Church's view on same sex adoption?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YosefYosep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ngill09 said:
I’d probably say that a child is better off being adopted and raised by a prostitute than by a good number of the Catholics in this forum.
Click to expand...
Differentiate for me the benefits of a Prostitute

vs

a good number of Catholics on this forum

as it concerns your belief that a child is better off being adopted by a Prostitute.
 
fix said:
When in the history of the world would any sane person propose that children be left in the custody of same sex people as if this were a family and healthy and moral?
Click to expand...
Well the baby could continue to grow up with his crack head mother while she turns tricks to feed her habit.

Or

the baby could grow up with SS parents who live in the upper east/west/north/south side in home where both are financially stable, with access to health care and good schools.

Or

18 yrs from now we could see the baby (now adult) photo on America’s Most Wanted.

hmmmm…decisions…decisions…
 
YosefYosep said:
I recently just found out that Paul Ryan now supports same sex adoption. This got me thinking about whether or not the Church has an official view on the matter of same sex adoption.
Click to expand...
The church is against it. Pope Frances is against it, he thinks same sex marriage destroys the family, so I’m sure he isn’t for same sex adoption.

Quote from Wiki:

Bergoglio affirms the Church’s teaching that homosexual practice is intrinsically immoral but homosexuals should be treated with respect and love because temptation is not in and of itself sinful.[239] Bergoglio opposes same-sex marriage. When Argentina was considering legalizing it in 2010, Begoglio opposed the legislation,[240][241] calling it a “real and dire anthropological throwback”.[242] In July 2010, while the law was under consideration, he wrote a letter to Argentina’s cloistered nuns in which he said:[240][243][244]

In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.
Let’s not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God’s plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that’s just its form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God… Let’s look to St. Joseph, Mary, and the Child to ask fervently that they defend the Argentine family in this moment… May they support, defend, and accompany us in this war of God.
 
Julianna said:
Well the baby could continue to grow up with his crack head mother while she turns tricks to feed her habit.

Or

the baby could grow up with SS parents who live in the upper east/west/north/south side in home where both are financially stable, with access to health care and good schools.

Or

18 yrs from now we could see the baby (now adult) photo on America’s Most Wanted.

hmmmm…decisions…decisions…
Click to expand...
or

Since adoption agencies would not, I hope, give babies to a crack head…the Prostitute is on the upper side where homes are financially stable and serving Wall street…

or

Adopted by same sex parents that in time become alcoholic, one commits sucide, gets AIDS and then prostitutes for crack to pay the bills

more decisions

Future of the child singing on american idol…
 
CopticChristian said:
or

Since adoption agencies would not, I hope, give babies to a crack head..the Prostitute is on the upper side where homes are financially stable and serving Wall street…

or

Adopted by same sex parents that in time become alcoholic, one commits sucide, gets AIDS and then prostitutes for crack to pay the bills

more decisions

Future of the child singing on american idol…
Click to expand...
The state of Florida did. Two gay man, took a baby in and for two years parented that child. When they decided to adopt, (the baby was abandoned in the hospital by his crackhead mother), the mother came out of the woodwork and suddenly wanted to parent. She said she was “clean”. No husband, and not financially stable. The state of Florida gave the baby back to the crackhead. I’m sure we will be reading about his crimes on late night news in about 14 yrs. or less.🤷
 
Julianna said:
The state of Florida did. Two gay man, took a baby in and for two years parented that child. When they decided to adopt, (the baby was abandoned in the hospital by his crackhead mother), the mother came out of the woodwork and suddenly wanted to parent. She said she was “clean”. No husband, and not financially stable. The state of Florida gave the baby back to the crackhead. I’m sure we will be reading about his crimes on late night news in about 14 yrs. or less.🤷
Click to expand...
Let us hope that there are grandparents and the gay men find a way to resolve their lifestyle.
 
CopticChristian said:
Let us hope that there are grandparents and the gay men find a way to resolve their lifestyle.
Click to expand...
The two men, had a mother and father each…and they were the grandparents. The crackhead never mentioned a mother, father, husband, boyfriend or the sperm donor.
 
Julianna said:
The two men, had a mother and father each…and they were the grandparents. The crackhead never mentioned a mother, father, husband, boyfriend or the sperm donor.
Click to expand...
How long do you believe that the Catholic Church has taught that homosexual acts are gravely immoral? Where do you believe that the Catholic Church got this idea from? That’s what is at the heart of the question about the Church’s view on this. 🙂
 
livingwordunity said:
How long do you believe that the Catholic Church has taught that homosexual acts are gravely immoral? Where do you believe that the Catholic Church got this idea from? That’s what is at the heart of the question about the Church’s view on this. 🙂
Click to expand...
oh, I was referring to what is best for the child. The Church’s view will always be no. I get it.
 
livingwordunity said:
But you haven’t answered my question yet. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. Do you believe that a child would be better off being adopted and raised by a prostitute than not getting adopted and living in a foster home?

🙂
Click to expand...
I’m glad you asked. My ex-mother in law had dozens of foster children come through her home. These children had been abandoned, and were being bounced through orphanages and foster homes. They had no parents, nobody they could rely on, and never knew where they were going to be sleeping the next night. Many had been abused, both physically and sexually. Out of all of the children that went through her home, we are only aware of one that went on to live a normal life.

You asked about foster homes, so I won’t go on and on about what my ex-wife or cousin experienced dealing with these kids, or about the issues associated with Russian adoptions.

So, do you (by default) support children living under these circumstances?
 
livingwordunity said:
I disagree with you about what the Church says about this.
Click to expand...
The Church states nothing on my opinion. Obviously, since they don’t state anything on my opinion, there is no official document.
But you haven’t answered my question yet. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. Do you believe that a child would be better off being adopted and raised by a prostitute than not getting adopted and living in a foster home?
Click to expand...
Since you are holding others to the “Church document” standard, provide the Church documents on the matter and we can go from there.
 
Julianna said:
oh, I was referring to what is best for the child. The Church’s view will always be no. I get it.
Click to expand...
The Church’s view is Christ’s view.

“…if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” -Matthew 18:17

And Christ knows better than any of us what is best for a child.

🙂
 
I realize this was a while ago, but I have to reply:
ngill09 said:
Iron Donkey said:
[In response to something along the lines of “I wonder why people have a hard time believing that Catholics hate the sin and love the sinner” which was itself a response to a post saying that couples engaged in a homosexual lifestyle should not be able to adopt.]

Because they automatically construe any claim that sin is actually bad not just on some ethereal plane that doesn’t really impact the real world, but here and now, as an attack on the sinner.

Seriously, the claim that children should not be raised by people who by their very lifestyles are claiming that bad is good is simply common sense. Now, I realize that by saying this I risk the indignant “homosexual relationships are nothing like ___” responses that ignore the actual argument at hand (wonder why the homosexual advocacy group is sometimes portrayed as being driven by blind emotionalism), but consider: would you want to let someone who repeatedly engaged in bestiality with his dog, was proud of this, and made that knowledge public adopt? People who were engaged in polygamy?

If you answer “no,” and yet support adoption by same sex couples, then chances are that you only disagree with us on the whether the gay lifestyle is bad, not on the fact that people who live their lives in a constant state of not only calling a terrible thing good, but of saying that is the same as one of the best things, shouldn’t adopt. Which would then make any indignation of this type irrational, as it is clearly not a case of hating the sinner, but of recognizing that sin is sin and not wanting to put children in a position where they will be constantly told that sin is not only not sin, but a great and wonderful thing.
Click to expand...
Next time I see an anti-gay marriage advocate complain about being accused of bigotry, I’ll just point them to this thread. Seriously, do you actually think this is a sane argument?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do think it’s a sane argument, and amazingly enough you did (as the argument actually predicted you might) completely ignore what was being said in your reply, but you might misunderstand what it is that I was arguing.

It was not an argument against same sex adoption itself, though one can be found within it, it was an argument against accusations of hating gay people.

That is, everyone believes that no person clearly and obviously engaging in public harmful behavior and calling it good should be able to adopt. This is clear. There is no hate towards the person, it’s just a fact.

Our disagreement then is on whether or not homosexual activity is such a harmful and bad behavior. Which has nothing to do with whether or not we hate anyone at all. If the answer is yes, then people who form their lifestyle around it shouldn’t be able to adopt and this is clear. If the answer is no, then there might be a case that they should be able to.

Ergo, unless you personally hate every single person who you think shouldn’t be able to adopt because of the behavior they engage in (and without saying that gay people are or are not on the same more level of any particular other group), such as alcoholics, people engaged in bestiality, known criminals, etc, then you can’t say we hate gay people.

Again. I never said and am not saying that gay people are on the same level as murderers and thieves. All I said is that unless your objection to any group being able to adopt stems from hatred of that group (with extreme examples used for the sole purpose of making it likely that we would agree that they shouldn’t be able to adopt), then you cannot accuse our objection of arising from hatred of gay people.

Is there any group of people you think shouldn’t be able to adopt? If yes, do you hate them? If no, then lay off the accusations of hatred.
 
livingwordunity said:
The Church’s view is Christ’s view.
Click to expand...
True:

Luke 9:48
Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”
Click to expand...
Taking an action that harms a child is not an option.

The Church does not teach that it is, no matter how many times you avoid the issue.
 
Julianna said:
Well the baby could continue to grow up with his crack head mother while she turns tricks to feed her habit.

Or

the baby could grow up with SS parents who live in the upper east/west/north/south side in home where both are financially stable, with access to health care and good schools.

Or

18 yrs from now we could see the baby (now adult) photo on America’s Most Wanted.

hmmmm…decisions…decisions…
Click to expand...
Not only the usual false choices but I note your standards all revolve around money.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
The Church typically writes in a very specific, very legalistic manner, and I read their documents and statements in that context. I understand very well what the Church understands regarding this matter. However, the Church does not teach that abandoning children is a better solution, nor will the Church say that.

We have a situation here that involves two immoral choices, and because the Church has spoken regarding gay couples and adoptions, people say that is not a choice, and the children get left with no parents. It is what I call the action of no action. Or, as phrased in a Rush song:

“If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.”

If you are faced with such a choice, you have committed an immoral action regardless of choice or no choice. In such a circumstance, the child must come first. On Judgment Day, I’d rather say that I did what I thought best for a child than what I thought was not best for the child.
Click to expand...
Hobson’s choice is no choice.
 
fix said:
Not only the usual false choices but I note your standards all revolve around money.
Click to expand...
False in “your” opinion. But I can deal…🤷

How much are you willing to kick in to get the crack mother off dope? The state of Florida is currently paying all of her living expenses. It does cost money to raise a child. Much more difficult for a woman with no education or job skills.

This is why my daughter chose to place her baby for adoption, 7 yrs ago. It is what was best for the child. The sperm donor wanted nothing to do with her and had a serious drug problem.
My daughter did not have the means to raise a child on her own, and her father and I were not going to be martyrs for the cause. She is away from that bum and moved on with her life.

You may not believe the gay men gave that baby quality of life. In the two short years that child was with them, he was not subjected to drugs and crime. One of them worked from home, someone was always there with the baby. There were grandparents who visited and extended family. And most important…that child was loved.

The Church will not allow SS adoption. I get that. It will never happen and most Christian faith based agencies do not allow it either. This is their right make the rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top