Is It Wrong For Gay/lesbian Couples To Adopt?

[KOIfriend]

HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG AND THOSE SODOMITES SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ADOPT CHILDREN!

THERE, END OF STORY!

[Selah]

Fred Phelps...is that you?

[KOIfriend]

[quote name='Selah' post='1622144' date='Aug 8 2008, 10:53 PM']Fred Phelps...is that you?[/quote]

No.

Yep, another [url="http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/xenophobe.htm"]Xenophobe[/url]

[img]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/xenophobe.jpg[/img]

Copyrighted to [img]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/fwlogo.gif[/img]

[MissScripture]

[quote name='KOIfriend' post='1622150' date='Aug 8 2008, 09:00 PM']No.

Yep, another [url="http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/xenophobe.htm"]Xenophobe[/url]

[img]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/xenophobe.jpg[/img]

Copyrighted to [img]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/fwlogo.gif[/img][/quote]
Wow, I'm glad you came around to pass judgment on us! I don't know what we'd do without you! (/sarcasm)

[KOIfriend]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1622182' date='Aug 8 2008, 11:34 PM']Wow, I'm glad you came around to pass judgment on us! I don't know what we'd do without you! (/sarcasm)[/quote]

Ohhhhh, I got a bite there!

LOL!

You'd think of something, I know you could.

[lilac_angel]

Oops, I voted No and I meant Yes... sorry, guys. Just giving the heads up.

Still working on that cuppa.

I believe we should give kids a headstart on the natural order. The child's original parents were of two different sexes. That's how they came into existence. It would be a lie to them to deem them "the child" of a couple of the same sex. If they want to go screw up the natural order for themselves later, after instruction and guidance, that's their choice.

[mortify]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1622007' date='Aug 8 2008, 06:54 PM']What is better; to lie about how I really feel about an issue, or tell the truth? I am sorry, but no one, not even the Church, can force me to think otherwise.[/quote]

That's a very unfortunate statement, hope you understand what it implies.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1622007' date='Aug 8 2008, 06:54 PM']What is better; to lie about how I really feel about an issue, or tell the truth? I am sorry, but no one, not even the Church, can force me to think otherwise.[/quote]
As Morty said, I hope you know what that means. I sincerely hope that you do not receive the Eucharist, for to reject Church teaching and papal infallibility is to [i]not[/i] be in line with Church teaching, and thusly to not be in communion with her.

[Kitty]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1623501' date='Aug 10 2008, 01:28 PM']As Morty said, I hope you know what that means. I sincerely hope that you do not receive the Eucharist, for to reject Church teaching and papal infallibility is to [i]not[/i] be in line with Church teaching, and thusly to not be in communion with her.[/quote]

I do not ever recall hearing that you had to agree with every church teaching in order to receive communion. I have only heard that you must be in a state of grace and free from mortal sin. Is my freedom of thought a mortal sin?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1623511' date='Aug 10 2008, 01:04 PM']I do not ever recall hearing that you had to agree with every church teaching in order to receive communion. I have only heard that you must be in a state of grace and free from mortal sin. Is my freedom of thought a mortal sin?[/quote]
What do you think "being in [i]Communion[/i] with Rome" means?
Failing to find a paragraph in the catechism, I'll give you an article from Archbishop Pell of Sydney:
[url="http://www.tldm.org/News4/Pell.htm"]http://www.tldm.org/News4/Pell.htm[/url] (the article is actually pretty pertinent to the matter at hand)
[quote name='Article']"A person who publicly defines himself at any given time as supporting or practicing activities contrary to Church teaching in a serious matter is not entitled to receive Holy Communion."...[/quote]

[Vincent Vega]

Here's an even better one, from Then-Cardinal Ratzinger:
[url="http://www.tldm.org/news6/Ratzinger.htm"]http://www.tldm.org/news6/Ratzinger.htm[/url]

[Socrates]

I think this CDF document bears linking to again, and reading by those "Catholics" in favor of homosexual "marriages," "unions," adoptions, etc.: [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url].

The conclusion:[quote]CONCLUSION

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary[/quote]

The cafeteria is closed!

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1623536' date='Aug 10 2008, 01:33 PM']The cafeteria is closed![/quote]
The food's no good unless you took one of everything anyway.

[Norseman82]

Put me in with the "it's wrong for them to be a gay/lesbian couple in the first place" option.

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1618693' date='Aug 5 2008, 09:47 PM']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]

Oh, please, GIVE ME A STINKING BREAK, OK already! How in the world can one compare purchasing a hot dog with adopting a child? A hot dog does not have an immortal soul that can be scandalized.

[CatherineM]

Kitty,

There are four levels of teachings in the church. Dogma, Definitive Doctrine, Authoritative Doctrine, and Prudential Admonitions/Church Discipline. It's like a bulls eye with Dogma at the middle. Not everything that comes out of the Pope's office falls under infallibility. With Dogma we are to respond with a simple assent of faith, trusting that this teaching is revealed by God. This is Nicene Creed kind of stuff, and you have to believe and assent to Dogma in order to call yourself a Catholic. Definitive Doctrine requires firm acceptance. Authoritative Doctrine are those things that we should assimilate into our beliefs even while recognizing the remote possibility of the church being in error. Discipline and Admonitions are those ordinary teachings that we should respond to with conscientious obedience. We should obey them even if we question their ultimate value or wisdom.

For example priestly celibacy is simply a church discipline. You are allowed to disagree with the idea of it, unless of course you have taken a vow of celibacy, or are in a position of teaching the faith, in which case you can disagree privately, but you can not publicly teach against it. The church's teachings on gay marriage on not just an admonition. They are Definitive. You need to read and educate yourself on the church's teachings in this area. The church can't keep you from free thought, but you don't have the right to communion unless you are "in communion" with the church. It's not a social club.