Conservatives Demand Kids of Gays be Expelled

  • Thread starter Thread starter katherine2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This exact issue came up on the original politics forum (that crashed) a few months ago. A female “couple” with an acquired child was suing a Catholic school for not admitting their daughter. Well the debate was lively–it included Ken before his postings got so juvenile and he got kicked off, and a lady called Darby (I think) whose former husband and father of her children had embraced the homosexual lifestyle.

We discussed something that hasn’t arisen in this thread–what about the other children at that school? My contention is that there is no way to associate with the two “fathers” at school functions without having unwanted questions arise from the other children. My own children are in Catholic school and I would hate to have to field the question (in kindergarten!) as to why little Johnny has 2 fathers. Also, I would never let my children go over to such a household. So what about poor Johnny? None of the other children can come over to play. I know some may call me heartless, but too bad. My primary responsibility is to rear my children with Christian values, and a same-sex “couple” is totally antithetical to those values and can’t in any way be assumed to be in conformity with Church teachings.
 
40.png
TarAshly:
i dont think shes stating that at all i think shes stating that adoptions prevent abortions. i dont think its a gay issue at all.
Click to expand...
Well if she is stating that, she has the cause-effect relationship exactly backwards. The reality is that abortions prevent adoptions.
 
ST. Jeane ostracizing the children who are adopted by gays is an unacceptable practice as well. I
 
40.png
StJeanneDArc:
This exact issue came up on the original politics forum (that crashed) a few months ago. A female “couple” with an acquired child was suing a Catholic school for not admitting their daughter. Well the debate was lively–it included Ken before his postings got so juvenile and he got kicked off, and a lady called Darby (I think) whose former husband and father of her children had embraced the homosexual lifestyle.

We discussed something that hasn’t arisen in this thread–what about the other children at that school? My contention is that there is no way to associate with the two “fathers” at school functions without having unwanted questions arise from the other children. My own children are in Catholic school and I would hate to have to field the question (in kindergarten!) as to why little Johnny has 2 fathers. Also, I would never let my children go over to such a household. So what about poor Johnny? None of the other children can come over to play. I know some may call me heartless, but too bad. My primary responsibility is to rear my children with Christian values, and a same-sex “couple” is totally antithetical to those values and can’t in any way be assumed to be in conformity with Church teachings.
Click to expand...
More good reasons to ban homosexual adoption. It is a travesty.
 
40.png
fix:
More good reasons to ban homosexual adoption. It is a travesty.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100%. Allowing such couples to adopt is in effect relegating some children to 2nd-class families. I don’t think reasonable people would approve adoption by drug-addicts–why should we allow it by people with sexual disorders?
 
40.png
TarAshly:
Nicole i myself have worked in orphanages in Mexico. i have seen first hand the adoption policies of the world as my aunt went through years of red tape and money money money to get a baby and never got one until she did a private adoption with a 15 year old girl and her family. my husband and i have also been told that it would be near impossible for us to adopt if we were unable to concieve because we are not in the preferred income brakett and because of my husbands illness. i will not retract my statement because i have seen this first hand. it is no generalization.
Click to expand...
Well, thank you very much for the compassion and non-judgemental attitude you have shown me. Perhaps if my husband and I were a gay couple adopting, you would try not to say something so hurtful about our experience.

I am sorry that you will not reconsider, especially as you are simultaneously urging others to be more compassionate.

Nicole

PS: I am on a huge adoption list where people with illnesses and disabilities adopt all the time, so I fear you have been misinformed. As for the money, ime, people of all income ranges can adopt. Again, that is just my experience and apparently irrelevant to anyone else.
 
40.png
Lilyofthevalley:
ST. Jeane ostracizing the children who are adopted by gays is an unacceptable practice as well. I
Click to expand...
Please re-read my post. I didn’t call for ostracizing. I stated that I wouldn’t allow my children to go over to such a household. I also wouldn’t let my children go over to houses where the parents were alcoholics, drug-addicts, wife-beaters, etc. My children are my responsibility to raise as I see fit in conformity with God’s laws. They are not to be used in the social experiments foisted upon us by the homosexual community.
 
40.png
StJeanneDArc:
I agree with you 100%. Allowing such couples to adopt is in effect relegating some children to 2nd-class families. I don’t think reasonable people would approve adoption by drug-addicts–why should we allow it by people with sexual disorders?
Click to expand...
Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

-CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE
LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN
HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
 
40.png
Nicole:
Well, thank you very much for the compassion and non-judgemental attitude you have shown me. Perhaps if my husband and I were a gay couple adopting, you would try not to say something so hurtful about our experience.

I am sorry that you will not reconsider, especially as you are simultaneously urging others to be more compassionate.

Nicole

PS: I am on a huge adoption list where people with illnesses and disabilities adopt all the time, so I fear you have been misinformed. As for the money, ime, people of all income ranges can adopt. Again, that is just my experience and apparently irrelevant to anyone else.
Click to expand...
i am confused. how have i not shown you compassion or judgement i did not state anything negative about adoptive families. this will most likely be the route my husband and i will have to take one day. i made a statement about adoption policies and the money hungry beaurocracy of all of it. youre taking offense to something that was not aimed at you personally or indirectly. my opinion has been based on my experiance. not yours.
 
I’ll just repost what you wrote, which was NOT prefaced by saying that it was in your experience. You said that “the worlds adoption programs are unfortunate. a baby being a black market trade is unfortunate.”

My son is NOT a black market trade and the worlds adoption programs are only unfortunate in your experience, not to someone who has been blessed with a child in this way. Sure, they can be improved, but they are not all ‘unfortunate.’

Nicole
 
40.png
TarAshly:
there is a difference between teaching the opposite of doctrine and teaching humanity and compassion and open mindedness. why should Catholic children be taught not to form their own opinions to think for themselves. should we make them mindless heartless doctrinal robots?
Click to expand...
Nope. We should teach them the truth. For example:

God is Knowledge.

God is Love

God is overflowing with both knowledge and love, so much so that we will never know as much nor love as well.

There is a lot of growth available for the mind and the heart once one knows these basics.

If one is taught to oppose the mind of Christ and His Church, he/she becomes a slave of his/her limited knowledge and opinions and doesn’t think to expore real understanding.
 
I heard the words “close minded” a few times. I find it ironic that unless you subscribe to a certain view, in this case the pro-homosexual view, you are close minded.

A proponent of gay marriage, who is a dear friend of mine who happens to be homosexual, once asked me why people are so close minded to gay marriage. I asked him “why are people such as yourself so close minded to the belief that children may suffer from it?” Aside from me, I’ve never heard anyone else ask if someone on the other side of the debate was close minded–and I only did that because he thought his side was the only open minded one.

I think calling someone close minded, bleeding heart liberal, arch conservative, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, hypocrite, cafeteria catholic, etc. is a way of discrediting the other person without making intellectual arguments on behalf of the issue. I’ve fallen in this trap too–i shamefully called someone on here a useful idiot for terrorsts (I should not have done that) instead of presenting my case–so I’m not speaking from superiority here. It’s just that discrediting someone’s motivations gets us nowhere–I’m confident everyone here has noble intentions, so lets discuss issues.

No one is saying that children are better off killed than adopted–that is an unfair motivation to put on someone just because they disagree with you. Of course they are better off adopted than dead. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they are better off with a mom and a dad, or a same sex set of parents–and if they are in the latter, whether or not they should be allowed to attend religious schools.

Since they already are deprived of the family design God intended (mother and father), I don’t to see them deprived of an opportunity to learn the values God intended us to live by. Of course a child should be permitted to go to Catholic school regardless of their parents choice in partners. Whether you think gay parents are worse, better, or the same as straight parents–we should want God in this child’s life, and certainly should not discriminate against an innocent based on the parents real or percieved sins.

Blessings to all.
 
40.png
Jay74:
I heard the words “close minded” a few times. I find it ironic that unless you subscribe to a certain view, in this case the pro-homosexual view, you are close minded.

A proponent of gay marriage, who is a dear friend of mine who happens to be homosexual, once asked me why people are so close minded to gay marriage. I asked him “why are people such as yourself so close minded to the belief that children may suffer from it?” Aside from me, I’ve never heard anyone else ask if someone on the other side of the debate was close minded–and I only did that because he thought his side was the only open minded one.

I think calling someone close minded, bleeding heart liberal, arch conservative, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, hypocrite, cafeteria catholic, etc. is a why of discrediting the other person without making intellectual arguments on behalf of the issue. I’ve fallen in this trap too–i shamefully called someone on here a useful idiot for terrorsts (I should not have done that) instead of presenting my case–so I’m not speaking from superiority here. It’s just that discrediting someone’s motivations as bigotry gets us nowhere.

No one is saying that children are better off killed than adopted–that is an unfair motivation to put on someone just because they disagree with you. Of course they are better off adopted than dead. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they are better off with a mom and a dad, or a same sex set of parents–and if they are in the latter, whether or not they should be allowed to attend religious schools.

Since they already are deprived of the family design God intended (mother and father), I don’t to see them deprived of an opportunity to learn the values God intended us to live by. Of course a child should be permitted to go to Catholic school regardless of their parents choice in partners. Whether you think gay parents are worse, better, or the same as straight parents–we should want God in this child’s life, and certainly should not discriminate against an innocent based on the parents real or percieved sins.

Blessings to all.
Click to expand...
i have to agree with you one THOUSAND percent. very well put. :clapping:
 
I would think rather than debating whether a Catholic school should accept a student whose parents are publiclly rejecting the teachings of the Church a better appproach would be for objecting parents at the school in question to work toward laws that would remove the child from the homosexual couple and work to change the laws that would better reflect the common good and right reason.
 
40.png
katherine2:
I will pass your thoughts on to my neighbors, two guys that saved a child from the abortuary by adopting her.

Sheesh, just when I was begining to think that conservatives were better than I would have thought.
Click to expand...
I have to agree!!. I have seen any number of stories about these “trophy children” adopted by gay couples, many of which are older, bi-racial, special needs, veterans of the foster care system, FAS or drug-exposed infants and the like that no one else wants and who have been warehoused for years in the foster care system. Is it a perfect answer? Hardly. But I have great admiration for these couples who, through no obligation, choose to open their homes, financial resources, time and hearts to children who otherwise would languish in foster care. It is a highly unselfish and loving commitment. Anyone looking for a “trophy” has an endless list of much easier options than parenting one (or more) of these kids. And while we’re at it let’s not forget that these couples also open themselves up to the type of criticism, belittling, condemnation and judgment plastered all over this pro-life web site. Hardly the trophy most would have expected or hoped for.
 
Island Oak:
I have to agree!!. I have seen any number of stories about these “trophy children” adopted by gay couples, many of which are older, bi-racial, special needs, veterans of the foster care system, FAS or drug-exposed infants and the like that no one else wants and who have been warehoused for years in the foster care system. Is it a perfect answer? Hardly. But I have great admiration for these couples who, through no obligation, choose to open their homes, financial resources, time and hearts to children who otherwise would languish in foster care. It is a highly unselfish and loving commitment. Anyone looking for a “trophy” has an endless list of much easier options than parenting one (or more) of these kids. And while we’re at it let’s not forget that these couples also open themselves up to the type of criticism, belittling, condemnation and judgment plastered all over this pro-life web site. Hardly the trophy most would have expected or hoped for.
Click to expand...
Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children,
 
i believe violence is the wrong word. would it be difficult for the child at times yes. but thats true of any kid who is fat, wears glasses, has pimples or braces, divorced parents, poor family etc… kids get made fun of for wearing the wrong brand of clothes. kids are just cruel for the most part when they get to the bully/bullied phase. what if the parents are loving and kind and generous. i agree with Island Oak. it provides loving homes and families for otherwise unwanted children.
 
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood.** Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children**, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

CDF
 
Island Oak:
I have to agree!!. I have seen any number of stories about these “trophy children” adopted by gay couples, many of which are older, bi-racial, special needs, veterans of the foster care system, FAS or drug-exposed infants and the like that no one else wants and who have been warehoused for years in the foster care system. Is it a perfect answer? Hardly. But I have great admiration for these couples who, through no obligation, choose to open their homes, financial resources, time and hearts to children who otherwise would languish in foster care. It is a highly unselfish and loving commitment. Anyone looking for a “trophy” has an endless list of much easier options than parenting one (or more) of these kids. And while we’re at it let’s not forget that these couples also open themselves up to the type of criticism, belittling, condemnation and judgment plastered all over this pro-life web site. Hardly the trophy most would have expected or hoped for.
Click to expand...
I have to object to your characterization of the foster system. The foster parents I know are loving, generous, married couples who open their lives to total scrutiny by state agencies and their homes to these special needs children. Let’s not forget that the reason many children languish so long in the foster care system is because the bio-parent(s) refuse to release the children for adoption.

There are all sorts of things that will disqualify a person from eligibility to adopt. It’s just a terrible tragedy that a sexual disorder is not one of them.
 
40.png
Lilyofthevalley:
Katherine2 you are basically stating the reason there are so many abortions is there is a shortage of gay couples who can adopt? That reasoning really doesn’t make any sense.
The reason for abortion are different from that.
Click to expand...
I didn’t state that. I very clearly refered to a single, particular case. Please read carefully.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top