Can a homossexual couple raising kids be called a family?

[on_the_hill]

In a rare alignment, I basically agree with Zoltan.

When I picture a family, it is a woman and man who are married, and any children they have, either biologically or by adoption.

There many other arrangements, and they’re fine and dandy and I honestly don’t think they’re any less “family” than the traditional nuclear family. It’s just that those families are not what springs first to mind when I think of family.

Whoa–is that bad? Should I re-conceive all my family oriented conceptions? Is it insensitive or improper for me to think of family from the context I am most familiar with, that is, my mom, dad, siblings and me?

I want to be accepting of gay families, but it just doesn’t sit with me.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

I believe the point of the thread is to show how selfish gay people are in, not only wanting to marry, but also wanting to raise children in a family. They have purportedly sullied the holy meaning of both marriage and family, and are tearing down the long-established and successful moral foundations of society, and doing irreparable harm to children in the process by their following a well-coordinated and sinful gay agenda put forth by the secularist progressive culture of death. It is hardly a message of understanding, reconciliation, compromise, inclusion, or charity. Any other questions?

I guess Ruth and Naomi were selfish too. That poor traumatized Obed, being raised by the mother of his birth-mother’s dead husband. His two “mommies” probably really screwed him up, huh? That’s why God condemned them harshly… wait, no. Looks like their “abnormal family” went on quite well, right down to King David.

Or maybe there has never been a “normal”, only “family”. As far as I know, God never listed a family as being defined solely as two opposite-gender adults with some prolific number of offspring. Heterosexual couples are every bit as capable of perversion and corruption of youth as homosexual ones are, so you’ll need a stronger argument than that. You don’t want there to be any hurt children? Then spend less time worrying about the gays and more time helping foster kids and homeless teens.

 

[religioussoup]

In a rare alignment, I basically agree with Zoltan.

When I picture a family, it is a woman and man who are married, and any children they have, either biologically or by adoption.

There many other arrangements, and they’re fine and dandy and I honestly don’t think they’re any less “family” than the traditional nuclear family. It’s just that those families are not what springs first to mind when I think of family.

Whoa–is that bad? Should I re-conceive all my family oriented conceptions? Is it insensitive or improper for me to think of family from the context I am most familiar with, that is, my mom, dad, siblings and me?

I want to be accepting of gay families, but it just doesn’t sit with me.

No one asked you to re-conceive what you believe a “normal family” is. It just seems that some people on this thread imply that their concept of a “normal family” is the way all families should be. Like in your case, you are most familiar with a mother/father/children family, but there are SO people who do not match that family and I think everyone should learn to accept all types of families, especially the ones that they are the least familiar with.

 

[religioussoup]

Or maybe there has never been a “normal”, only “family”. As far as I know, God never listed a family as being defined solely as two opposite-gender adults with some prolific number of offspring. Heterosexual couples are every bit as capable of perversion and corruption of youth as homosexual ones are, so you’ll need a stronger argument than that. You don’t want there to be any hurt children? Then spend less time worrying about the gays and more time helping foster kids and homeless teens.

Couldn’t agree with this more. Amen, Crow_and_dove, this is something everyone on this site needs to see

 

[religioussoup]

How about an ab fab confab?

That’s cute, are you trying to come up with a name for homosexual families? Try the word “family”.

 

[meltzerboy]

I guess Ruth and Naomi were selfish too. That poor traumatized Obed, being raised by the mother of his birth-mother’s dead husband. His two “mommies” probably really screwed him up, huh? That’s why God condemned them harshly… wait, no. Looks like their “abnormal family” went on quite well, right down to King David.

Or maybe there has never been a “normal”, only “family”. As far as I know, God never listed a family as being defined solely as two opposite-gender adults with some prolific number of offspring. Heterosexual couples are every bit as capable of perversion and corruption of youth as homosexual ones are, so you’ll need a stronger argument than that. You don’t want there to be any hurt children? Then spend less time worrying about the gays and more time helping foster kids and homeless teens.

Please read my previous post carefully. If you do, you’ll find I’m on YOUR side concerning this issue. I was, however, responding in quite strong language to a question about what the purpose of the thread is.

 

[LisaA]

I believe the point of the thread is to show how selfish gay people are in, not only wanting to marry, but also wanting to raise children in a family. They have purportedly sullied the holy meaning of both marriage and family, and are tearing down the long-established and successful moral foundations of society, and doing irreparable harm to children in the process by their following a well-coordinated and sinful gay agenda put forth by the secularist progressive culture of death. It is hardly a message of understanding, reconciliation, compromise, inclusion, or charity. Any other questions?

Meltzerboy snark doesn’t become you nor does it make a very effective argument. I don’t know if the OP was being disingenuous or not but I think we have to approach the thread presuming it was a sincere question. Further if you read the many posts addressing gay “marriage” it’s clear most of us realize that the destruction of Natural Marriage started with promotion of birth control, followed by no fault divorce, followed by loss of stigma for being an unwed mother allowing irresponsible men to skate from responsibility, followed by cohabitation becoming almost the norm…marriage and family have been chipped away to barely resemble what was intended by God, best for society and children and the “formula” that has been the building block of society from the beginning of time.

Further someone posted that God never made reference to what makes a family and that is not the case for Christians. We believe the ideal is modeled by the Holy Family, mother, father and child, with Joseph the provider and protector, Mary the nurturer, both of whom are focused on their child. That the vast majority of families don’t live up to such an ideal doesn’t mean we just say do whatever you want and it won’t matter. Families do matter and if we’d done a better job supporting Natural Marriage and showing responsibility instead of constantly howling about our rights and demands, our society and most of all our children would have far better lives.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Society is re-defining what’s marriage and we know how wrong that is. But what to say about what’s constitute a family? Can a homosexual couple raising kids be called family or we are re-defining what’s a family? Is the term “family” only be designated as “man+woman+/-kids” or “divorced man/woman+kids”?

I understand the concerns with redefining marriage. But what a family is can mean mean something slightly different from one culture to the next and has certainly changed in the last few decades. I don’t have any interest in defining for someone else what family is if they believe they are one.

So yes, a gay or lesbian couple with child(ren) is a family as is a divorced man/woman+kids.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Society is re-defining what’s marriage and we know how wrong that is. But what to say about what’s constitute a family? Can a homosexual couple raising kids be called family or we are re-defining what’s a family? Is the term “family” only be designated as “man+woman+/-kids” or “divorced man/woman+kids”?

One can call a homosexual couple and child(ren) a family without any redefinition of the word, indeed one can use a definition that in fact predates the modern definition which people here are proclaiming is the traditional family. Before it meant the modern concept of husband, wife and 2.5 kids it referred to the family including extended relatives such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. and even before that it referred to the household, including members unrelated by blood or marriage such as servants (indeed, it actually comes from a word referring to servants/slaves).

 

[Rau]

…It just seems that some people on this thread imply that their concept of a “normal family” is the way all families should be…

No, I don’t think that has been said. What I believe was said - or implied - was that the ideal family is mum, dad and kid(s) [and potentially the broader family members] in the appropriate loving relationship. Who would argue that a family absent the father of the children (say) is ideal? It may be unavoidable or an unfortunate situation; it is not ideal, but the family is still a family and not to be denigrated for their misfortune, or for failing to match the “ideal”.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Fortunately, while you can deem them the only “normal” family if you wish, society does not agree with you, and it is society which determines what a family is.

The term that society uses to describe what you call normal as a “nuclear family.” The fact there is a term for this family group indicates that other groups of people are also called families.

So, to answer the OP’s question a homosexual couple and their children are a family, and no, that doesn’t mean that we are redefining family. It has meant more than just a nuclear family for a very long time.

I am not suggesting a redefinition of the family, nor am I claiming that society cannot call a group relationship anything it wants.

I am simply pointing out the fact that there are differences in what society terms “families”.
Since some of these group relationships are abnormal, it should be noted as such and termed accordingly to avoid confusion.

If an elderly widow living with her cat or a “Hippie Commune” can be considered to be “families”…then the term “family” has become so broad that it is meaningless.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

In my friend’s case, her parents got married and had her. They divorced. Her father remarried a woman who had divorced her husband previously and her mother remarried a man who had divorced his wife previously. They do not all live together, but are respective of each other and have given my friend an easier childhood than most divorced parents.

Are they not a family?

Was your friend raised by her biological Mother of Father?

They are all Christians, but I’m not sure why you were asking. Their religion in this situation does not matter.

This is a Catholic forum. Religion is important. Expect it to have a bearing on anything discussed whatever the subject.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No, I don’t think that has been said. What I believe was said - or implied - was that the ideal family is mum, dad and kid(s) [and potentially the broader family members] in the appropriate loving relationship. Who would argue that a family absent the father of the children (say) is ideal? It may be unavoidable or an unfortunate situation; it is not ideal, but the family is still a family and not to be denigrated for their misfortune, or for failing to match the “ideal”.

Thank you Rau, for your intelligent observation.

Perhaps the term “ideal family” would have been a better choice of words.

Since my definition of the Ideal Family (Normal) is a Mom, a Dad and the children they produce I am sure we ALL can agree that covers the overall, vast majority of world wide relationships traditionally known as a Family.

I am not trying to denigrate any family. Of course there variations. Some natural and some chosen. My point is that there ARE DIFFERENCES between families and without a recognized “benchmark” there can be no serious discussion.

I like the term Ideal Family. But your ideal and my ideal could be very different.

I used the term “Normal Family” because I did not want to get “into the grass” by referring to “abnormal families”.

Thanks again. I always appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[Book_Worm]

As a PP pointed out, the word comes from the Latin for servant and originally meant only the slaves and servants of a family. After that it meant all those living in a household, including servants and boarders.

In Muslim societies, the normal family might be a man, his multiple wives, and their children.

So society does determine what a “family” is.

And since Jesus was the Son of God, not Joseph, and Mary and Joseph had only one child, how well do modern Catholic families with their multiple children begotten through the normal process follow this ideal? Wouldn’t a widow and her son living with her second husband be closer to it? If a married person loses a spouse to death, have they somehow failed to live up to this ideal? Or are grandparents raising the children of a deceased child also somehow inferior.

I truly fail to see how our path to salvation is improved by taking upon ourselves the authority to determine what a family is and whether it is normal, ideal, abnormal or anything in between. What is important is how families function, not what we determine they are.

.

 

[Rau]

I truly fail to see how our path to salvation is improved by taking upon ourselves the authority to determine what a family is and whether it is normal, ideal, abnormal or anything in between. What is important is how families function, not what we determine they are.

I agree. Yet I have no difficulty observing that it is not ideal that a child is denied his actual parents through circumstances and raised by his grandparents. Nevertheless, they may do a wonderful job, and they may all constitute a wonderful family.

 

[religioussoup]

No, I don’t think that has been said. What I believe was said - or implied - was that the ideal family is mum, dad and kid(s) [and potentially the broader family members] in the appropriate loving relationship. Who would argue that a family absent the father of the children (say) is ideal? It may be unavoidable or an unfortunate situation; it is not ideal, but the family is still a family and not to be denigrated for their misfortune, or for failing to match the “ideal”.

Ideal? No, in my opinion, it’s not about what’s ideal. I assume to some people, a mother/father/children family is “ideal” to you, but when you have abusive parents or struggling siblings, is that ideal? In my opinion, an ideal family is a loving family. There are people, like in the situation you brought up, that have families with an absent father, and are so happy because their siblings and their mother(s) have been so loving towards them and care about them more than anything. In the same way, there are people with fathers that have been treated very poorly, even though they have matched your ideal family.

 

[meltzerboy]

Ideal? No, in my opinion, it’s not about what’s ideal. I assume to some people, a mother/father/children family is “ideal” to you, but when you have abusive parents or struggling siblings, is that ideal? In my opinion, an ideal family is a loving family. There are people, like in the situation you brought up, that have families with an absent father, and are so happy because their siblings and their mother(s) have been so loving towards them and care about them more than anything. In the same way, there are people with fathers that have been treated very poorly, even though they have matched your ideal family.

IOW, the family dynamic is more important than the family structure.

 

[religioussoup]

Was your friend raised by her biological Mother of Father?

She has been raised by the 4 people she refers to as her parents: her mother, father, stepmother, and stepfather. She is the happiest person I have ever met.

 

[religioussoup]

IOW, the family dynamic is more important than the family structure.

Of course! Why is their a debate on whether or not homosexual couples raising kids are a family or not when they are able to give their children the same amount of love as heterosexual couples?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

She has been raised by the 4 people she refers to as her parents: her mother, father, stepmother, and stepfather. She is the happiest person I have ever met.

I am glad everyone is happy.

I would term it a family with a divorce.