Church's view on same sex adoption?

[CopticChristian]

Yep, I know what you mean. When women wanted to vote, they got “in your face” with their agenda. Without them, women may not have gotten the right to vote. So, “in your face” worked for women.

Blacks had a lot of nerve pushing their agenda to ride in the front of the bus and sit at a Woolworths counter or go to schools with whites. Huge agenda there for all. I wonder how far it would have gotten if they had stayed in the sidelines and done nothing. Looks like “in your face” worked well there too.

Tolerance has everything to do with it. We work with gay people. They have children going to school with our children. Gays pay taxes. Catholic gays go to church ( yes some do - every week) Gays adopt children for the very same reasons straights do.

Years ago, those who opposed desegregation in the Armed Forces, schools and women voting were proved wrong. Opposition to gays marrying and adopting children will fall the same way.

It’s just a matter of time. And yes we are off topic. Let’s go back now.

nongrata,

I have read all your posts. Your monikor says Catholic. As a single woman, working at Planned parenthood, you have routinely offered no questions…just bah humbug to…Catholic teaching pointing with negative comments about what it is the Church teaches.

Catholic women are using some form of birth control…it is their choice
What difference does it make if homosexuals are getting what they want
Gay marriage will not affect anyone
The Church is not the moral compass of the world
Abortion is reproductive healthcare and women have the right to choose
celebration of same sex marriage
celebration of same sex adoption

What is your purpose in coming here as I see the same statements on many other threads…always throwing in…

Catholic women are using ABC anyway, it is their choice…over and over

is this your agenda?

 

[edwest2]

Absolutely spot on! And I wonder who is behind this *“attempt to create confusion and to cause doubt,”… *I believe it’s none other than the father of lies himself. The troubling thing about this is, is that ***many, many ***Catholics are falling for this deception. Whether its abortion, gay adoption, SSM, or whatever…they’re falling for it hook, line, and sinker! And he’s pretty darn clever at creating this confusion. I hate to say this, but it would appear that some Catholics are willing participants, or at least it appears that way.

Peace, Mark

The father of lies works primarily through deception. Many, many Catholics need to realize that, for the most part, the media is no longer your friend. And by repeating the same wrong message 24/7, it tends get burned into the minds of the people. The news is actually a form of advertising.

That is how propaganda works: “the principle & which is quite true in itself & that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily,” Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister

We must turn to Catholic news sources that are in line with the Magisterium:

ncregister.com/

We should rely less and less on the media to give us an accurate picture of things like this. Also, can you imagine your time with God being one hour a week along with your daily prayers, while most media are giving you the message the other 6 days of the week?

Let us unburden ourselves. Find a Catholic radio station nearby or one on the internet. Spend a little time listening.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Personanongrata]

nongrata,

I have read all your posts. Your monikor says Catholic. As a single woman, working at Planned parenthood, you have routinely offered no questions…just bah humbug to…Catholic teaching pointing with negative comments about what it is the Church teaches.

Catholic women are using some form of birth control…it is their choice
What difference does it make if homosexuals are getting what they want
Gay marriage will not affect anyone
The Church is not the moral compass of the world
Abortion is reproductive healthcare and women have the right to choose
celebration of same sex marriage
celebration of same sex adoption

What is your purpose in coming here as I see the same statements on many other threads…always throwing in…

Catholic women are using ABC anyway, it is their choice…over and over

is this your agenda?

I don’t work at PP.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t work at PP.

Thank you for correcting one bit of misinformation…

As for PP – I am a Clinic escort at a local PP, where we help women get in for their prenatal services. I haven’t been called in over a year cause things have settled down. But the last time a pro-Life group picketed the place, a group of us showed up and waited inside the door for anyone who was afraid to walk to their car. What’s funny is that, abortions are not done at this location.And yes I know that for a fact.

You appear to volunteer…thank you for pointing that out…

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Then correct me if I’m wrong, you’re saying the Church is in error.

You should read more carefully.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Then you believe you can do evil to produce good.

Or, you can do “good” to produce evil. I will never listen to excuses that result in harming children. That type of grave indifference lead straight to actions like abortion, etc.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The answer to a bad situation is not another bad situation. Your position is the usual default position of those who do not view “gay” unions as the evil ideology they really are. It is not anything a poor child should be exposed to.

The alternative is not something a child should be exposed to either, and it is often far worse. We can all talk in platitudes, but if it results in children being harmed, it is pure evil. People don’t seem to get that, which is why they have been completely ignoring it.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The thing you seem to be conveniently overlooking is that the Church was never in favor of suppressing women or blacks. The Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality, SSM and gays adopting on the other hand, are crystal clear, and have been forever. But you just happen to have the opposing view or secular view on this. I’m finding this to be not at all unusual here on CAF. And I can assure you, that your assertion that the Catholic Church will be “proved wrong” on this is a pipe dream.

Peace, Mark

When it comes to children, Christ Himself is crystal clear on the matter. You may not take action that harms children, and the consequences are severe. When I read the posts in this thread, the harm that comes to the lost children isn’t even a thought in the discussion. I feel like I’m reading posts from modern-day Pharisees.

 

[AniCS]

Nonsense. Same sex couples can and do raise wonderful, well-balanced children.

They do not raise them Catholic though do they? Why would you want a Catholic adoption if you are not Catholic? Could it be you are trying to attack anyone who does not agree with you? You came to a Catholic site.

 

[polytropos]

The alternative is not something a child should be exposed to either, and it is often far worse. We can all talk in platitudes, but if it results in children being harmed, it is pure evil. People don’t seem to get that, which is why they have been completely ignoring it.

It is not even that people are ignoring it. The secular standard is shifting in the sense that gender is viewed as a “social construct”… ie. it can’t be “forced” on anyone. The argument is that children do not require gender cues from a mother and father because it’s OK for them not to receive cues from both genders. It is understood that this will substantially impact their development; that impact is just regarded as inconsequential.

Gender expression is, of course, a “social construct.” The problem with such a term is that it implicitly trivializes its object. Humans are social creatures that evolved in an environment that included gender cues. When the environment changes, new evolutionary pressures emerge - a simple principle of natural selection. It is a massive assumption to suppose that normal psychological development can occur in an environment that differs so substantially from the environment humans evolved in.

 

[AniCS]

Thank you for correcting one bit of misinformation…

You appear to volunteer…thank you for pointing that out…

PP’s cash cow is the slaughter of children. Even children born alive. Federal money paying for lights the murderers use IS federal money paying for abortion.

 

[Personanongrata]

Thank you for correcting one bit of misinformation…

You appear to volunteer…thank you for pointing that out…

You are very welcome.

 

[fix]

The alternative is not something a child should be exposed to either, and it is often far worse. We can all talk in platitudes, but if it results in children being harmed, it is pure evil. People don’t seem to get that, which is why they have been completely ignoring it.

Gay adoption should not be legal. It is only an alternative because of unjust laws. There is no excuse that will rationalize evil. The solution to evil is not more evil.

 

[fix]

When it comes to children, Christ Himself is crystal clear on the matter. You may not take action that harms children, and the consequences are severe. When I read the posts in this thread, the harm that comes to the lost children isn’t even a thought in the discussion. I feel like I’m reading posts from modern-day Pharisees.

Then you do not see “gay” adoption as evil.

 

[fix]

It is not even that people are ignoring it. The secular standard is shifting in the sense that gender is viewed as a “social construct”… ie. it can’t be “forced” on anyone. The argument is that children do not require gender cues from a mother and father because it’s OK for them not to receive cues from both genders. It is understood that this will substantially impact their development; that impact is just regarded as inconsequential.

Gender expression is, of course, a “social construct.” The problem with such a term is that it implicitly trivializes its object. Humans are social creatures that evolved in an environment that included gender cues. When the environment changes, new evolutionary pressures emerge - a simple principle of natural selection. It is a massive assumption to suppose that normal psychological development can occur in an environment that differs so substantially from the environment humans evolved in.

Indeed so it is a physical evil and a moral evil. Very good post.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It is not even that people are ignoring it. The secular standard is shifting in the sense that gender is viewed as a “social construct”… ie. it can’t be “forced” on anyone. The argument is that children do not require gender cues from a mother and father because it’s OK for them not to receive cues from both genders. It is understood that this will substantially impact their development; that impact is just regarded as inconsequential.

Gender expression is, of course, a “social construct.” The problem with such a term is that it implicitly trivializes its object. Humans are social creatures that evolved in an environment that included gender cues. When the environment changes, new evolutionary pressures emerge - a simple principle of natural selection. It is a massive assumption to suppose that normal psychological development can occur in an environment that differs so substantially from the environment humans evolved in.

Well, I arguing for the large number of children that don’t have any parents in the first place, and aren’t receiving gender cues, attention, or anything else. One of the foster kids my ex mother-in-law took in was a Satanist; dressed completely in black, like a witch, at all times. That’s just one of the many things that can occur when these children don’t get attention at all.

Most people are arguing from the perspective of “you can’t do this, regardless of what happens to the children.” I’m arguing from the perspective of “you cannot take the unGodly act of harming the children (directly or indirectly), so get them into a situation where they will at least get some attention, even if it is not ideal.”

The latter situation is not anecdotal either. There are plenty of children available for adoption; they just don’t fit people’s “criteria.”

 

[Mark121359]

When it comes to children, Christ Himself is crystal clear on the matter. You may not take action that harms children, and the consequences are severe. When I read the posts in this thread, the harm that comes to the lost children isn’t even a thought in the discussion. I feel like I’m reading posts from modern-day Pharisees.

Why all these vague responses? I asked you yes or no if the Church is in error about gay adoption. And you imply that gays should be allowed to adopt because it’s in the best interest of the children when there seems to be no other alternative. And I’m telling you that the Church never sees it as acceptable to allow gay adoption. Now with the Church position being crystal clear on this, and there’s no question about that, and being that the Church was founded by Christ and belongs to Christ. I wonder who these modern-day Pharisees as you point out really are here?
You say I should read more carefully. It’s very, very clear to me and anyone who has followed this thread, that you are at odds with the Catholic Church on this. Why are you afraid to say that, yes in fact I do disagree with the Catholic Church’s position on this issue. That would be a more respectable answer, instead of all this vagueness and comparing those who post here that are in complete unison with the Catholic Church and who trust and obey her with the Pharisees!

Peace, Mark

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Why all these vague responses? I asked you yes or no if the Church is in error about gay adoption.

I am under no obligation to answer any of your questions. Demanding others to answer questions often is a sign of insecurity of one’s own beliefs.

And you imply that gays should be allowed to adopt because it’s in the best interest of the children when there seems to be no other alternative.

There are plenty of children that are in hopeless situations, regardless of whether you want to believe that or not. How many screwed up children do you need to see to believe that?

Some hope is better than no hope. I would rather see a child in a loving home, even if it is less than ideal, than being bounced around given no attention, sexually abused, physically abused, etc. We obviously do not agree on the matter.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, I arguing for the large number of children that don’t have any parents in the first place, and aren’t receiving gender cues, attention, or anything else. One of the foster kids my ex mother-in-law took in was a Satanist; dressed completely in black, like a witch, at all times. That’s just one of the many things that can occur when these children don’t get attention at all.

Most people are arguing from the perspective of “you can’t do this, regardless of what happens to the children.” I’m arguing from the perspective of “you cannot take the unGodly act of harming the children (directly or indirectly), so get them into a situation where they will at least get some attention, even if it is not ideal.”

The latter situation is not anecdotal either. There are plenty of children available for adoption; they just don’t fit people’s “criteria.”

You confuse me.

You are a martial artist and I am sure you would agree that within any system of fighting there are things you know, things you do and to advance you must do it in accord with that system. It is not a creative endeavor that you engage in to advance in any given martial art system. At the higher levels creativity may be allowed.

You are a musician and you have pointed out the necessity of reading music, practice, and relevance to what you play.

You have pointed out that you are married to a non-Catholic and perhaps you hear other than de fide teaching on the Church.

This is CAF a place where Catholics explain and defend the Faith. When you speak contrary to Church teaching then all I can conclude is that you have not taken the time to read, study, practice what the Catechism teaches. A formed conscience requries that you use Church teaching.

Your postings indicate that your priorities are first

Wife/Family
Martial Arts
Music

and lastly your Faith and a formed conscience…

Your postings would indicate to me that you may want to consider first…

Forming your conscience and understanding Church teachings that would be similar to practicing with the same intent Martial arts, studying scales and practice and music and understanding the Bride of Christ the Church as you do your wife…

Have you read and studied the Catechism?

 

[Julianna]

You confuse me.

You are a martial artist and I am sure you would agree that within any system of fighting there are things you know, things you do and to advance you must do it in accord with that system. It is not a creative endeavor that you engage in to advance in any given martial art system. At the higher levels creativity may be allowed.

You are a musician and you have pointed out the necessity of reading music, practice, and relevance to what you play.

You have pointed out that you are married to a non-Catholic and perhaps you hear other than de fide teaching on the Church.

This is CAF a place where Catholics explain and defend the Faith. When you speak contrary to Church teaching then all I can conclude is that you have not taken the time to read, study, practice what the Catechism teaches. A formed conscience requries that you use Church teaching.

Your postings indicate that your priorities are first

Wife/Family
Martial Arts
Music

and lastly your Faith and a formed conscience…

Your postings would indicate to me that you may want to consider first…

Forming your conscience and understanding Church teachings that would be similar to practicing with the same intent Martial arts, studying scales and practice and music and understanding the Bride of Christ the Church as you do your wife…

Have you read and studied the Catechism?

I know Warrior appreciates the psycho analysis, especially when it is “free”.