Children with gay parents

[Elizabeth502]

And gays do have the right to be protected against discrimination.

But so too do children. Perhaps even more so because they are so vulnerable.

I mentioned that I was brought up without a male role model in my adolescence. I should probably also clarify that I (male) was brought up by two women. But they were only same-sex partners to the extent that they were both women: they were biological sisters, and we moved in with my spinster aunt after my father died as my mother’s health was too fragile for her to go back to work and we were too poor to live alone.

…

But my aunt, was not and could not ever be a substitute for my father. …

I was deprived of my father by his death. Some people split up and their kids are deprived of one of their parents (usually the father) in this manner as well; shared custody just isn’t the same as a united family living under the same roof.

…
Research is one thing. At the end of the day research is just numbers on paper. Sure we end up well-adjusted, eventually, and manage to overcome our grief and move on.

But inside of us, we fatherless sons feel a deep wound that persists to this day.

As do motherless daughters, fatherless daughters, and motherless sons.

My father died 39 years ago, and would be 97 years old if he were still alive, but I still feel the hurt at times and think about him a lot. I also know the son of a gay man whose father left his mother to go on and live out his sexuality. He’s in his 30s now, and he feels more or less the same sense of loss that I did. But it was even worse, he came to resent his father. In my case my parents had a loving marriage up until the day he died.

You will argue, rightly from a scientific perspective that this is all anecdotal and I will agree with that aspect as I was trained as a scientist myself. But my friend, ***what lies locked in the secrets of our hearts is something that the research will probably never capture on paper. On the surface, myself and the son of a gay man I spoke of, both appear normal. We’ve married, had kids of our own, I have a successful career, the other fellow (now in his 30s) has gone back to school to get a university degree.

That’s likely what the research will capture. Not the deep hurt***.

And in fact, the research that has been conducted to date is pathetically superficial. I have read it. It doesn’t begin to measure what this poster experienced, nor others like him have experienced. It investigates lame trends and statistics like “Did the grown children of these experiments become criminals?” “Did they have 3 friends on the playgorund?” “Did they join social & physical activities such as ice-skating & gymnastics?” “Did they eventually get careers?” There has been absolutely nothing probative in the research.

Please.

And “substitute parents” don’t cut it as an equivalent replacement, as this poster just described.

Biology runs deep and cannot be artificially separated from our psychological development, self-concept, and internal integration. When death or divorce occurs, yes, people, including children, move on. But to deliberately set up an environment with an imbalance is a grave injustice to vulnerable, powerless dependents.

 

[Jermosh]

What does that mean?

Explain, please.

Anything Man does it less then optimal, we have been like this since the Great Fall.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Anything Man does it less then optimal, we have been like this since the Great Fall.

if it’s that simple - that nothing is optimal - then why even suggest that something is less than optimal. Why not match your “less than optimal” argument for homosexual households with one for heterosexual households as well? Obviously, the context of “after the fall” has already been assumed, and whatever is considered optimal is meant to mean “whatever is optimal, post-fall (i.e., given the circumstances at hand).” You’re “everything is less than optimal” suggestion is obvious backtracking.

I shouldn’t be surprised. Everyone is torn between wanting to become more progressive for the good and nourishment of society, and sticking to bronze-age bigotry about sexual orientations. But what’s worse than having such views is having them and lying about it.

 

[Jermosh]

if it’s that simple - that nothing is optimal - then why even suggest that something is less than optimal. Why not match your “less than optimal” argument for homosexual households with one for heterosexual households as well? Obviously, the context of “after the fall” has already been assumed, and whatever is considered optimal is meant to mean “whatever is optimal, post-fall (i.e., given the circumstances at hand).” You’re “everything is less than optimal” suggestion is obvious backtracking.

I shouldn’t be surprised. Everyone is torn between wanting to become more progressive for the good and nourishment of society, and sticking to bronze-age bigotry about sexual orientations. But what’s worse than having such views is having them and lying about it.

Maybe we are having a failure to communicate. What do you think I am saying?

 

[Qoeleth]

It would be better for the children to be removed, rather than seeing the sinful example of their ‘parents,’ which is an abomination.

Part of the problem with Christians is they are two afraid of offending people. But we are dealing with serious matters, the eternal fate of the immortal soul. Remember this:
“Think not that I am come to bring peace on earth: I am come not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against a mother, and daughter in law against mother in law.” (Matt 10:34-35)’

 

[Jermosh]

It would be better for the children to be removed, rather than seeing the sinful example of their ‘parents,’ which is an abomination.

Part of the problem with Christians is they are two afraid of offending people. But we are dealing with serious matters, the eternal fate of the immortal soul. Remember this:
“Think not that I am come to bring peace on earth: I am come not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against a mother, and daughter in law against mother in law.” (Matt 10:34-35)’

Then why stop at Gays, take the kids from single mothers, adulters, drunks, etc, etc.

 

[pnewton]

Then why stop at Gays, take the kids from single mothers, adulters, drunks, etc, etc.

Being single is not sinful. As far as the other two go, the court does sometimes remove kids from such environments.

 

[Jermosh]

Being single is not sinful. As far as the other two go, the court does sometimes remove kids from such environments.

Being single can be sinful, being a drunk is sinful, living in adultry is sinful. Or am I missing that being Gay is the only sin mentioned in the bible?

 

[StrawberryJam]

It would be better for the children to be removed, rather than seeing the sinful example of their ‘parents,’ which is an abomination.

Part of the problem with Christians is they are two afraid of offending people. But we are dealing with serious matters, the eternal fate of the immortal soul. Remember this:
“Think not that I am come to bring peace on earth: I am come not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against a mother, and daughter in law against mother in law.” (Matt 10:34-35)’

When heterosexual couples adopt a child, do you use ‘parents’ to describe them too?

Christians may be dealing with the serious matters of their own believed in soul. Yes, you would be offending people if you demand they too believe exactly as you do. You are instructed in the bible to shake your sandals off and move on. Not to try to advocate removing children from homes unless a civil law has been broken.

 

[puzzleannie]

He’s asking if the church would advocate **removing a child **that is in a home with homosexual parents.

I.

until somebody provides a legitimate link to a legitimate Catholic teaching of such nonsense, this discussion is useless. no you won’t find it because the Church does not advocate this. If you want to discuss Catholic agencies faciltiiating adoptions by homosexuals, do so on that thread. OPs question, whether or not it was malicious in intent has been answered so where is my dead horse smiley when I need it.

 

[StrawberryJam]

until somebody provides a legitimate link to a legitimate Catholic teaching of such nonsense, this discussion is useless. no you won’t find it because the Church does not advocate this. If you want to discuss Catholic agencies faciltiiating adoptions by homosexuals, do so on that thread. OPs question, whether or not it was malicious in intent has been answered so where is my dead horse smiley when I need it.

Here is the original OP:

I’m not asking this to be controversial. I’m asking out of sincere interest and a bit of curiosity.

How does the Catholic Church address the situation of a family that is headed by two gay men…or two lesbians, for that matter? I mean, let’s presume the “parents” are sexually involved with one another. If they are raising children, and it’s entirely likely those children will grow to be accepting of sexually active homosexuals, does the church advocate removing those children from the household?

---

What are you talking about? Where did you get the idea the OP was asking about malicious intent?

 

[pnewton]

Being single can be sinful, being a drunk is sinful, living in adultry is sinful. Or am I missing that being Gay is the only sin mentioned in the bible?

I must have missed the Church teaching that being single is sinful. From a Catholic point of view, this is not true.

Being drunk can be sinful, a venial sin. Living in adultery or in a homosexual relationship are both gravely sinful. No one said homosexuality was the only sin in the Bible, so let us scoot around this red herring. I am favor of protecting children from exposure to any gravely sinful lifestyle. The courts, likewise, have removed custody from parents based on them having a live-in sex partner, hetero or homo.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I must have missed the Church teaching that being single is sinful. From a Catholic point of view, this is not true.

Being drunk can be sinful, a venial sin. Living in adultery or in a homosexual relationship are both gravely sinful. No one said homosexuality was the only sin in the Bible, so let us scoot around this red herring. I am favor of protecting children from exposure to any gravely sinful lifestyle. The courts, likewise, have removed custody from parents based on them having a live-in sex partner, hetero or homo.

I’m fairly certain he is saying being single and adopting or having children in that state is sinful. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there, and you should too.

Can you give me the case law on the removal of children due to a live in partner?

 

[pnewton]

I’m fairly certain he is saying being single and adopting or having children in that state is sinful. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there, and you should too.

Can you give me the case law on the removal of children due to a live in partner?

I can only go by what someone says. If it is unclearly written, I am always open to clarification. It is neither uncharitable or inappropriate to ask further questions, as you did. Speaking of which, I can not think of any links to provide you. I do know of two situations where custody was determined on the basis one parent having a live in boyfriend.

Perhaps so attorney here can provide clarification on this. In any case, in reference to the OP, I am equally supportive of the courts intervening in any case where sexual deviance is going on in a house, regardless of the nature of the deviancy. Like it was said, homosexuality is not the only sin. Likewise, there are other serious sins for which I would be in favor of removing children, like drug abuse.

 

[Bran_Stark]

How 'bout if we turn the question round a mite: How ought the child raised by homosexual guardians act if he learns the truth about sexual morality? We are bidden to “Honour thy father and thy mother” - what do you do if you’re told you’ve got two of the one and none of the other?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I can only go by what someone says. If it is unclearly written, I am always open to clarification. It is neither uncharitable or inappropriate to ask further questions, as you did. Speaking of which, I can not think of any links to provide you. I do know of two situations where custody was determined on the basis one parent having a live in boyfriend.

Perhaps so attorney here can provide clarification on this. In any case, in reference to the OP, I am equally supportive of the courts intervening in any case where sexual deviance is going on in a house, regardless of the nature of the deviancy. Like it was said, homosexuality is not the only sin. Likewise, there are other serious sins for which I would be in favor of removing children, like drug abuse.

Asking for case law is uncharitable?

You are kidding!!!

It’s fairly simple to cite case law. Don’t mention cases if you can’t support them with actual case law. If it was a violation of a shared custody agreement that would make more sense- but then it would not be the cause of the removal of the child. It would be an effect of violating an order.

 

[StrawberryJam]

How 'bout if we turn the question round a mite: How ought the child raised by homosexual guardians act if he learns the truth about sexual morality? We are bidden to “Honour thy father and thy mother” - what do you do if you’re told you’ve got two of the one and none of the other?

What do you do if your child finds out you had an abortion as a teen? Or gave your baby up as a teen and that baby is out there, a sibling of that child. Or what if the sky is falling?
Please.

 

[pnewton]

Asking for case law is uncharitable?

You are kidding!!!

I am not kidding. I said it is not uncharitable. Please give me the same benefit of the doubt you suggested I give in your earlier post.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I am not kidding. I said it is not uncharitable. Please give me the same benefit of the doubt you suggested I give in your earlier post.

I see that now. I absolutely did not before. I do apologize!

It’s got to be a smudge on the screen. Eating chips today. Yes, I am a pig.

 

[Jermosh]

I must have missed the Church teaching that being single is sinful. From a Catholic point of view, this is not true.

Being drunk can be sinful, a venial sin. Living in adultery or in a homosexual relationship are both gravely sinful. No one said homosexuality was the only sin in the Bible, so let us scoot around this red herring. I am favor of protecting children from exposure to any gravely sinful lifestyle. The courts, likewise, have removed custody from parents based on them having a live-in sex partner, hetero or homo.

I said they can be sinful.

Being a drunk is not a venial sin by anymeans, its specifically called out as a grave sin by St Paul. So if you are advocate taking the child from their natural parent(s) because they are gay, why not for the other reasons?