Can a homossexual couple raising kids be called a family?

[Rau]

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.

Abusive parents are not ideal. That is not the appropriate loving relationship I nominated. Plse reread my post more carefully.

 

[on_the_hill]

I am glad everyone is happy.

I would term it a family with a divorce.

For a while we were calling them “blended” families. Is that term still used?

Just curious: Was Jesus “adopted” by Joseph? Was there any formal practice of adoption at that time that would have been followed in order to comply with Jewish law?

 

[LisaA]

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.

You posit a litany of horribles regarding what MIGHT happen in a supposedly ideal structure (mother, father and children) and then contrast with a non-traditional structure in which everyone is “so loving toward each other” that they all happy as can be. This is the exception, not the rule.

It’s not about individual situations but in looking at the concept of family and what overall structure should be encouraged and supported by society. It’s patently absurd to pretend that the lack of fathers in the home of a majority of minority families doesn’t result in an abundance of negative results. Lack of fathers results in POVERTY for one, single mothers are the poorest of family structures. Lack of fathers results in promiscuity in daughters and aberrant behavior in sons. The vast majority of youth involved in the justice system are in fatherless homes. It’s related to drug use, drop out rate, crime and violence.

I believe a perfect storm of feminism combined with a vast expansion of government benefits have in effect made fathers, in fact MEN in general unnecessary…a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle was the cry of the Femi’s of the 60s (I know I was one of them).

And no I do not think all single mothers raise little devils but you cannot ignore the reality that it’s not just God who modeled the ideal in the Holy Family, it plays out every day all around us. To relate back to the OP, the embracing, in fact celebrating of non-ideal family structures provides cover for those pushing a narrative that same sex couples can parent just as well as a mommy and a daddy. While we all know of situations beyond the control of the individuals that result in single parents, lack of a father, lack of a mother, that we would deliberately set this up and act as if this is equivalent to the ideal simply defies reality.

 

[on_the_hill]

vast expansion of government benefits have in effect made fathers, in fact MEN in general unnecessary

I read that Great Society programs provided an incentive for fathers to leave their families because social benefits were paid to fatherless families living in poverty. And supposedly, that’s exactly what happened, and black communities saw the Family, one of the bulwarks of sustainable social and economic success, disintegrate.

 

[on_the_hill]

And no I do not think all single mothers raise little devils

I absolutely agree. My father was 16 when he lost his father when he was killed in a railroad accident. My father-in-law was nine years old when his father was killed in a construction accident. Both had been lower-middle-class blue collar families beforehand, both fell into poverty afterward, and both grew up to have white-collar professional careers.

But life was different back then, too. There were fewer evils facing young people and more opportunities to dig out. And a stronger sense of Faith?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

For a while we were calling them “blended” families. Is that term still used?

Blended families…very good. I like that.

Just curious: Was Jesus “adopted” by Joseph? Was there any formal practice of adoption at that time that would have been followed in order to comply with Jewish law?

I will have to consult ancient Roman and Jewish laws and get back to you one that.

 

[LisaA]

I absolutely agree. My father was 16 when he lost his father when he was killed in a railroad accident. My father-in-law was nine years old when his father was killed in a construction accident. Both had been lower-middle-class blue collar families beforehand, both fell into poverty afterward, and both grew up to have white-collar professional careers.

But life was different back then, too. There were fewer evils facing young people and more opportunities to dig out. And a stronger sense of Faith?

Interestingly, if a father was in the home during some period during the children’s upbringing and later died, there is far less detrimental impact on the children than in situations where the father never was part of the child’s home environment but is completely absent or only there sporadically. Particularly when the mother can keep the father’s memory alive, he can still influence his children’s lives. This has been something noted with war widows or other young widows. Their road isn’t easy but having had a father in the home in the early stages of life and his absence not being considered abandonment makes his influence more lasting.

Also agree with your second point. Extended family church and community traditionally filled the void when a parent died. Our current society works against these positive influences by constantly agitating against faith in the public square, discouraging local solutions for large federal programs that are expensive, wasteful and ineffective. Our Catholic faith with its principle of subsidiarity would be so much more effective and compassionate.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

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.

So…. unmarried, engaged pregnant young women going on to marry their betrothed, who of course become stepdads raising kids who aren’t their genetic offspring is the divine model?

 

[EasterJoy]

For a while we were calling them “blended” families. Is that term still used?

Just curious: Was Jesus “adopted” by Joseph? Was there any formal practice of adoption at that time that would have been followed in order to comply with Jewish law?

At the time Our Lord was born, your mother’s husband was your father–period. That was the universal assumption made. When that was not so, it was expected that your mother would be living on the street. Even now, when a couple marries and the wife gives birth, her husband is considered the other legal parent unless someone shows otherwise. A couple who knows that their child has a father other than the mother’s husband can simply let the husband go into the legal record as the father, without saying anything to the state about the biological situation.

 

[Book_Worm]

Interestingly, if a father was in the home during some period during the children’s upbringing and later died, there is far less detrimental impact on the children than in situations where the father never was part of the child’s home environment but is completely absent or only there sporadically. Particularly when the mother can keep the father’s memory alive, he can still influence his children’s lives. This has been something noted with war widows or other young widows. Their road isn’t easy but having had a father in the home in the early stages of life and his absence not being considered abandonment makes his influence more lasting.

Also agree with your second point. Extended family church and community traditionally filled the void when a parent died. Our current society works against these positive influences by constantly agitating against faith in the public square, discouraging local solutions for large federal programs that are expensive, wasteful and ineffective. Our Catholic faith with its principle of subsidiarity would be so much more effective and compassionate.

Or the extended family and church couldn’t or didn’t step in, with unfortunate and sometimes tragic consequences. The government programs would not have been needed if that model worked as it should have.

The Church is closing schools and consolidating parishes. Our parish is in one of the most affluent towns in the country. Over the past three years, the weekly collection has gone from $12,000/week to $5-7,000/week. It’s not covering it’s operating expenses, let alone providing support for families who need it.

And charity programs can be run with less overhead on a smaller level but that doesn’t mean that they are free from waste and corruption. They have the added drawback of lacking a consistent, reliable source of funding. There was also the stigma of being forced to accept charity and having your family and neighbors look down upon you.

 

[religioussoup]

And no I do not think all single mothers raise little devils but you cannot ignore the reality that it’s not just God who modeled the ideal in the Holy Family, it plays out every day all around us. To relate back to the OP, the embracing, in fact celebrating of non-ideal family structures provides cover for those pushing a narrative that same sex couples can parent just as well as a mommy and a daddy. While we all know of situations beyond the control of the individuals that result in single parents, lack of a father, lack of a mother, that we would deliberately set this up and act as if this is equivalent to the ideal simply defies reality.

Celebrating of non-ideal family structures provides cover for those pushing a narrative that same sex couples can parent just as well as a mommy and a daddy.

Well why can’t they? Would you ever tell someone that their parents aren’t as good as your parents just because of their genders? If not, then why would you ever say such a thing online?

 

[Crow_and_dove]

It’s not about individual situations but in looking at the concept of family and what overall structure should be encouraged and supported by society.

“Loving and safe” is the structure that should be envouraged then, not a checklist of “norms”. If the only way your model works is to ignore spousal abuse, then it doesn’t work.

**It’s patently absurd to pretend that the lack of fathers in the home of a majority of minority families doesn’t result in an abundance of negative results. **Lack of fathers results in POVERTY for one, single mothers are the poorest of family structures. Lack of fathers results in promiscuity in daughters and aberrant behavior in sons. The vast majority of youth involved in the justice system are in fatherless homes. It’s related to drug use, drop out rate, crime and violence.

 

[marymary1975]

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?

It can’t be the same ount of love of a biological intact family because in a homosexual couple raising children at least one biological parent is missing or has given up the child, so the child will be missing the love and care of at least one biological parent. Because if that no homosexual couple can ever give the same amount of love of a healthy biological intact family.

 

[Rau]

It can’t be the same ount of love of a biological intact family because in a homosexual couple raising children at least one biological parent is missing or has given up the child, so the child will be missing the love and care of at least one biological parent. Because if that no homosexual couple can ever give the same amount of love of a healthy biological intact family.

I don’t know if this is reasonable. Do adoptive parents love their children less? There may be a difference - because the facts are different. But can we say that is reflected as less love?

 

[marymary1975]

I don’t know if this is reasonable. Do adoptive parents love their children less? There may be a difference - because the facts are different. But can we say that is reflected as less love?

With adoptive parents there is a difference in that the love of the biological parent generally has not been intentionally cut off. Most adoptive parents are doing a charitative thing in which they had no influence over the severance of the original bond. Also the second difference with adoptive parents is that in homosexual couples there will be missing the role of one parent of a specific sex. Two homosexuals cannot love the same as a mother so the love a mother will be missing and same happens with two lesbians the love of a father is missing.

 

[Book_Worm]

So you’re saying that the good is the enemy of the perfect?

Many homosexual couples adopt children out of charity. Is this somehow different because they are homosexual?

Fewer than half the children in the Zu.s. Grow up in a family with two biological parents.

 

[Rau]

I would have thought that all we can really say with confidence is that “other things being equal, we are best brought up by our natural parents”. And please note the “other things bring equal” bit…

 

[EasterJoy]

So you’re saying that the good is the enemy of the perfect?

Many homosexual couples adopt children out of charity. Is this somehow different because they are homosexual?

Fewer than half the children in the Zu.s. Grow up in a family with two biological parents.

Here is a question: If someone were to adopt a child and bring him up with money earned by committing a crime, would there be anything that isn’t “loving” about that? What if this person brings the child up well in all things, save teaching the child that this is a morally permissible way to make a living? If one were to say what the adoptive parent really needs to do is to figure out how to clean up his or her life in order to be a more virtuous model for the adopted child, is that attacking the charity that moved the person to adopt? Or is that instead attacking the idea that if someone adopts a child and loves the child, then nothing else about the way they live their life can possibly harm the child in any way?

 

[religioussoup]

It can’t be the same ount of love of a biological intact family because in a homosexual couple raising children at least one biological parent is missing or has given up the child, so the child will be missing the love and care of at least one biological parent. Because if that no homosexual couple can ever give the same amount of love of a healthy biological intact family.

Why is the connection of a biological parent so important? A lot of the time, when children are not raised by their biological parents, it’s because they cannot support them with love and life in the same way that another loving couple can. My friend is adopted (no connection to her biological category). With your defense, she is in the same situation and it seems, in your opinion, that she has been deprived of this love that MUST be provided by biological parents.

 

[LisaA]

So…. unmarried, engaged pregnant young women going on to marry their betrothed, who of course become stepdads raising kids who aren’t their genetic offspring is the divine model?

You must have missed the word MODELED by the Holy Family. That does not mean the ideal family has one child who is the son of God but the point being the mutual love and devotion between Mary & Joseph and between them and Jesus is the model of the best structure in which to raise children. Both Joseph and Mary love Jesus but they have different roles, Mothers and fathers are different…they react to their children differently, they have different roles in their upbringing, they demonstrate love in a different way and also important in their love for each other, model a husband and wife relationship for the children to emulate.

Of course not all traditional families are perfect so don’t set up that straw man. But as we can see, through studies and observation, when one parent is missing, the child is deprived of that special relationship with either a father or a mother. While in some cases a nuclear family suffers the loss of a parent, it was not established with this deprivation.

BTW you are mistaken as to Mary’s status. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, she was in effect his wife for all purposes but leaving her father’s home and moving into his home. This is not “engagement” that can be broken willy nilly.