Church's view on same sex adoption?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YosefYosep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Iron_Donkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I don’t think people with severe character flaws should be given children. While I do not viscerally hate these people, if I were to class them as “unhealthy, immoral, and incapable of love” then I would be revealing an intense dislike towards them.

And this just occurred to me, but isn’t it undeniable that a lot of the anti-gay people in this thread are engaging in prejudice? Would they even try to deny that?
 
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...
The two men who had family were not the biologic family, were they. The crack head may have been irresponsible and so it would be the duty of the state to find the family of the biologic mother.
 
livingwordunity said:
He was giving a sarcastic answer to someone who confused behavior with race. 🙂
Click to expand...
Nah… I was being sarcastic in that there was a point in time not to long ago when people didn’t believe in the races mixing. I wasn’t confusing behavior with race. I was pointing out that the attitude is the same. Some of those people who opposed blacks and whites getting married, now have mixed children and grandchildren that they learned to love. People evolve like opinions.

Does anyone remember when the Army was segregated? Same thing. Attitudes change and people evolve. We must get used to it, because we can’t stop it.

It is the next generation that will lead the way on the changing of opinion regarding gays. The younger generation is much more tolerant and more open. You can’t stop that either.
 
Personanongrata said:
Nah… I was being sarcastic in that there was a point in time not to long ago when people didn’t believe in the races mixing. I wasn’t confusing behavior with race. I was pointing out that the attitude is the same. Some of those people who opposed blacks and whites getting married, now have mixed children and grandchildren that they learned to love. People evolve like opinions.

Does anyone remember when the Army was segregated? Same thing. Attitudes change and people evolve. We must get used to it, because we can’t stop it.

It is the next generation that will lead the way on the changing of opinion regarding gays. The younger generation is much more tolerant and more open. You can’t stop that either.
Click to expand...
Who must get used to it?

Peace,
Ed
 
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...
Evidence, anyone?

Bueller…Bueller…Bueller…
 
KungLao said:
Paul Ryan is wrong, much like the President and Joe Biden are wrong. Sadly, only Ryan recently appeared on the World Over. I look forward to a return visit so he can be forced to explain his incompatible public pronouncements with church teaching.
Click to expand...
It would be a welcome sight if those republicans would tell single-issue “help the poor” Catholics, Muslims, Jews and older African-Americans who attend Church or Midwest/Rust Belt union workers:

"You don’t vote for me anyways, largely because of your own selfishness, immigration, obsession with political correctness and race or some misguided tradition.

So I should listen to you because :confused::confused:???"

Just to get the wheels turning.

BTW, I agree with your post.
 
fix said:
Hobson’s choice is no choice.
Click to expand...
True. One may not make a choice that harms children, either directly or by default, otherwise that person has committed one of the gravest of evils.
 
ngill09 said:
Yes,While I do not viscerally hate these people, if I were to class them as “unhealthy, immoral, and incapable of love” then I would be revealing an intense dislike towards them.
Click to expand...
I don’t think people with severe character flaws should be given children.
Click to expand...
Who decides what the character flaws are and what character flaws would disqualify a person from being given children?
And this just occurred to me, but isn’t it undeniable that a lot of the anti-gay people in this thread are engaging in prejudice? Would they even try to deny that?
Click to expand...
What does it mean to be anti-gay?
 
I have not read everyone’s posts but before we continue the arguing do we all AGREE with the SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that biological MARRIED parents (note that implicitly this means opposite sex) is the preferred environment for raising children?

Unfortunately, adopted children are at a disadvantage because they at best can find NOT biological but married parents. Now the question is whether the married parents should be of opposite sex or same sex? the research on this questions is still ongoing, but recent publications (last year, sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610, and supported by 18 social scientists baylorisr.org/2012/06/a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy/) do noted that there are differences between children raised in same sex unions vs. opposite sex unions. The differences for children of same sex union were not on the positive side, unfortunately for the children.

Of course, the study was highly criticized by gay activists, and every effort has been made to discredit it, except, of course, providing funding for researchers to replicate his findings.
 
Further note the instability of same sex relationships
An interesting recent paper (Rosenberg, Sullivan, Dinenno, Salazar, & Sanchez, 2011) confirms that most gay men with one main partner for a given year also have concurrent casual sexual relationships. Main partner is defined as a person to whom one is committed above all others.
Click to expand...
The paper presents good data on the number of gay partnerships per year, confirming previous findings by others, but what is new are data about gay relationships per year when there is also a main partner.
Click to expand...
Over 11,000 men who have sex with men were interviewed. This is an enormous sample. Kinsey’s sample, large for its time, and with a much over-represented number of gay/lesbian people, only had about 1300 homosexual men. The paper interprets data from a CDC (Centers for Disease Control) project, and the research standard seems to be high.
Click to expand...
Contrary to the stereotype, the typical number of sexual partners per year per person in the SSA community is not hundreds but about three, as referenced elsewhere on this site, and the paper approximately confirms this general finding. If there was no main partner the figure was five. The result for bisexuals was 2.5 partners. If a man who had sex with men had a main partner (68% of the sample), the typical number of casual partners in a given year was about 2. This means, as has been anecdotally clear for a long time, that the norm, even with a partner to whom one is committed above all others, is not sexual exclusivity. But this paper appears to be the first giving a high-quality, quantitative result.
Click to expand...
Compared with hetereosexuality
Click to expand...
It is not easy to compare these figures directly with those for heterosexuals, because it is traditional to use a different basis in studies of heterosexuals - the percentage of people with “concurrent partnerships” in a given year. Among heterosexuals the statistics (Adimora, Schoenbach, & Doherty, 2007) are that, in a given year, only 11% of men have “concurrent partnerships”, the others being sexually exclusive. Many of those with concurrent partnerships are among the unmarried, hence it is not clear whether they have a “main partner” and this makes the comparison more difficult. According to (Oyediran, Isiugo-Abanihe, Feyisetan, & Ishola, 2009) 16% of married men also have such concurrent relationships in a given year but this is a study of Nigerian men, and may not be typical of the West.
Click to expand...
However it would be a good rule of thumb that a gay man with a main partner has a few other relationships
in a given year, but a heterosexual man would most commonly have no concurrent relationships.
Click to expand...
The philosophical and cross-cultural ideal for marriage has traditionally been sexual exclusivity. But sexual exclusivity is not what is meant by gay “committed” relationships, or for heterosexuals in concurrent relationships. If a homosexual man says he committed to one man in any given year, it means he is typically having sexual relationships with three different men.
Click to expand...
[mygenes.co.nz/Ma(name removed by moderator)artners.htm](http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Ma(name removed by moderator)artners.htm)

mygenes.co.nz/suicide.htm
 
Patavium said:
I have not read everyone’s posts but before we continue the arguing do we all AGREE with the SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that biological MARRIED parents (note that implicitly this means opposite sex) is the preferred environment for raising children?

Unfortunately, adopted children are at a disadvantage because they at best can find NOT biological but married parents. Now the question is whether the married parents should be of opposite sex or same sex? the research on this questions is still ongoing, but recent publications (last year, sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610, and supported by 18 social scientists baylorisr.org/2012/06/a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy/) do noted that there are differences between children raised in same sex unions vs. opposite sex unions. The differences for children of same sex union were not on the positive side, unfortunately for the children.

Of course, the study was highly criticized by gay activists, and every effort has been made to discredit it, except, of course, providing funding for researchers to replicate his findings.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I absolutely agree that gay families are not ideal. My concern, and underlying issue with all of this, is that children don’t get attention early on. Children that don’t get attention early on often turn out really screwed up. This was one of the issues that was hammered home when we decided to adopt internationally. For example, the Chinese children tend to adjust very well because they start off in foster homes until they are a few months old, then go to an orphanage where they are held. Russian children…a whole different story…the get lost in the shuffle and can have severe bonding issues.

IMHO, it is better to start off on the right foot and live a less than ideal life as a child, then to simply be lost in the system and simply have no chance.

We’re not just talking about anecdotes either. There are a lot of children lost in the system, often because they are a certain race or have certain issues (disabilities, etc.), that simply have chance. It’s children we’re talking about…some chance is better than no chance.
 
ngill09 said:
Yes, I don’t think people with severe character flaws should be given children. While I do not viscerally hate these people, if I were to class them as “unhealthy, immoral, and incapable of love” then I would be revealing an intense dislike towards them.

And this just occurred to me, but isn’t it undeniable that a lot of the anti-gay people in this thread are engaging in prejudice? Would they even try to deny that?
Click to expand...
Like all issues it depends on how we define terms. If our consciences are upright and well formed we will come to conclusions that are consistent with reality and moral truth. If not, then we will come to conclusions based on personal selfish desires masked with a patina of emotionalism.

So what is truth? Is it our personal sexual desires disguised as “love”?
 
Patavium said:
I have not read everyone’s posts but before we continue the arguing do we all AGREE with the SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that biological MARRIED parents (note that implicitly this means opposite sex) is the preferred environment for raising children?

Unfortunately, adopted children are at a disadvantage because they at best can find NOT biological but married parents. Now the question is whether the married parents should be of opposite sex or same sex? the research on this questions is still ongoing, but recent publications (last year, sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610, and supported by 18 social scientists baylorisr.org/2012/06/a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy/) do noted that there are differences between children raised in same sex unions vs. opposite sex unions. The differences for children of same sex union were not on the positive side, unfortunately for the children.

Of course, the study was highly criticized by gay activists, and every effort has been made to discredit it, except, of course, providing funding for researchers to replicate his findings.
Click to expand...
The problem with dueling studies is that no matter what is produced there is always countervailing evidence. This issue is not one that should be determined by political science and soft science. This is a fundamental issue about rights and natural morality that binds every person on earth.
 
fix said:
The problem with dueling studies is that no matter what is produced there is always countervailing evidence. This issue is not one that should be determined by political science and soft science. This is a fundamental issue about rights and natural morality that binds every person on earth.
Click to expand...
You will need to elaborate on this. What do you mean by rights and natural morality?

Also, do not to forget that Science does influence policy making.
 
Personanongrata said:
Nah… I was being sarcastic in that there was a point in time not to long ago when people didn’t believe in the races mixing. I wasn’t confusing behavior with race. I was pointing out that the attitude is the same. Some of those people who opposed blacks and whites getting married, now have mixed children and grandchildren that they learned to love. People evolve like opinions.

Does anyone remember when the Army was segregated? Same thing. Attitudes change and people evolve. We must get used to it, because we can’t stop it.

It is the next generation that will lead the way on the changing of opinion regarding gays. The younger generation is much more tolerant and more open. You can’t stop that either.
Click to expand...
You are still erroneously trying to compare race with behavior. Do you also feel that we treat Pedophiles unfairly since they don’t get respect either for what they do? Would you also compare that to how blacks used to get unfair treatment? The point is just because someone has deviant sexual urges that are hard for them to control doesn’t mean we are being unfair to them for saying that we can’t condone the behavior. If you are going to say that people who won’t accept a deviant sexual behavior are being just like the ones who treated the blacks unfairly you have to be consistent to every kind of deviant sexual behavior. In short, your attempt to compare a behavior to race is absolutely absurd. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top