Adoptions by Homosexuals: Do You Approve?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dolores49
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ja3712:
You entire outlook is really sexist. You are suggesting there are things that a man can do that women cannot do or vise versa. I think men and women are capable of doing anything the other sex can do. I dont understand where all this sexist thinking is coming from.
Click to expand...
ja3712 have you taken any biology courses? Maybe you would like to consider the significant physical differences between men and women. Men can father (biologically) a child. Women produce no sperm cells. Women conceive and bear and breastfeed children. I don’t know of any men who can do the same. Maybe you have some cites for this phenomenon?

Joking aside there are INNUMERABLE studies that demonstrate the differences between mothering and fathering children. They are equally important for raising of children but they are not identical. I’m afraid you have confused the two terms. Further there have been INNUMERABLE studies showing that single parent households (in effect the same situation as a homosexual couple) result in a HUGE increase in social problems including addictions, dropping out of school, out of wedlock pregnancy and encounters with the justice system.

If society is to do anything, it should promote and support two parent male female married couples in raising children. Anything else is going to be a detriment to children in general. (and no I am NOT saying NO single parents can raise kids properly but it’s a lot harder to succeed).

Thanks to CARose for the very thoughful and relevant reply. I too have come a long way in my thinking having witnessed what “feminists” have done to wreak havoc on society. The Church was right all along.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
Honestly teasing is the least of their problems. Don’t you think it’s hard for a child raised by two males or two females to REALLY understand and learn about male/female roles and interactions? We have seen so many ill effects of children raised without fathers. Something like 80% of men who are in the criminal justice system did not have fathers. Why would we subject children to not having a mommy or a daddy? I think it’s cruel to do this deliberately. It’s bad enough we have so many single parents through divorce, death, and abandonment. To deliberately choose a home without a dad makes no sense to me at all.

If parents are reported for abuse and neglect the children are removed from the home by state law. While you are probably right that not all are reported, the reality is that very irresponsible or abusive parents lose their kids. Further no one deliberately places a child in a drug house.

As to the theory that homosexuals adopt special needs children, do you have any statistics on this or is this something the homosexual lobby is trying to advance? Just curious as I’ve never heard this other than an anecdote regarding to male nurses who were adopting AIDS affected babies. I don’t think it’s that common

Lisa N
Click to expand...
I’ve seen several such families profiled on TV documentaries and specials.
 
I can’t understand why the state would voluntarily place children who are supposed to be under its protection into a living arrangement characterized by deviant sexual relations. It is bound to do the children harm.

It would be like placing a child for adoption by a pedophile–which, believe me, will be the next step. (It is even now being redefined as “intergenerational love.”)

That said, the greatest destroyer of children in the past 40 years has been divorce. Divorce has devastated marriage, families, and children. It has changed the nature of marriage–particularly ‘no fault’ divorce. Gays would not desire to be married if marriage still had the same characteristics that it had in the past.
 
I voted unsure. And, as I’m the only one so far, I guess I should say why.

If all children were to be adopted by a particular social group of people, then I would favor the healthily married heterosexual social group every time. …but, well, that’s like a utopia… it’s not going to happen in this lifetime.

So, what I see then left is one of two options: you let children continue on in orphanages oooor you let homosexuals adopt them. Which one is the better answer? Which foot would you like me to shoot off - both options suck.

Is the social development that a child going to get in a homosexual home going to harm them worse than the social development they’re going to get in an orphanage? I can’t answer that, but it would seem to me that at least by the numbers, a child has a better chance at social & personal interaction with an authority in a homosexual home. …but I also think that it skewers the childs perception about sexual roles in a relationship. …but then, well, probably all of that is already screwed up from the orphanage…

so, unless we’re all going to go out and adopt every single kid into a healthily married home, I think the topic needs to be studied and researched more as to the pros/cons concerning social development in homosexual adoption vs. leaving kids in orphanages.
 
…just to fuel discussion a little more…

I have a friend who is a single mother who adopted overseas. Now, she’s not homosexual… and she’s a great mother… and she has great support among her siblings.

Now, lets say that she was homosexual. …but a chaste homosexual as the church teaches. Does anyone have a problem with that? Or with single parent adoption in general?
 
I don’t really think that single parents should adopt children, there is no subsitute for a mother and father in a family setting. Not that single parents shouldn’t be able to raise their own children but that they shouldn’t adopt more. And heck no to homosexual couples adopting children…
 
ok another coward, who are you really 🙂

anyways, as to your question. I prefer to see children raised with both a mother and a father. When I was younger and still hadn’t met “Mr Right” I figured I’d just go ahead and have a kid on my own if no-one came along before I was 37 - 39. Didn’t think raising a kid alone sounded all that tough.

Believe me, it’s real work and it deserves two people taking the task on together, as much for the sake of the parent as the child!

And btw, I love parenting, but it’s work all the same!

Oh, for those who are attracted to the same gender but are living a chaste life, more power to you. It’s a difficult cross to bare, I can only imagine how tough it is. May God bless each and every one of you.

just MHO,

God Bless,

CARose
 
I’m married (yes hetero) and a father of 2… and I’m not even out of my 20’s yet 😃

…and my question wasn’t to get you guys to answer to the easy part… it’s to make you think critically about the hard part.

Yes, single parenting is hard. Certainly homosexual couples adopting isn’t desirable. But are both of these things worse than allowing a kid to be a number, a faceless child, in an orphanage? Where they are certain to come up against some of life’s hardest challenges?

I know a number of kids who came out of orphanages very socially damaged and quickly assimilated into drugs and gangs… not as a product of their new home environment but because that’s what they had learned to identify with in the orphanage. “Getting out of the orphanage” was just the reason to play along, but once out, the world became their oyster relatively quickly.

Maybe if these kids were adopted earlier on by one of our two less desirable social groups, they would not have found these lives of crime. Maybe they would be better off. I really can’t answer that definitively, but I know orphanages really didn’t do them much of a service.
 
40.png
siamesecat:
I’ve seen several such families profiled on TV documentaries and specials.
Click to expand...
Name them please. What documentaries and specials? Who sponsored them? The case of the nurses made the headlines and there are probably homosexuals just as there are heterosexuals who have taken on special needs kids. However unless you think that homosexuals are a) more willing and b) more able to parent these kids, it’s still not very compelling.

Again, if you have some kind of study that documents homosexuals taking on special needs children in any kind of significant numbers, your argument would have more weight. We can all cite incidents that will support our point of view. I think it’s quite clear where each of us stand on this issue

Lisa N
 
40.png
AnotherCoward:
I
If all children were to be adopted by a particular social group of people, then I would favor the healthily married heterosexual social group every time. …but, well, that’s like a utopia… it’s not going to happen in this lifetime.

So, what I see then left is one of two options: you let children continue on in orphanages oooor you let homosexuals adopt them. Which one is the better answer? Which foot would you like me to shoot off - both options suck.

Is the social development that a child going to get in a homosexual home going to harm them worse than the social development they’re going to get in an orphanage? I can’t answer that, but it would seem to me that at least by the numbers, a child has a better chance at social & personal interaction with an authority in a homosexual home. …but I also think that it skewers the childs perception about sexual roles in a relationship. …but then, well, probably all of that is already screwed up from the orphanage…

so, unless we’re all going to go out and adopt every single kid into a healthily married home, I think the topic needs to be studied and researched more as to the pros/cons concerning social development in homosexual adoption vs. leaving kids in orphanages.
Click to expand...
A couple of questions, I’m quite surprised to hear about all of these ‘orphanages.’ I thought that concept was pretty much a thing of the past. Now I do know of certain group homes–maybe you can call them orphanages–but in fact most of the children in these homes are NOT orphans. They have special emotional or medical needs and their bio parents cannot care for them, or they have become wards of the court and removed from the parental home. As to such special needs children, I’d sure prefer to see them in a situation where there are trained staff to deal with their problems than adopting them out (although quite honestly these kids tend to be deemed unadoptable) to well intentioned would be parents who do not have the training to raise them.

I’m involved with an organization that advocates for abused and neglected children. I have learned a LOT about the adoption process through this organization’s extensive training. All studies show that IF you can work with the bio parents, get them services (substance abuse, mental health, domestic abuse prevention) the kids are better off. The biological bond is very very strong and can withstand a lot of trauma. If termination of parental rights is the outcome of the case, there are not always good alternatives for the children. As you said, in utopia we’d all adopt a kid or two and get them out of the system. The reality is that many of these kids by the time parental rights are terminated, are real hardship cases and either not available for adoption or are deemed unadoptable (believe me I hate this term but it’s a reality). Further at a certain age, kids can demand NOT to be adopted. You cannot compel them to accept this course of action.

I guess after rambling here I’ll bring it all around by saying that of the kids available for adoption, many need very special, very stable, very patient and very dedicated adults to care for them. Given the transient nature of homosexual relationships (mostly I refer to males) and given the reality that these kids most of all kids need a strong parenting team, I’d be for NOT allowing adoptions by homosexuals.

Lisa N
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
No. It is not only the fact that these kids are denied either a mother or a father (after all, if never adopted they would have neither), but the harm that comes from placing the child in a dysfuncional, immoral environment. It would be better to have them adopted by a single parent.
Click to expand...

Better a single parent than parents who continually arguing, or violent parents, or parents who are chronic alcoholics.​

Why is there such a fuss about one group, and not about these others ? I think the “yuck” factor is the real reason many are against adoption by homosexuals; otherwise one would hear more about these other sorts of dysfunctional household. ##
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## Better a single parent than parents who continually arguing, or violent parents, or parents who are chronic alcoholics.
Why is there such a fuss about one group, and not about these others ? I think the “yuck” factor is the real reason many are against adoption by homosexuals; otherwise one would hear more about these other sorts of dysfunctional household. ##
Click to expand...

So you are suggesting adoption agencies seek out violent, argumentative, alcoholic and unstable couples for children? I have a friend who works in a Christian adoption agency that specializes in medically fragile children. I also volunteer for a child advocate organization. NEITHER private nor public agencies deliberately place children with problematic parents. Further there is an extensive screening process before a potentially adoptive home is approved. Would that we have such an extensive screening process for biological children!

I always wonder why people throw red herrings into a discussion. It is true that not all parents are perfect. However there is not a single study or any verifiable evidence that there is any better place for children to be raised than a STABLE two parent of the opposite sex married to each other home. This is indeed the ideal. It is worth striving for and pointless to make excuses that one bad home is significantly better than another bad home. Is adoption meant to be the lesser of two evils?

Lisa N
 
40.png
miguel:
I do not approve. I would like to offer this perspective from the Family Research Council:

frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3&v=PRINT
Click to expand...
Miguel great article! Thank you for posting. I hope the homosexual apologists read it before positing the theory that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples when it comes to raising children.

Lisa N
 
Gottle of Geer:
I think the “yuck” factor is the real reason many are against adoption by homosexuals; otherwise one would hear more about these other sorts of dysfunctional household.
Click to expand...
No Gottle, I’m sorry, the Yuck factor has nothing to do with my concerns!

CARose
 
There’s so much talk about homosexual potential adoptees being able to love and care for a child because of the “love” gays have for each other. Of course, they’re people. All people have the potential to love. They may love each other as brothers or sisters.

But, excuse me, the act of homosexual sex is a selfish one whether the participants realize it or not. There’s no life-giving possibility from it. It’s like contracepting. God is closed out of the act. The act is ONLY about pleasure and not both pleasure and potential life-creating – naturally – as God wills it.
No child can be created from their “union.” Some will say, well, what about infertile couples? The mere fact that some couples are infertile means something’s broken, unfortunately. Something’s not working right with their biology. And it’s terribly sad for straight couples who want to conceive and can’t.

Homosexuals, on the other hand are forcing their brokenness of same-sex attraction on innocent children. (Being less than 2% of the population – don’t buy the 10% lie created by Alfred Kinsey – they are an anomaly either by nature or from nuture, or lack thereof, actually). They want children, so by God they’re going to fight to have them! Either by adoption or surrogates.

Rather than joining a group like Courage where they are supported to live chaste and celibate lives and carry the cross of their burden in union with our Lord, they demand that the unnatural act of gay sex be legitimized in law through adoptions and marriage. What’s next, legitimize prostitution and knowingly let prostitutes adopt? They can love a child. Legitimize adultery? And let adoption agencies purposely put children into the homes of active and proud adulterers? Adulterers can love a child. Yet no one would allow a child to be adopted into these households. If nothing is a sin anymore, then let’s even let hard-working, tax-paying former child molesters and murderers who’ve served their time and are reformed adopt children. Let’s open the floodgate and not discriminate based on our “beliefs.”

We must pray for those suffering from homosexual attraction. But that never changes the fact the biblical together with Church teaching is and always has been clear on the sin of homosexuality. And to deliberately put kids into a household that fosters a sinful lifestyle to assuage, appease, or fall prey to false calls of civil rights in an attempt to be “inclusive” is child abuse, no different from heterosexual parents who sin in front of their children and cause great scandal to them.

Remember, Christ said “go and SIN NO MORE,” not “go and
continue sinning till one day sin is approved by trendy, secular nations.” Christ called for the conversion of sinners throughout this age.

Bernadette64
 
I find all this very amusing. Some people are so backwards these days. Father and mother is all role playing. By your reasoning the mother is suppose to be “emotional attached” and the father is suppose to be “emotional dettached” and that is a perfect family? What if the woman working all day and the man stays home and be the “mother”, still heterosexual but the “roles” are reversed. Its too medieval to think that the woman belongs in the kitchen and take care of children, especially ur a woman urself. I would only guess that you take pleasure if a man were to tell you “woman, go back to ur kitchen!”
The world is not perfect and there are few numbers of heterosexual couples willing to adopt. Most people prefer to have their own children. All we can hope for is the next best thing. Froster homes or “group homes” are ran by “heterosexuals” who love money from the government.
 
The thing that is supposed to trump any person’s “right” to be a parent is the child’s right to have a mother, a father, and a stable, loving home to grow up in. Priority should be given to married, heterosexual couples, regardless of their ability to procreate. When the world runs out of willing heterosexual married couples, then priority should be given to heterosexual singles, as they have the natural inclination to marry and produce the proper environment. Sorry gay couples, you will never provide the proper atmosphere to raise a child with everything that they need, regardless of how much you love them.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
The thing that is supposed to trump any person’s “right” to be a parent is the child’s right to have a mother, a father, and a stable, loving home to grow up in. Priority should be given to married, heterosexual couples, regardless of their ability to procreate. When the world runs out of willing heterosexual married couples, then priority should be given to heterosexual singles, as they have the natural inclination to marry and produce the proper environment. Sorry gay couples, you will never provide the proper atmosphere to raise a child with everything that they need, regardless of how much you love them.
Click to expand...
Good points. I can’t fathom that we have come to a point in civilization where any reasonable person would even think “gay” pretend families should be able to adopt children.

The Church says no and the Church speaks as Christ on these issues. Why do we place ourselves above Christ?
 
40.png
fix:
Good points. I can’t fathom that we have come to a point in civilization where any reasonable person would even think “gay” pretend families should be able to adopt children.

The Church says no and the Church speaks as Christ on these issues. Why do we place ourselves above Christ?
Click to expand...
Because we worship false gods. I am using ‘we’ as a generalization, not aimed at anyone here. But in placing ourselves above Christ we are self worshipping. It’s that same self worship that makes homosexuals think their happiness, status or self fulfillment is more important than a child’s right to a stable two parent heterosexual home.

Lisa N
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top