of man. Not to mention allowing one grave sin to be ok and another to not be ok is contradictory and makes us all as christians look stupid.

Edited August 6, 2008 by havok579257

[HisChildForever]

I suppose that the difference here ("accepting" a non-married couple to adopt while not "accepting" a gay couple to adopt) would be the idea of the instituion of the family. Yes, as Catholics we also do not support non-married couples who live together, but at the very least, the child would have the mother and the father.

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1618871' date='Aug 6 2008, 01:34 AM']I suppose that the difference here ("accepting" a non-married couple to adopt while not "accepting" a gay couple to adopt) would be the idea of the instituion of the family. Yes, as Catholics we also do not support non-married couples who live together, but at the very least, the child would have the mother and the father.[/quote]


That is SO hypocritical. So now we say some mortal sins are ok to allow because they in the faintest sense represent something good. For anyone to think that this is ok, it is horrible. So then by that logic, we should not support someone who does not go to church but be ok with someone who goes and worships at the church of Scientology, since it in the faintest sense is representative of something good, ie: God's christian church, both are churchs which by this logic means its better than not going to church at all and we should support them in this.

So now we should pick certain mortal sins which we are ok with and others we are not ok with and decide for ourselfs which ones we support and that they are ok as long as they have the slighest inclining of something good.


It sickens me to see people on here and out in public bash, oppose and protest gay/lesbian couples adopting children but don't say a thing about non-married couples adopting children. I have seen numerous protests against gay/lesbian couples adopting but have never once EVER heard of a protest against non-married couples adopting children. Its sickening that we as christians are ok letting certain moral sins happen but not others. Its hypocrtical and makes us all look horrible.

This involves a pot and a kettle and something black and its sickening. Either let anyone and everyone adopt a child(as long as the state deems them proper to be able to handle a child) or oppose all non-married couples who try to adopt.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1618886' date='Aug 6 2008, 02:30 AM']That is SO hypocritical. So now we say some mortal sins are ok to allow because they in the faintest sense represent something good. For anyone to think that this is ok, it is horrible. So then by that logic, we should not support someone who does not go to church but be ok with someone who goes and worships at the church of Scientology, since it in the faintest sense is representative of something good, ie: God's christian church, both are churchs which by this logic means its better than not going to church at all and we should support them in this.

So now we should pick certain mortal sins which we are ok with and others we are not ok with and decide for ourselfs which ones we support and that they are ok as long as they have the slighest inclining of something good.


It sickens me to see people on here and out in public bash, oppose and protest gay/lesbian couples adopting children but don't say a thing about non-married couples adopting children. I have seen numerous protests against gay/lesbian couples adopting but have never once EVER heard of a protest against non-married couples adopting children. Its sickening that we as christians are ok letting certain moral sins happen but not others. Its hypocrtical and makes us all look horrible.

This involves a pot and a kettle and something black and its sickening. Either let anyone and everyone adopt a child(as long as the state deems them proper to be able to handle a child) or oppose all non-married couples who try to adopt.[/quote]

I believe it was mortify who said that they would indeed have a problem with an unmarried couple adopting. Personally I am not sure... But HisChild might be on the right track. Whether the couple has been married civilly or not, they could have a natural marriage. The marriage would not be sacramental. If they are non-Christians it would not [i]necessarily[/i] be a mortal sin for them to live with each other, because it would probably not meet the criteria of full knowledge. That's sorta off topic, anyway.

The fact that the unmarried couple might be living in a state of natural marriage is enough to make a natural family a possibility. It is very subjective; the couple could be dealing with some really serious issues and might not be the best environment for a kid to be in, but then again, they might not. Again, if they are non-believers they may not be in a state of mortal sin. It's a case-by-case thing, I guess. The Church teaches, however, that homosexual relationships are intrinsically disordered and that even the non-sacramental natural marriage is impossible therein. Therefore it is not and can never be a suitable place for a family to grow.

Edited August 6, 2008 by aalpha1989

[havok579257]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1618898' date='Aug 6 2008, 03:27 AM']I believe it was mortify who said that they would indeed have a problem with an unmarried couple adopting. Personally I am not sure... But HisChild might be on the right track. Whether the couple has been married civilly or not, they could have a natural marriage. The marriage would not be sacramental. If they are non-Christians it would not [i]necessarily[/i] be a mortal sin for them to live with each other, because it would probably not meet the criteria of full knowledge. That's sorta off topic, anyway.The fact that the unmarried couple might be living in a state of natural marriage is enough to make a natural family a possibility. It is very subjective; the couple could be dealing with some really serious issues and might not be the best environment for a kid to be in, but then again, they might not. Again, if they are non-believers they may not be in a state of mortal sin. It's a case-by-case thing, I guess. The Church teaches, however, that homosexual relationships are intrinsically disordered and that even the non-sacramental natural marriage is impossible therein. Therefore it is not and can never be a suitable place for a family to grow.[/quote]We're not talking about couples who are married but not married through the Catholic church.  We are  talking about a man and a woman who live together, are not married civially or in a church, who have sexual relations with each other.  How is it ok to support this behavior?  How is ok to put a child in this enviornment?  We say we can't put a child inside a gay/lesbian home because we don't want to expose a child to that behavior, well what about the behavior that its fine not to be married to someone and have sex with them?Its funny, we as christians will do all we can do turn blind eyes to certain sinful things that either we don't want to acknowledge or ones we think aren't as bad as others.  Why is that?  We attack homosexuallity but yet we turn a blind eye to sex outside of marriage in adults?  Why is this?  Why do we become so hypocritical in these instances?

[HisChildForever]

[quote]So now we should pick certain mortal sins which we are ok with and others we are not ok with and decide for ourselfs which ones we support and that they are ok as long as they have the slighest inclining of something good.[/quote]

Okay, take a step back. I never said this, nor did I suggest that I was supporting the idea of approving of one mortal sin over the other. I do not approve of any mortal sin. I am just saying that in this situation, the "lesser of two evils" is a non-married couple adopting a child [b]over[/b] a homosexual couple adopting a child. You have to understand that we can not snap our fingers and expect for our society to immediately accept [b]and[/b] institute our moral codes (which are not just our moral codes, but the world's moral codes). You have to start small - even though neither one of these matters is small. You can't just storm into a governmental building, make these demands, and expect them to carry through over night. Once society understands the wrongfulness of homosexual "marriage" and adoption, only then will they understand the wrongfulness of non-married adoption. And since, as I stated, non-married adoption is technically the "lesser of two evils" since there is an idea, a glimpse, of a proper family, homosexual couples adopting should be our first priority when it comes to opposing the sin.

Edited August 6, 2008 by HisChildForever

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1619184' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:48 PM']Okay, take a step back. I never said this, nor did I suggest that I was supporting the idea of approving of one mortal sin over the other. I do not approve of any mortal sin. I am just saying that in this situation, the "lesser of two evils" is a non-married couple adopting a child [b]over[/b] a homosexual couple adopting a child. You have to understand that we can not snap our fingers and expect for our society to immediately accept [b]and[/b] institute our moral codes (which are not just our moral codes, but the world's moral codes). You have to start small - even though neither one of these matters is small. You can't just storm into a governmental building, make these demands, and expect them to carry through over night. Once society understands the wrongfulness of homosexual "marriage" and adoption, only then will they understand the wrongfulness of non-married adoption. And since, as I stated, non-married adoption is technically the "lesser of two evils" since there is an idea, a glimpse, of a proper family, homosexual couples adopting should be our first priority when it comes to opposing the sin.[/quote]


I never said storm into anywhere. We protest gay/lesbian adoopts because according to our faith its wrong. So at the same time we should also protest non-married couples adopting children. If not, then we are making our own rules and not following God's rules.


The lesser of the 2 evils does not work here and here is why. If a child grows up in a gay/lesbian house and becomes gay/lesbian, he is going to hell. If a kid is raised in an un-married house and he grows up to except that the norm and then does the same in his life, live with someone but not marry them, then he is going to hell. There is no lesser of 2 evils here. The end result is the child is having a bad influence wrought upon them that will lead them down the right path.

This is what I mean is sickening. We protest gay/lesbian adoption but turn a blind eye to un-married couples adopting. Just for the fact that we as humans and not under God's vision see one is worse than the other. Cause we as humans and not under God's law find one more offensive. Its sickening that we think we have the ability to say which moral sins are wrong and which moral sins are ok for us to let happen without putting up a fight against.


Also we as christian do not put every single ounce of effort into protesting gay/lesbian adoptions. We protest many other causes such as abortion, the death penalty and so on and so on. So if we are not putting all our eggs into one basket, then why can christians not protest at the same time, un-married couples adopting? We can, we CHOOSE not to because we figure its better to turn a blind eye to sin than confront it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1618693' date='Aug 5 2008, 10:47 PM']Heres where you are wrong...just because they are gay or lesbian doesnt make everything they do wrong. Yes they may be sinning by commiting homosexuality, but you cant say that it is wrong for them to buy a hot dog because they are gay! I think that many people in this world think the way you do.[/quote]
You are missing the point. The problem is not that they are gay, but that they are a"gay couple" trying to assert that is the same as marriage. It is not and never will be. So no, they have no right to raise children.

[HisChildForever]

[quote]Also we as christian do not put every single ounce of effort into protesting gay/lesbian adoptions. We protest many other causes such as abortion, the death penalty and so on and so on. So if we are not putting all our eggs into one basket, then why can christians not protest at the same time, un-married couples adopting? We can, we CHOOSE not to because we figure its better to turn a blind eye to sin than confront it.[/quote]

I would say that protesting abortion is ten times more important than protesting homosexual couples adopting. Why? Because abortion is the [b]killing of an innocent child[/b]. Everything is not as black-and-white as you might want it to be. It's very noble to be as righteous as you are being, but in our society, we're limited in the things that we can do. That's why I said it's important to take things one at a time.