Church's view on same sex adoption?

[CopticChristian]

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.

nongrata,

Absolutely. Attitudes changed as a result of Loving vs Virginia

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

**Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. **Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

Because marriage is a basic civil right. Notice that the right is complimented by “fundamental to our very existence and survival”…and when you see where that statement was lifted from…Skinner vs Oklahoma and you see what was said there…you will find…

But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Notice, marriage and procreation…not marriage alone is a civil right because procreation, not marriage is fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

While attitudes may change, reality cannot.

No homosexual, united in any way, absent any outside influence can ever do anything that does anything that is complimentary to the very existence and survival of the race.

How is it you believe that this attitude will change?

 

[fix]

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.

Well, I am not discounting all studies I am saying that studies should not be used as the final arbiter in matters such as these. Studies are often political even when people deny it.

This is matter of fundamental rights in particular of the children. They have rights that ought not be violated. The natural moral law is what binds us all and is available through reason alone.

 

[Patavium]

Well, I am not discounting all studies I am saying that studies should not be used as the final arbiter in matters such as these. Studies are often political even when people deny it.

This is matter of fundamental rights in particular of the children. They have rights that ought not be violated. The natural moral law is what binds us all and is available through reason alone.

I agree. This is why I find it troubling that some prefer to wait and find out the impacts of same sex union on raising children after studies are carried out, and it may be too late for those children as they become adults. Policy should be informed from research, but the rights of the children must be protected.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

The standard isn’t that homosexual parenting is the best, but that it’s better than the institutional environment that results from being left without any adopted parents.

Except allowing gays to adopt wont solve the problems of orphans anyway, as they want to create new children by means of IVF and not really wishing.to adopt the children that are already alive.

And i think if we’re being honest about solvings orphan problems, we’d need to exercise and preach more about sexual morality, so that orphans and unwanted children arent created and left for adoption as a result of one night stands. If only we as a society would take responsibility for our children

 

[PetrusRomanus]

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…

Or a baby could be raised by a healthy heterosexual couple that is financially stable with access to healthcare

Or

A baby can be raised by two crackhead SSA “parents”

The bad examples of heterosexual parenting are the exceptions rather than the rule. A healthy heterosexual couple ALWAYS outweighs any other situation. And the “good” examples of SSA parents are the exception rather than the rule, and even with the best example it is falls extremely short of being perfect…or even mediocre.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

So would you argue that non-Christians should not be allowed to adopt? Surely denying that Jesus is the Messiah is a graver sin than homosexuality?

The act of homosexuality is an act of rejecting Jesus and His teachings.

While non Chrstian families may not be ideal, they may still have morals and teach morality. But a homosexual couple is intrinsically immoral and intrinsically disordered, by definition.

 

[eamonnroma]

I feel that many comments here are aimed at the sinner and not the sin. In a country which allows single persons to adopt. If the adopter is chaste, but gay. Someone who follows the Church precepts - I presume that he or she would be suitable to adopt?

 

[PetrusRomanus]

I feel that many comments here are aimed at the sinner and not the sin. In a country which allows single persons to adopt. If the adopter is chaste, but gay. Someone who follows the Church precepts - I presume that he or she would be suitable to adopt?

Many comments here are aimed at the sinner’s lifestyle choice. We all still love the sinner, but that doesnt mean that we have to allow their lifestyle and their choices to trump good reasoning, especially when it comes to the lives of children that sre at stake.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It seems perverse that homosexuals would want to be parents, especially homosexual men. What would be the reasoning? They aren’t interested in the process. They aren’t women, so they aren’t capable of nursing or having maternal instincts.

I can actually see that a homosexual woman might want to have children, but I have a hard time seeing this vice versa, unless it is to carry the homosexual male’s name into posterity.

In any case, with all this artificial insemination these days, it is easy for either to have a child, homosexual men can donate sperm, have a surrogate mother carry their child, and vice versa for the homosexual woman. So they can both claim to have a child.

However, one thing is still lacking - the other half of the child!! The mother is not in the relationship for the homosexual man, nor the father in the case of the homosexual woman.

All I can say is it is a CRAZY world these days, and I don’t see it getting any more sane in the near future!!

 

[Personanongrata]

nongrata,

Absolutely. Attitudes changed as a result of Loving vs Virginia

Because marriage is a basic civil right. Notice that the right is complimented by “fundamental to our very existence and survival”…and when you see where that statement was lifted from…Skinner vs Oklahoma and you see what was said there…you will find…

Notice, marriage and procreation…not marriage alone is a civil right because procreation, not marriage is fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

While attitudes may change, reality cannot.

No homosexual, united in any way, absent any outside influence can ever do anything that does anything that is complimentary to the very existence and survival of the race.

How is it you believe that this attitude will change?

The segregated Army was a reality. That reality changed and so did attitudes.

There was a time when Blacks and whites didn’t mix. That reality changed and so did attitudes.

This intolerant generation of “hate the sin, love the sinner” folks is being replaced by tolerant young people.

It’s just a matter of time… really.

 

[fix]

The segregated Army was a reality. That reality changed and so did attitudes.

There was a time when Blacks and whites didn’t mix. That reality changed and so did attitudes.

This intolerant generation of “hate the sin, love the sinner” folks is being replaced by tolerant young people.

It’s just a matter of time… really.

By tolerant you mean embrace sin?

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

Your specific arguments are more of the exception than the rule. Gay persons surveyed have had several times as many sex partners and unstable relationships.

That’s hardly a good environment to raise a child in.

There is no good secular argument from the viewpoint of the state to change marriage. It should be between a man and a woman.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Well, I’m basing what I know so far on the evidence of what I’ve heard children say. And I’m sure I’ve seen studies out there (I’ll look and see if i can find them) that have shown children often thrive in same-sex households…but I think if I post the studies, you may repeat “You cannot generalize anything from these studies…”

But I don’t see the Vatican basing anything on studies *or *testimonies in that statement that was posted…so I’m wondering why they are using the words “experience has shown…”
I don’t understand what experience they are talking about in Ed’s post…

With the exception of the University of Texas-Austin study, which concluded that children raised by gay parents are not as well off, the sample sizes are not random which invalidate any conclusions thereof.

 

[CopticChristian]

The segregated Army was a reality. That reality changed and so did attitudes.

There was a time when Blacks and whites didn’t mix. That reality changed and so did attitudes.

This intolerant generation of “hate the sin, love the sinner” folks is being replaced by tolerant young people.

It’s just a matter of time… really.

For what?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The segregated Army was a reality. That reality changed and so did attitudes.

There was a time when Blacks and whites didn’t mix. That reality changed and so did attitudes.

This intolerant generation of “hate the sin, love the sinner” folks is being replaced by tolerant young people.

It’s just a matter of time… really.

I agree this will probably happen, although gay tolerance and racial tolerance have very little to do with each other. Black people sexually skewed (well maybe some are, but that’s a different matter).

This will eventually backfire, but I don’t know when. As for myself, I used to be a lot more tolerant of gay people until they started ramming their agenda down everyone’s throat.
Either they will quit being so outspoken and “in-your-face” after they get gay marriage passed (which they will), and people will just ignore them, or they will ask for still more (God knows what) and people will eventually stop being so tolerant.

However, I must say, we certainly are OFF TOPIC. This was about what is the Church’s stance on homosexual adoptions!!

 

[CopticChristian]

I agree this will probably happen, although gay tolerance and racial tolerance have very little to do with each other. Black people sexually skewed (well maybe some are, but that’s a different matter).

However, I must say, we certainly are OFF TOPIC. This was about what is the Church’s stance on homosexual adoptions!!

This will eventually backfire, but I don’t know when. As for myself, I used to be a lot more tolerant of gay people until they started ramming their agenda down everyone’s throat.

Either they will quit being so outspoken and “in-your-face” after they get gay marriage passed (which they will), and people will just ignore them, or they will ask for still more (God knows what) and people will eventually stop being so tolerant.

They will continually ask for more. If you recall Huey Newton and Bobby Seale…the agenda was …

ask for 10 demands and when we get that ask for 10 more and on and on and on…

 

[Mark121359]

I’m seeing a lot of posts by Catholics claiming that gay couples should be allowed to adopt when ***clearly *** the Church is strongly opposed to this. Are you saying that the Church is wrong about this? Although in retrospect, I shouldn’t be too surprised considering recent polls showing majorities in some cases, even among regular Church going Catholics who support abortion, SSM, divorce, contraception, sex between unmarried couples, having babies outside marriage, etc. etc. etc. All I can say is that Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were onto something when they voiced their concerns over and over and over again about secularism taking hold even among Catholics! All you need for proof of that is to browse these forums and read the abortion, SSM, contraception, and other similar threads to see how many Catholics support these things. Yes, Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were both ***deeply ***troubled by secularism…and their concerns were no doubt justified!

Peace, Mark

 

[livingwordunity]

It seems perverse that homosexuals would want to be parents, especially homosexual men. What would be the reasoning? They aren’t interested in the process. They aren’t women, so they aren’t capable of nursing or having maternal instincts.

I can actually see that a homosexual woman might want to have children, but I have a hard time seeing this vice versa, unless it is to carry the homosexual male’s name into posterity.

In any case, with all this artificial insemination these days, it is easy for either to have a child, homosexual men can donate sperm, have a surrogate mother carry their child, and vice versa for the homosexual woman. So they can both claim to have a child.

However, one thing is still lacking - the other half of the child!! The mother is not in the relationship for the homosexual man, nor the father in the case of the homosexual woman.

All I can say is it is a CRAZY world these days, and I don’t see it getting any more sane in the near future!!

Good point.

 

[livingwordunity]

I’m seeing a lot of posts by Catholics claiming that gay couples should be allowed to adopt when ***clearly *** the Church is strongly opposed to this. Are you saying that the Church is wrong about this? Although in retrospect, I shouldn’t be too surprised considering recent polls showing majorities in some cases, even among regular Church going Catholics who support abortion, SSM, divorce, contraception, sex between unmarried couples, having babies outside marriage, etc. etc. etc. All I can say is that Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were onto something when they voiced their concerns over and over and over again about secularism taking hold even among Catholics! All you need for proof of that is to browse these forums and read the abortion, SSM, contraception, and other similar threads to see how many Catholics support these things. Yes, Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were both ***deeply ***troubled by secularism…and their concerns were no doubt justified!

Peace, Mark

I agree with you. It makes me think of this quote from the Holy Bible:

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings” - 2 Timothy 4:3

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’m seeing a lot of posts by Catholics claiming that gay couples should be allowed to adopt when ***clearly *** the Church is strongly opposed to this. Are you saying that the Church is wrong about this?

You should read more carefully. It’s about what is best for the children. There are many abandoned children out there the DESPERATELY need homes. Bouncing them around from foster homes to orphanages really screws them up. Anyone that has the slightest clue on raising a child knows that stability is a must. Many people are so obsessed that a child may end of in a family with two fathers/mothers that they could care less that the children become collateral damage.

Although in retrospect, I shouldn’t be too surprised considering recent polls showing majorities in some cases, even among regular Church going Catholics who support abortion, SSM, divorce, contraception, sex between unmarried couples, having babies outside marriage, etc. etc. etc.

Allowing children to become collateral damage leads exactly to such things, and many people in this thread fail to see this.