Adoption by Same Sex parents vs Orphanage: Morality

[10gr8kids]

The fact that you’d deny a child to a loving homosexual couple is ridiculous. Straight couples don’t have the monopoly on being loving, good parents. I don’t think it’s very Christ-like t& think the Church needs to learn to accept the LGBT community into its tanks or it’ll fall into irrelevance.

Have you ever heard that history repeats itself? It is our society that is going to fall, and Christ’s Church will have to pick up the pieces.

 

[mommy_k]

I work with different adoption agencies and there are vast number of parents (man and woman) waiting for a child.
There is no need to send them to a couple that is not living a moral natural life.
There are parents waiting for kids for years.
This whole subject is so ridiculous when one actually sees the reality and not the common slogans that go around such as, “if they love each other” “the homosexual couples can provide a better environment”… Those are slogans that the proponents of this agenda want to inculcate in society. Truth is that they are not and the best and ideal environment for a child is to grow up with a mother and a father. Everything else falls short of that.
Those who advocate for homosexual couples to adopt don’t have a clue as to the reality of the matter. They want to say that all straight parents are horrible. What a big lie! Especially when it comes to parents who are willing to adopt.
Always strive for the best for the kid. That is with a mother and a father, unless someone wants to say they are unnecessary and irrelevant, which is not true.
Both have a different role and the family is really an icon of our life giving Trinity.

Actually your info is incredibly false…there are many waiting babies in other countries. In one particular country, late stage abortions are the norm becuase of overcrowding and dying babies in orphanages. Some toddlers are tied to potty chairs all day long-for hours and hours, morning until bedtime-- in orphanages so they do not excrete on the floor.
You cannot comapare orphanages in 1st world countires that have funding with 3rd world countires. If what the couple is looking for is a blonde blue eyed baby, perhpas then there is a wait.
Please don’t assume without all of the facts. “whats best for the kid” is that they are given the right to life-over anything else-
I have SEEN this with my own eyes.

 

[Magdalenaa]

Actually your info is incredibly false…there are many waiting babies in other countries. In one particular country, late stage abortions are the norm becuase of overcrowding and dying babies in orphanages. Some toddlers are tied to potty chairs all day long-for hours and hours, morning until bedtime-- in orphanages so they do not excrete on the floor.
You cannot comapare orphanages in 1st world countires that have funding with 3rd world countires. If what the couple is looking for is a blonde blue eyed baby, perhpas then there is a wait.
Please don’t assume without all of the facts. “whats best for the kid” is that they are given the right to life-over anything else-
I have SEEN this with my own eyes.

As a Catholic I believe that the union of a man and a woman is the ideal.
And as to the other information you try to insert as being accurate, let me tell you that what you just stated is so inacurate… “if the couple wants a blonde blue eyed baby”… what? Most of the people I deal with would be happy to take care of any baby. Most, if not, all go through enormous waiting periods and work directly with the mother.

And it is also inaccurate to think that a child can best grow in an environment where he or she is lacking a mother or a father. We should always strive to give the child all he/she needs.

If one thinks of the child then one would want both in the picture and not to put the child in a household that is not real in the first place. A farce based on sexual desires first.
And you have seen with your own eyes how great homosexual couples can be for a child, well I have seen with my own eyes how horrible it can be. All based on a lie.

 

[edwest2]

The fact that you’d deny a child to a loving homosexual couple is ridiculous. Straight couples don’t have the monopoly on being loving, good parents. I don’t think it’s very Christ-like t& think the Church needs to learn to accept the LGBT community into its tanks or it’ll fall into irrelevance.

Adoption agencies do the screening necessary. The Church’s position is quite clear. Catholic run adoption services have closed. LGBT persons are accepted as God’s children. Normalizing gay behavior and gay adoption are the issues where it teaches us the correct understanding of human relationships and behavior, and those that pose problems.

Best,
Ed

 

[casslean]

As both a Catholic and as a lawyer who has seen far too often what happens when there is a shortage of prospective adoptive parents (and no, they are not as plentiful as you think if the child is not an infant and healthy), I think the issue comes down to this: I would do whatever was in the best interests of the child in front of me. There may be situations where the best interests of the child, all things considered, are served by adopting them to two parents who will provide a loving home, regardless of whether or not they live by my standards of morality. Lots of people disagree with me on what it means to live a moral life, and yet they are wonderful parents.

I also don’t believe that children have to have a mother and a father to be happy and well-adjusted - and I think that is an archaic attitude we really need to dump for any number of reasons. Single mothers who find themselves pregnant should not be made to feel like they will be compromising their child’s future if they choose to raise the child themselves. Single fathers who are left raising a child should not be made to feel like they are incapable of fully parenting their children. God gives us the gifts we need to deal with the situations that He places before us - if that situation is raising a child in the absence of a mother or a father, no matter what the circumstances, He will guide us if we let Him.

 

[hehehehe]

Have you ever heard that history repeats itself? It is our society that is going to fail, and Christ’s Church will have to pick up the pieces.

it is ridiculous to think that society is inevitably going to fail because of homosexual parents in families. Denying children to caring parents is more of a reason for society failing I’m afraid.

 

[Birdpreacher]

May I point out that the date on the calendar doesn’t matter?

“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.”

Source: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Best,
Ed

How many same sex housholds did the drafters of the document know? Its a biased document in that the views of the Vatican are tied to a holy book that is thousands of years old. Today, in the year 2015, many people refuse to let such old books and doctrines dictate the way they perceive and experience reality. So yes, the date matters.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

I gather you do not mean two women living together as if they were sisters, but two women (or two men–it does not matter) living together in a relationship that teaches that homosexuality is the equivalent of heterosexuality, correct? It is the objectively immoral living situation that poses the difficulty.

Are there people here arguing that parents who have a threesome arrangement would pose no difficulties as adoptive parents, provided the situation was “committed” and their parenting was good in every other respect? Does it matter whether the parents run a legal prostitution venture? I find it hard to believe that no one thinks the sexual morality of adoptive parents make any difference at all.

What is new is that homosexual living situations are moving from immoral to “essentially moral” in the minds of many people. It is considered bigoted to say that it is immoral for homosexuals to attempt to live in an arrangement that is an outward imitation of marriage. In short, while people still believe that sexual morals matter, they want to make an exception when the people involved are pleasant homosexuals with steady jobs and with habits and values that are otherwise typically middle class.

Easter Joy raised a very interesting question that no one on this thread has yet answered. I would honestly be very interested in hearing the responses. To those who believe it is sometimes or always acceptable to place a child in an adoptive home with two gay/lesbian parents in a committed relationship: In what situations do you believe the sexual morality of a couple should make a difference in their being able to adopt a child? What if you have people in a committed “threesome” relationship? What about a family who practices polygamy (one husband, two or three or more wives)?

If people in situations like these have a committed, apparently stable relationship, should they be allowed to adopt? Why or why not?

 

[mommy_k]

As a Catholic I believe that the union of a man and a woman is the ideal.
And as to the other information you try to insert as being accurate, let me tell you that what you just stated is so inacurate… “if the couple wants a blonde blue eyed baby”… what? Most of the people I deal with would be happy to take care of any baby. Most, if not, all go through enormous waiting periods and work directly with the mother.

And it is also inaccurate to think that a child can best grow in an environment where he or she is lacking a mother or a father. We should always strive to give the child all he/she needs.

If one thinks of the child then one would want both in the picture and not to put the child in a household that is not real in the first place. A farce based on sexual desires first.
And you have seen with your own eyes how great homosexual couples can be for a child, well I have seen with my own eyes how horrible it can be. All based on a lie.

I have also seen starving children fed only watered down formula and sugar water until age 10 because of lack of funding. The list can go on and on…I have not been exposed to a gay couple adopting, but if it was to save a child from this -then fine.

My right to life opinion is stronger than my gay couple opinion. Obviously yours is different-
I am not advocating for the ss couples. I am advocating for the children, and that they have a right to life…

Should gay couple adoption supercede traditional family adoption-- No. But there are NOT waiting traditional familes in every case-

You are preaching to the choir here, as we have adopted children, I have seen it all, and hubby and I are devout traditional catholics.

 

[edwest2]

How many same sex housholds did the drafters of the document know? Its a biased document in that the views of the Vatican are tied to a holy book that is thousands of years old. Today, in the year 2015, many people refuse to let such old books and doctrines dictate the way they perceive and experience reality. So yes, the date matters.

I call this “the calender fallacy.” It is not an argument based on facts. I recall an actor being asked about why he allowed himself to portray a certain character that used certain words. His reply? “It’s the '90’s.” Wisdom and understanding do not come from the calendar.

What I often see here are various forms of psychological warfare. There is “perception management.” As a professional who works in the media, I see how it, and people on the internet in general, attempt to change the proper perception of reality. This is wrong.

The Vatican makes it a point to keep up with attempts to change things, and study them so that the faithful can be given insight and proper guidance.

Best,
Ed

 

[casslean]

Easter Joy raised a very interesting question that no one on this thread has yet answered. I would honestly be very interested in hearing the responses. To those who believe it is sometimes or always acceptable to place a child in an adoptive home with two gay/lesbian parents in a committed relationship: In what situations do you believe the sexual morality of a couple should make a difference in their being able to adopt a child? What if you have people in a committed “threesome” relationship? What about a family who practices polygamy (one husband, two or three or more wives)?

If people in situations like these have a committed, apparently stable relationship, should they be allowed to adopt? Why or why not?

I think we are at the heart of the issue with the way you’ve phrased your question - “Should they be allowed to adopt?”

For me, the question is not, “Should x be allowed to adopt?” It is, “is it in the best interests of this child to place them with this adoptive family or not?” When you change the question, the notion of having exclusionary categories becomes null and void, because instead of treating adoption like it is either a civic right or some tremendous honour bestowed from on high, we treat it for what it is: an endeavour to ensure that every child has a loving and stable family. And loving families can’t be categorized as being ONLY x or ONLY y.

 

[edwest2]

I think we are at the heart of the issue with the way you’ve phrased your question - “Should they be allowed to adopt?”

For me, the question is not, “Should x be allowed to adopt?” It is, “is it in the best interests of this child to place them with this adoptive family or not?” When you change the question, the notion of having exclusionary categories becomes null and void, because instead of treating adoption like it is either a civic right or some tremendous honour bestowed from on high, we treat it for what it is: an endeavour to ensure that every child has a loving and stable family. And loving families can’t be categorized as being ONLY x or ONLY y.

On the contrary, the Church has spoken about this type of situation clearly.

Ed

 

[casslean]

On the contrary, the Church has spoken about this type of situation clearly.

Ed

The Church, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, offered a position regarding the obstacles and problems faced by legalizing same-sex marriage. In the paragraph you cited, they were offering arguments from reason, based on the biological and anthropological order, as to why same-sex unions should not receive legal recognition. It did not state that a same-sex couple could not have or form a loving family.

The position advanced by the CDF is that the harm done by exposing children to these relationships is the greater harm that must be protected against. I am not obliged to accept that position wholesale without comment. While I acknowledge that the CDF may have valid concerns, I think there is a balancing of interests which can and should be undertaken to decide which risk of harm is greater.

 

[tamedlion]

The bottom line is that when we humans ignore God’s precepts and play the compassionate game, we end up polarizing the results. When it comes to comparing bad orphanages vs. loving practicing homosexuals the result is: In a bad orphanage a kid might end up losing this life but in a relativistic life style, he loses his eternity in heaven.

 

[JimG]

Some Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close simply because they refuse to place children with same sex couples. The Church considers that placing children in a disordered living situation constitutes child abuse; thus Catholic adoption agencies will not place children with same sex couples.

 

[Magdalenaa]

The bottom line is that when we humans ignore God’s precepts and play the compassionate game, we end up polarizing the results. When it comes to comparing bad orphanages vs. loving practicing homosexuals the result is: In a bad orphanage a kid might end up losing this life but in a relativistic life style, he loses his eternity in heaven.

Well said!
There are those who try to serve the God and those who serve Mulloch.

 

[edwest2]

The Church, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, offered a position regarding the obstacles and problems faced by legalizing same-sex marriage. In the paragraph you cited, they were offering arguments from reason, based on the biological and anthropological order, as to why same-sex unions should not receive legal recognition. It did not state that a same-sex couple could not have or form a loving family.

The position advanced by the CDF is that the harm done by exposing children to these relationships is the greater harm that must be protected against. I am not obliged to accept that position wholesale without comment. While I acknowledge that the CDF may have valid concerns, I think there is a balancing of interests which can and should be undertaken to decide which risk of harm is greater.

In a perfect world, we can make ideal choices. The CDF is not promoting same-sex parenting as a good thing. Or something desirable. On a related note:

ncregister.com/site/article/15089

Ed

 

[Coco82]

The bottom line is that when we humans ignore God’s precepts and play the compassionate game, we end up polarizing the results. When it comes to comparing bad orphanages vs. loving practicing homosexuals the result is: In a bad orphanage a kid might end up losing this life but in a relativistic life style, he loses his eternity in heaven.

That’s so ridiculous. A gay couple can raise a child to be a Christian as well. It’s not an either or situation. The Church and small minded people are the ones who are holding back here. Just because a couple doesn’t practice MY morality or lifestyle doesn’t mean they can’t be good parents and not all straight parents are perfect.

I’m glad to see some other opened minded people here.

 

[casslean]

In a perfect world, we can make ideal choices. The CDF is not promoting same-sex parenting as a good thing. Or something desirable.

This is kind of the point. We don’t live in a perfect world, so we don’t have the luxury of making the ideal choice. Sometimes we have to make the best choice in all the circumstances.

Of course the CDF is not promoting same-sex parenting. And, with all things being equal, I think there are advantages that a heterosexual family offers. But I also think that when things are not equal, we need to acknowledge that the most important thing for a child growing up in a family is love and stability, not who is providing it.

 

[tamedlion]

That’s so ridiculous. A gay couple can raise a child to be a Christian as well. It’s not an either or situation. The Church and small minded people are the ones who are holding back here. Just because a couple doesn’t practice MY morality or lifestyle doesn’t mean they can’t be good parents and not all straight parents are perfect.

I’m glad to see some other opened minded people here.

And where are you re-discovering Catholicism?