Adoption by Same Sex parents vs Orphanage: Morality

[edwest2]

So someone has to stay in the closet? That’s just bigoted. Get out of the past we’re in the year 2015.

I think some people’s problem with this “immoral” lifestyle is they have their heads in the gutter. If you stopped focusing on people’s private lives and saw them as people you’d see they’re just like everyone else, people who can live like we all do, laugh, cry, parent.

2015? So what? I worked for nearly 10 years with LGBT persons in a major hospital. We all got along. At the time, it was “stay out of my bedroom.” I didn’t give a second of thought to what they did after work. Recently, a sports celebrity appeared on CNN and told everyone watching to “stop being homophobic.” Those responsible for a crime or abuse or bullying are to be held accountable, not the whole neighborhood.

Ed

 

[Corki]

I meant ranks.

A homosexual couple can raise a child in a Catholic home. That’s totally possible. don’t tell me there aren’t good parents who are both LGBT and Catholic. .

Sure there are good parents who are LGBT and good Catholics but they aren’t actively participating in a homosexual lifestyle.

A homosexual couple **cannot **raise a child Catholic. Part of the responsibilities of a Catholic parent are to teach the child the faith and to make sure the child understands right from wrong. It’s theoretically possible that a homosexual couple could hide their relationship from the child initially but that isn’t a permanent solution. Or they could try a “do as I say, not as I do approach”. But to live actively as a homosexual couple and to let the child believe there is nothing sinful in that is to fail in raising the child Catholic.

Immoral lifestyle? I don’t see that as immoral and think the people on this forum aren’t the good Catholics they pretend to be but rather people who’d rather judge others’ private lives.

Part of being a good person, let alone a good Catholic, is the ability to recognize good and evil and to try to always choose the former. One cannot be a good person without the ability to judge.

A child can have just as good a home as with homosexual parents as straight parents

Not really. First of all, a child can’t really have homosexual parents (plural). A child can have a homosexual parent (singular) who has a partner. A child being raised by a homosexual couple is, by definition, being deprived of either a mother or a father. That’s not a good thing.

 

[SonOfMan]

Again: This is a Catholic forum, not the “vast majority of the population.” The Church is not only a good “discerner” of morality here, but is recognized for what she is: the* definitive *“discerner” of faith and morals.

Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words - go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. Matt. 10:14-15

(Did you notice that there was no concern about “staying relevant”?)

Pope Francis is certainly trying to keep the Church relevant.

Besides, isnt the “vast majority of the population” the people who youre trying to reach and sway in being anti SSM, or in the case of this thread, anti gay adoption? Suddenly relevance is important.

 

[SonOfMan]

ICAM .

Hi Coco, what is ICAM?

 

[SonOfMan]

Just out of curiosity:
Question 1: Who do you think the vast majority of the population sees as the *most definitive *authority on morality?

Society, their consciences, and for many its God (not necessarily The Church).

Question 2: Who do you consider to be your own most definitive authority on morality?

My reason and my conscience. It done a pretty decent job so far and keeps me sufficiently moral- I’m not a meth ring leader yet

 

[Coco82]

Hi Coco, what is ICAM?

I Can’t Agree More

 

[Coco82]

Sure there are good parents who are LGBT and good Catholics but they aren’t actively participating in a homosexual lifestyle.

A homosexual couple **cannot **raise a child Catholic. Part of the responsibilities of a Catholic parent are to teach the child the faith and to make sure the child understands right from wrong. It’s theoretically possible that a homosexual couple could hide their relationship from the child initially but that isn’t a permanent solution. Or they could try a “do as I say, not as I do approach”. But to live actively as a homosexual couple and to let the child believe there is nothing sinful in that is to fail in raising the child Catholic.

Part of being a good person, let alone a good Catholic, is the ability to recognize good and evil and to try to always choose the former. One cannot be a good person without the ability to judge.

Not really. First of all, a child can’t really have homosexual parents (plural). A child can have a homosexual parent (singular) who has a partner. A child being raised by a homosexual couple is, by definition, being deprived of either a mother or a father. That’s not a good thing.

So are they supposed to be celibate? Give me a break. You’re living in a fantasy land if you believe anything you wrote. If a couple are committed to each other why can’t they raise a child? I would never presume to have a couple hide their relationship from their child or say it’s wrong. That you said that shows how small minded you are and how narrow your scope of the world is. I think your and the Church’s ignorant and outdated teachings on sexuality as a whole are its problem. Someone shouldn’t be made to feel less than they are because of what they are.

The fact that you aren’t willing to be open minded and hold on to such a view (when it is not the only way) is telling.

 

[jtauke]

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.

Easy for you to say when you’re 1000 miles away from the situation and not the one who’s losing their life. Not to mention you make the ridiculous assumption that somehow, being adopted by a same sex couple would condemn a child to hell.

By your logic, adoptions should only be allowed to practicing Catholics who are married. If the child were adopted by a Jewish, non-Catholic Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, pagan, etc, etc family, they would be just as condemned, right?

 

[Kal2012]

1. God’s truth doesn’t die because we live in the 21st century.

He’s the same God yesterday, today and tomorrow - so** please just stop **acting like changing the date on the calendar is going to change what’s in the CCC.

1. I get that SS parents aren’t necessarily morally correct, but not everyone as great hetero parents either. It’s better to be in a home than a state-ran child care facility.

In the end, though, ideally, every child deserves a mom and a dad.

Some of the kids raised with same-sex parents filed an amicus brief against allowing SSM to be legally recognized by the Supreme Court. That speaks volumes to me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae (for additional info). If you don’t like wiki, then you can find other sources for a definition through google.

 

[Corki]

So are they supposed to be celibate? Give me a break. You’re living in a fantasy land if you believe anything you wrote. If a couple are committed to each other why can’t they raise a child? I would never presume to have a couple hide their relationship from their child or say it’s wrong. That you said that shows how small minded you are and how narrow your scope of the world is. I think your and the Church’s ignorant and outdated teachings on sexuality as a whole are its problem. Someone shouldn’t be made to feel less than they are because of what they are.

Read what I actually wrote instead of what you assume I mean.

Yes, we are all called to chastity. For a homosexual person, that chastity will almost always mean celibacy. This is not fantasy; it’s the lived reality of thousands of faithful Catholics who consider themselves to be homosexual.

A homosexual couple wouldn’t have to hide anything if they hadn’t tried to create a “family” while also practicing an immoral lifestyle. The question was about whether it was possible for a homosexual couple to raise a child Catholic. Raising a child Catholic means teaching that child right from wrong, including teaching the child (when he/she is old enough to understand) that homosexual activities are gravely sinful and that homosexual relationships are wrong. How can a homosexual couple do that? And if they can’t, then they can’t faithfully raise the child Catholic.

The fact that you aren’t willing to be open minded and hold on to such a view (when it is not the only way) is telling.

Telling of what? That I am a Catholic who tries as best as I can to follow Church teaching? Well, then I guess I am guilty. But not sorry.

 

[EasterJoy]

So are they supposed to be celibate? Give me a break. You’re living in a fantasy land if you believe anything you wrote. If a couple are committed to each other why can’t they raise a child? I would never presume to have a couple hide their relationship from their child or say it’s wrong. That you said that shows how small minded you are and how narrow your scope of the world is. I think your and the Church’s ignorant and outdated teachings on sexuality as a whole are its problem. Someone shouldn’t be made to feel less than they are because of what they are.

The fact that you aren’t willing to be open minded and hold on to such a view (when it is not the only way) is telling.

You wouldn’t have someone say that their sexual behaviors are wrong even when the behaviors are in fact wrong? Or do you believe that sexual consort between consenting adults cannot be wrong? Forgive me if you don’t think that way, but you must admit that there are many who believe that anyone who expects abstinence in the unmarried and fidelity in marriage is “living in Fantasyland,” too. There are those who believe that there should be no sexual morality that is more binding than “thou shalt not commit rape or sexual assault.” A good many of them write scripts for television and for the movies.

That is the root of this whole thing, isn’t it? People who favor same-sex marriage have come to believe that there is nothing inherently disordered about genital actions between persons of the same sex or between persons who aren’t married. No! Even more! They have come to believe that there is no difference whatsoever between homosexual acts and sexual intercourse between married persons who happen to be infertile!! All sex that leads to climax is created equally, is that it? I will tell you, there are many out there who believe that anyone who has a problem with this is a backward straitlaced bigot who is living in Fantasyland!

You say, “someone shouldn’t be made to feel less than they are because of what they are.” Are you saying that we are no more than our biological inclinations, and that when we are not allowed to act on those inclinations then anyone trying to stop us must therefore be trying to demean us? That is the way some people talk, when it comes to sex! If someone has a durable inclination to act in a certain way that is objectively disordered, it is not enough to be understanding about how difficult such inclinations can be. No, by this mindset, “true compassion” requires the pretense that the disordered act be treated as merely an alternative normative way of acting in those who have a very strong inclination to act that way.

The Church’s teachings are not ignorant and outdated. It is the psychological community that has caved in to political pressure to normalize homosexual inclinations: not only that, but to re-frame them as an equal alternative to heterosexual inclinations. That took some intellectual twisting, but peer pressure is a powerful thing. Now the Church is being shouted down as “irrelevant” and “outdated” and even “bigoted” for resisting that pressure. Heaven forbid that the Church give up her resistance to such a pack of lies.

Again: Can I imagine a situation where a child would be better off in some particular brothel than in some other particular orphanage? Yes, I can. Does that mean the sexual situation in some particular home is irrelevant? Let us hope not!!

 

[edwest2]

So are they supposed to be celibate? Give me a break. You’re living in a fantasy land if you believe anything you wrote. If a couple are committed to each other why can’t they raise a child? I would never presume to have a couple hide their relationship from their child or say it’s wrong. That you said that shows how small minded you are and how narrow your scope of the world is. I think your and the Church’s ignorant and outdated teachings on sexuality as a whole are its problem. Someone shouldn’t be made to feel less than they are because of what they are.

The fact that you aren’t willing to be open minded and hold on to such a view (when it is not the only way) is telling.

This is a Catholic forum. Our duty as Catholics is to spread the truth based on the wisdom and teaching of the Church. And while we can ask for clarification about something we do not understand, there is nothing vague here. So, once we convey Church teaching as best we can, that is it.

In 1968, the common wisdom was that the Church was ignorant and outdated regarding its teachings regarding human sexuality. For those who followed what the Church told us was right and true, nothing has changed regarding the Church’s well-reasoned arguments.

If one does not accept Church teaching then why feel anything?

Ed

 

[mommy_k]

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.

Wow-so you think it’s better to have a dead child then raised by ss couple?

it is also a precept of God to be right to life, so your post and opinion is relativistic as well–

 

[EasterJoy]

Wow-so you think it’s better to have a dead child then raised by ss couple?

it is also a precept of God to be right to life, so your post and opinion is relativistic as well–

Where did tamedlion say that? The poster was referring to the spiritual death of being mislead into willful rejection of moral law. It is not that the prospective parents have some inclination or other. It is that they fully intend to teach the child falsehoods about moral law.

Listen to what is being posted here. I don’t think there is a single person who does not assume that the same-sex couple in question is going to teach any children they adopt that the Catholic Church is in error with regards to homosexual acts, that the Church lacks mercy and compassion, that the Church does not have the authority to teach morals, that it is offensive and bigoted to teach that committed homosexual unions are not the equivalent of marriage, and so on. They are going to teach their children that sexual complementarity has nothing to do with God’s plan for marriage, and they may not teach their children that God has any “plan” for marriage at all, but rather that marriage is a cultural construct invented by humans and that marriage, family life and procreation have no necessary connection to each other.

 

[tamedlion]

Where would you like to spend eternity? Remember that the worst lie is the one closest to the truth. What kind of truth would a child be getting from a practicing same sex couple that refuses to obey what Christ teaches through His church while at the same time seems that they’re doing other good things? Remember that a lot of historical characters have meant well on their deeds and have ended in terrible error. Do I want orphans to suffer in this life? absolutely NOT. Easter Joy understood my point but others have prove my point exactly that when we play the compassionate game without the teachings of God, we end up creating a mess.

 

[mommy_k]

Well, I for one am happy that my interpretation of the post was incorrect.

However, children living in orphanages are not bering led to God either.

The problem is this–adoption should not be a plan “B” —, limited to those who cannot physically give birth.SS couples have no other choice— but some of us do.

Adoption is not for everyone I agree, however, until more Catholic families step up and reverse the statisitcs, this will continue to be an issue.

To compound the problem, one poster states she is an adoption professional and also states there are not eonough children to adopt and so on (false), goes on about wait times (yes they can be long, but worth it) … This is totally discouraging other holy traditional families from pursuing this.

So the morality part of this equation is-what are Catholic familes doing to correct this?

 

[bitterhope]

Well, I for one am happy that my interpretation of the post was incorrect.

However, children living in orphanages are not bering led to God either.

The problem is this–adoption should not be a plan “B” —, limited to those who cannot physically give birth.SS couples have no other choice— but some of us do.

Adoption is not for everyone I agree, however, until more Catholic families step up and reverse the statisitcs, this will continue to be an issue.

To compound the problem, one poster states she is an adoption professional and also states there are not eonough children to adopt and so on (false), goes on about wait times (yes they can be long, but worth it) … This is totally discouraging other holy traditional families from pursuing this.

So the morality part of this equation is-what are Catholic familes doing to correct this?

I have agreed with everything you’ve written on this thread. I’m sad more people don’t seem to. Too many children are continuously cast aside and they are the ones that suffer. It is not very pro life to just make sure little ones are born but nothing more is ever done for them. Being stuck in a third world orphanage is a sure way to produce children that are angry at God and the world, if they survive at all. How is that better?

I do wonder, though, why so many couples are turned down by adoption agencies. I have three close friends that have tried for years to adopt children, but they have not found an agency willing to allow it. They are all military couples and it seems that the agencies are stating that the families are not stable enough and they are also unable to come up with the references because it’s tough to find local families that have known us long enough to qualify. The entire system really needs to be over hauled.

 

[mommy_k]

I have agreed with everything you’ve written on this thread. I’m sad more people don’t seem to. Too many children are continuously cast aside and they are the ones that suffer. It is not very pro life to just make sure little ones are born but nothing more is ever done for them. Being stuck in a third world orphanage is a sure way to produce children that are angry at God and the world, if they survive at all. How is that better?

I do wonder, though, why so many couples are turned down by adoption agencies. I have three close friends that have tried for years to adopt children, but they have not found an agency willing to allow it. They are all military couples and it seems that the agencies are stating that the families are not stable enough and they are also unable to come up with the references because it’s tough to find local families that have known us long enough to qualify. The entire system really needs to be over hauled.

Thank you Bitterhope-
Your adoption agency does not necessarily need to be your homestudy agency, or social worker, which puts together your approval packet. The homestudy agency qualifies you, and the adoption agency finds a child for you. Sometimes the adoption agency does both.

Thoroghly investigate both before giving a fee to either and make sure the adoption agency honors independent homestudies. There are homestudy agencies that are certified and licensed to perform these on a state, and national level. Most homestudy agencies will work with you regarding references-and they can come from friends, co workers and extended family.

Please tell your friends not to give up–
There are various rules for each country as well, and persistance and patience pays off.

 

[Allegra]

I think that preference should be given to homes with a mother and a father when placing a child. Given the same credentials, a home with a mother and father is going to be better for a child than a home without.

I don’t think it should be illegal for a homosexual person to adopt, however, because I think there are some exceptions.

For instance, if one of the couple is a relative of the child, then that allows the child to remain in their own biological family and maintain crucial relationships with grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, etc.

Another exception would be a situation where the homosexual candidate has special credentials that would allow them to be a parent to a special needs child that otherwise may not be adoptable. Because of my job, I know a few lesbian couples who have extensive special training to care for and teach children with severe autism, deafness, blindness, severe emotional disturbance and other conditions which severely limit their adoption and even foster care prospects. (I don’t mean a couple months of weekend classes, but PHDs and decades of experience in special education.) The dichotomy is very real for those kids. It’s between the gay couple that can offer a consistent home that is ideal for their disability, or a lifetime of institutionalization.

I think that Jesus would want us to do what is best for that child, given the options available. I don’t think the prospective parents “rights” have anything to do with it.

 

[Corki]

I think that preference should be given to homes with a mother and a father when placing a child. Given the same credentials, a home with a mother and father is going to be better for a child than a home without.

I don’t think it should be illegal for a homosexual person to adopt, however, because I think there are some exceptions.

For instance, if one of the couple is a relative of the child, then that allows the child to remain in their own biological family and maintain crucial relationships with grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, etc.

Another exception would be a situation where the homosexual candidate has special credentials that would allow them to be a parent to a special needs child that otherwise may not be adoptable. Because of my job, I know a few lesbian couples who have extensive special training to care for and teach children with severe autism, deafness, blindness, severe emotional disturbance and other conditions which severely limit their adoption and even foster care prospects. (I don’t mean a couple months of weekend classes, but PHDs and decades of experience in special education.) The dichotomy is very real for those kids. It’s between the gay couple that can offer a consistent home that is ideal for their disability, or a lifetime of institutionalization.

I think that Jesus would want us to do what is best for that child, given the options available. I don’t think the prospective parents “rights” have anything to do with it.

Well said. Common sense in these situations goes a long way. The problems only arise when activists want adoption placements to be “blind” in terms of the ability of the family to provide a loving mother and father or when laws are changed to prevent agencies, especially faith-based ones from giving that preference.