Gay Unions or Marriages Adopting Kids

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The Catholic Church officially stigmatizes the homosexual in the home and in the workplace.
Recently my parents came out as heterosexuals, telling me I was a product of their sexual relationship with each other (Shock horror, who’d have thought?)
I have never seen them engaging in sex. Why should a homosexual couple parade intimacy in front of their children any more than mine? In the interests of conversion? I doubt it.

One of the worst things the Church has done is enter the privacy of intimacy between couples and it is unfortunate how it has been so awkwardly handled.

 

[JaneGrey]

I honestly don’t know if there is an official Church position per se. The Church does teach that sodomy is a sin, as is adultery, fornication, masturbation, and living with a sexual partner other than a spouse, still living, to whom one has been validly married (sometimes referred to as a “second marriage”).

What about people who do such things adopting children? Less than ideal, to be sure. I am an adoptive father of three children. My wife and I are both practicing Catholics, and we are validly married according to canon law. Given the imperfections of their adoptive father, I would have to say that the situation of these children is less than ideal, although better than it would have been otherwise.

I notice that the question of homosexual “couples” adopting children often comes up, but never whether couples in “second marriages” as previously defined should adopt children. But both circumstances involve potentially mortal sin. Why the distinction?

Now homosexual “couples” often adopt children that others don’t want to take, thinking particularly of HIV infected children. Should we be campaigning to put a stop to this? If someone answers “yes,” then my next question to that person is whether he would be willing to adopt a child, or two, or three, because there are a great number of children out there who need homes.

To those who do not want to participate in adopting children, but who still want to object to others doing so, I recommend in the strongest terms, that they do the Catholic thing, and spend more time working on improving themselves rather than complaining about what others do under circumstances that the complainers know nothing about.

I really enjoyed your post. The world needs more people like you and your wife, who adopt children. It is something I would like to do someday, maybe an older child if possible, and If im ever in a good position to be a parent. Your argument is sound, sometimes in this world, for reasons we dont know, there are such things as lesser than two evils. Even with homosexual parents, the child is mroe likely to have access to a network of extended family, aunts, uncles, a family who loves them, compared to being a ward of the state.

God bless

 

[avflf]

…Now homosexual “couples” often adopt children that others don’t want to take, thinking particularly of HIV infected children. Should we be campaigning to put a stop to this? If someone answers “yes,” then my next question to that person is whether he would be willing to adopt a child, or two, or three, because there are a great number of children out there who need homes.

To those who do not want to participate in adopting children, but who still want to object to others doing so, I recommend in the strongest terms, that they do the Catholic thing, and spend more time working on improving themselves rather than complaining about what others do under circumstances that the complainers know nothing about.

If we followed God’s command on how to deal with homosexuals there would be none to adopt anything

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Even with homosexual parents, the child is mroe likely to have access to a network of extended family, aunts, uncles, a family who loves them, compared to being a ward of the state.

God bless

On another thread someone has confused pedophile behaviour with homosexuality. Not the same, and homosexuals condemn it and are just as likely to commit the act as heterosexuals.
Adopting a child is difficult, harder if you are gay/lesbian. If the couple are blessed enough to adopt there’s every reason to believe the child will be loved, held as something precious in life, and celebrated as family.

 

[atassina]

Kevin, being loved is not the essence of family. Following God’s order for us is the essence of family: Father, Mother, children.

 

[peduzzi89]

For me, it seems like we are for some reason pigeonholing just one type of sinner and telling them not to adopt. In all honesty, we are ALL sinful. There are a number of ways that parents could negatively influence a child-obesity and alcoholism to quote 2 from above. Why is one sexual sin dangerous to place children with but not others? What about cohabiting couples? To go even further…what about couples who daily practice oral sex or other sexual acts outside of the reproductive marital act (into which I won’t delve on this thread)? These couples are living in as much sexual deviance as a homosexual couple. No couple should be displaying their sex life to young children anyway. What if 2 women who were not sexually involved wanted to adopt? Would a catholic church sanction 2 sisters adopting a child? What would be the difference between that and a lesbian couple adopting a child if there was no public display of sexual intimacy (as it should be) and the child knew the parents love each other (still true for 2 sisters)? One can get male and female influences from a number of places. I was raised by a single mother and got all of the male influence I ever needed from my grandfather and uncles. I also know people with 2 married parents who because of psychological or physical distance got no influence from one of their parents.

Do you see how the whole “gays can’t adopt because they are sinful” argument falls apart upon pointing out that we are all sinful? Everyone keeps saying that homosexuality is outside God’s life-giving plan for the marriage, but all other sexually deviant acts are just as much so. Yet we feel comfortable placing children with those couples. And then the whole male-female influence thing doesn’t work either because this can come from a variety of places WHETHER OR NOT you’re speaking of same-sex adoptive parents.

 

[atassina]

Next time you are at church please make a list of the couples who are involved in sexually deviant activities. How can you tell just by looking? Homosexual couples want to be accepted as normal as married couples. They are not. Sexually active homosexual couples are outside the moral law. We must promote a civilization of love not of tolerance. This thread is about “Gay Unions” and not other sins. Therefore, should we allow or encourage or allow homosexual couples to adopt children-- yes or no.

 

[peduzzi89]

In responce to your question…how do you know that that committed same sex couple does sexually deviant acts in the bedroom either? Perhaps they just love each other but don’t do anything outside the moral law either? That’s the point I’m trying to make…we are all sinners. Plus, the topic of homosexual couples being accepted in society is not the topic of this thread, whether or not children should be placed with them is.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Next time you are at church please make a list of the couples who are involved in sexually deviant activities. How can you tell just by looking? Homosexual couples want to be accepted as normal as married couples. They are not. Sexually active homosexual couples are outside the moral law. We must promote a civilization of love not of tolerance. This thread is about “Gay Unions” and not other sins. Therefore, should we allow or encourage or allow homosexual couples to adopt children-- yes or no.

I’m confused (again). Are you asking me to report any people I think are a married couple because this is clear indication they are homosexual?
If a couple behaves as if they were homosexual should I consider them definately heterosexual?
To make it easier please provide a list of deviant sexual activity I may find in my local parish church, and then I can invite the family to a game of “Spot the gay”.

 

[peduzzi89]

Perhaps my point was unclear, for which I apologize. The largest point I was trying to make is that homosexuality is plucked out as the sexual deviance which is condemned far more than others - there are countless other couples that perform other sexual acts outside the reproductive marital act, but we place children with them all the time…so why are we targeting gay people so much when they are probably one of the smallest groups of sexual deviants.

 

[Nec5]

Perhaps my point was unclear, for which I apologize. The largest point I was trying to make is that homosexuality is plucked out as the sexual deviance which is condemned far more than others - there are countless other couples that perform other sexual acts outside the reproductive marital act, but we place children with them all the time…so why are we targeting gay people so much when they are probably one of the smallest groups of sexual deviants.

Because they are an obvious group that has publicly called for normalization and acceptance of their behavior. Once their acceptance is complete, other groups will have their say (i.e. polygamists, brother-sister weddings, etc).

This is precisely the root issue. If homosexuality is considered normal, than all standard obligations and freedoms should definitely be afforded to them. If not, then they should not be allowed to adopt children.

Following traditional morality based on Judeo-Christian philosophy and religion, they should not be allowed to adopt. If a swingers couple wants to adopt, they too should be denied.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I was wondering what the official Church position is on homosexual couples adopting kids or babies? Whats the social moral position on that since a baby or kid needs a great home? Does the Church support homosexuals adpoting?

The Catholic Church recently closed an Orphanage because the state they are in starting allowing Gay Couples to adopt. Because they are Christian they could not in Good Conscious allow these orphans to be adopted into such an evil situation and so the largest Orphanage in that state had to close it’s doors.

Hope that helps answer you.

 

[peduzzi89]

Ahh and now we’re getting down to the root of the issue. The thing is, the other people I have spoken of who are every bit as sexually deviant as homosexuals are far more obvious - their behavior has been out in the open and spoken about far more and for far longer than homosexuals…yet they can still adopt children…you still haven’t addressed that! This seems to indicate that the general aversion to homosexuality comes muchly from one’s inner personal feelings on the matter rather than solely from the church’s teaching. It’s almost as if it’s become a popular bandwagon to jump on.

And btw, you’re contradicting yourself in 2 ways. Firstly, you’re using the logic that we’re targeting homosexuals because they are an obvious and large group who is currently and publicly demanding widespread acceptance…but then you make the whole antiquated slippery slope argument-the logic of which undermines this because there are no large public widespread groups demanding acceptance polygamy or incestuous marriages…which brings me to the second way you’re contradicting yourself. You’re grouping together very different groups of sexual deviants together to make this argument but refuted doing so in your rebuttal of my point about pigeonholing the homosexuals in particular.

Aaaaaaand off to bed with me…until tomorrow!

 

[St_Francis]

Ahh and now we’re getting down to the root of the issue. The thing is, the other people I have spoken of who are every bit as sexually deviant as homosexuals are far more obvious - their behavior has been out in the open and spoken about far more and for far longer than homosexuals…yet they can still adopt children…you still haven’t addressed that! This seems to indicate that the general aversion to homosexuality comes muchly from one’s inner personal feelings on the matter rather than solely from the church’s teaching. It’s almost as if it’s become a popular bandwagon to jump on.

First of all, we don’t know that these people can adopt. Are they asking to adopt? Are they being turned down if the agency knows about their deviancy?

Secondly, there is a huge difference between a validly and sacramentally married couple performing deviant acts and a homosexual couple… because the homosexual couple is *primarily *deviant. They couldn’t just give up the sinful part of their lives and carry on as a normal couple–they will always be two people of one sex.

And btw, you’re contradicting yourself in 2 ways. Firstly, you’re using the logic that we’re targeting homosexuals because they are an obvious and large group who is currently and publicly demanding widespread acceptance…

But this is not the entire problem. Part of the problem is that a homosexual couple wishing to adopt is also trying to form a family, but the family they are trying to form would be disordered right off the bat because of the lack of the opposite sex in that family–the influence will be too-heavily weighted in the direction of one sex.

No one has the “right” to a child–the right should be seen as being *entirely *on the side of the child: what are the *child’s *rights in this situation? The child has the right to be placed in the *best possible *situation, not to be placed in an objectively disordered situation to appease adults.

but then you make the whole antiquated slippery slope argument-the logic of which undermines this because there are no large public widespread groups demanding acceptance polygamy or incestuous marriages…which brings me to the second way you’re contradicting yourself. You’re grouping together very different groups of sexual deviants together to make this argument but refuted doing so in your rebuttal of my point about pigeonholing the homosexuals in particular.

There is a very good reason that people bring up the slippery-slope argument: many many years ago, the proponents of some types of un-normality were granted acceptance. (divorced people, single parents, co-habitating couples; married couples who wanted to have sex but not children, unmarried people who wanted to have sex but not children, pregnant women who did not want to have children).

These issues were brought up in contexts of fairness, liberty, and/or compassion–all very appealing to Americans. They were also brought up in the context of civil rights, an area in which we had actually gone very wrong, which made gaining the acceptance of society much easier.

Having ridiculed those few who opposed those acceptances, and having ignored *their *slippery slope arguments in almost the exact same words you are using, we no longer think, well, the polygamists are not asking for acceptance–we know that once one group gains acceptance, the next group comes along to the ACLU to get a court case to overturn laws against them.

 

[Nec5]

Ahh and now we’re getting down to the root of the issue. The thing is, the other people I have spoken of who are every bit as sexually deviant as homosexuals are far more obvious - their behavior has been out in the open and spoken about far more and for far longer than homosexuals…yet they can still adopt children…you still haven’t addressed that!

Already addressed. If they have demonstrated deviancy and immorality in their lives, then the answer is no adoption. If, however, they renounce their past ways and can demonstrate they have become responsible, then it becomes a judgment call. Would you or I allow a chronic womanizer to adopt kids if he came to court and pleaded he was changed man? I’m a cynic, so I would lean towards “No”.

And btw, you’re contradicting yourself in 2 ways. Firstly, you’re using the logic that we’re targeting homosexuals because they are an obvious and large group who is currently and publicly demanding widespread acceptance…but then you make the whole antiquated slippery slope argument-the logic of which undermines this because there are no large public widespread groups demanding acceptance polygamy or incestuous marriages…

Your biases are obvious. By describing the argument as “antiquated”, you close down your objectivity. Your failure to accept the slippery slope argument cannot be overcome through words. How do you think society arrived at this point? By abandoning traditional values like monogamy, chastity, and commitment. Not surprisingly, the number of people that take their faith seriously has nosedived. There is a connection there. It’s like studying the fall of Rome, a seemingly disparate list of problems culminated in a rotting corpse of an empire. That’s no logical fallacy, and neither is the connection between the decaying bedrock morality of the West and its gradual fall.

which brings me to the second way you’re contradicting yourself. You’re grouping together very different groups of sexual deviants together to make this argument but refuted doing so in your rebuttal of my point about pigeonholing the homosexuals in particular.

This is no contradiction either. Homosexuals are just like other sexual deviants; their lifestyle should not be accepted as normal. The current contextual difference, which you asked for, is that homosexuals are the current group that has captured the spotlight and is demanding acceptance and tolerance. Polygamists and other immoral people have not officially petitioned for anything or they haven’t been in the spotlight. I have little use for people that cheat on their spouses either. What’s your point?

When homosexuality becomes fully acceptable (and it’s nearly there now), the other groups will jump to the forefront after a few decades. You embrace homosexuality, but to be logically consistent, you will need to embrace at the very least polygamy and brother-sister marriages. This is where people tend to put up a wall and claim, “That can’t happen. It’s not normal or the same issue”. Gay marriage wasn’t normal a few decades ago either. Divorce was scandalous. Sleeping around was considered trashy and immoral. What a more tolerant country we’ve become.

 

[Major_Tom]

Homosexuals are just like other sexual deviants; their lifestyle should not be accepted as normal.

Not sure if it’s been posted, but are we all working from the same definition of ‘deviant’? There have been several threads on this forum regarding oral sex, and it’s appropriateness… in the wrong context, it is sinful (apparently from these boards at least). Would this meet the test of “deviancy”?

Also, how is deviancy to be determined? Questionaires? “Have you and your spouse ever engaged in deviant sex? (Circle One)”

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Not sure if it’s been posted, but are we all working from the same definition of ‘deviant’? There have been several threads on this forum regarding oral sex, and it’s appropriateness… in the wrong context, it is sinful (apparently from these boards at least). Would this meet the test of “deviancy”?

Also, how is deviancy to be determined? Questionaires? “Have you and your spouse ever engaged in deviant sex? (Circle One)”

Thank you:thumbsup:

How many married couples are there wherein one or both are homosexual?
Is the man homosexual?
Is the woman homosexual?
If so, how far are they orientated in this direction?
Answer is, we don’t know.
I’m surprised at the number of “straight men” slip off their wedding ring and enter a gay club, returning to their spouse when they get what they came for, and no-one would know who visits a male prostitute. A lot would be surprised.
It all becomes a bit difficult.
When AIDS broke out (AIDS is not a gay disease) even some in the gay community were surprised at who was gay (and who wasn’t), they too stereotyped.
On this perhaps we should deny everyone the right to adopt; just in case. Just kidding

 

[Nec5]

Not sure if it’s been posted, but are we all working from the same definition of ‘deviant’? There have been several threads on this forum regarding oral sex, and it’s appropriateness… in the wrong context, it is sinful (apparently from these boards at least). Would this meet the test of “deviancy”?

Also, how is deviancy to be determined? Questionaires? “Have you and your spouse ever engaged in deviant sex? (Circle One)”

Character witnesses. Credibility. It’s not hard to find out via background checks, questionnaires, interviews and such.

I am not a relativist on this issue. As for deviancy, I think Paul’s list is a good starting point. Stability is key here too, so stable married couples should be the gold standard. Homosexuals are deviants, contrary to the political correctness that flourishes. As far as odd sexual behaviors are concerned, you have to assume that married couples will handle it appropriately. There is no way nor is it appropriate for government to determine all of a couples oddities. That’s why it remains for society at large to remain moral and not embrace deviancy.

As the people go, so goes the nation and all that. Which is why such a perverse idea like this will soon become commonplace.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Character witnesses. Credibility. It’s not hard to find out via background checks, questionnaires, interviews and such.

I am not a relativist on this issue. As for deviancy, I think Paul’s list is a good starting point. Stability is key here too, so stable married couples should be the gold standard. Homosexuals are deviants, contrary to the political correctness that flourishes. As far as odd sexual behaviors are concerned, you have to assume that married couples will handle it appropriately. There is no way nor is it appropriate for government to determine all of a couples oddities. That’s why it remains for society at large to remain moral and not embrace deviancy.

As the people go, so goes the nation and all that. Which is why such a perverse idea like this will soon become commonplace.

Stasiland here we come!

 

[Maria65]

For those wondering about the Church’s position on homosexuality, from the Catechism:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, 141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Also:

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,[139] the sin of the Sodomites,[140] the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,[141] the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,[142] injustice to the wage earner.[143]