There is such a thing as intrinsically evil.
We can discuss it when the entire world is homosexual. In the meantime, let’s focus on reality.
We’re humans. We do the best we can and putting children in an homosexual household is not the best.
Well…that is the primary focus of the thread. But what difference does it make? Is an environment you find immoral for adoptive kids any less an immoral environment for children who are the biological product of other illicit unions? Keep in mind that quite frequently children parented and adopted by homosexual couples are the biological offspring of one member of the gay couple and then adopted by the other partner–not unlike any number of out-of-wedlock babies adopted by a parent’s subsequent partner.
If the child is theirs biologically, who has the right to take the child away from them?
As far as I know, artificial birth control is intrinsically evil. Why aren’t a couple using ABC worse than no parents at all?
Ah, so merely being heterosexual makes one a better adoptive parent, regardless of any other considerations (for instance, wanting to adopt at all).
The question is not whether it is the best home a child could have, though. The question is whether it is the worst. If not, then what I said is true, that it might be the lesser of two evils in some cases. Specifically, if no other home is availiable - or what if the only other home was that of a pimp and a prostitute, or a couple of drug addicts? What about those third world orphanges one hears about which leave children basically isolated, with no human contact beyond the most basic physical necessities, or life on the streets? I’m not saying this is usually the case, or that better homes couldn’t possibly be found. I’m just not sure living with homosexuals is the absolute worst possible situation, as some seem to believe it is. Would you stop a homosexual couple from taking in a homeless child, if no other home were availiable?
When a child is placed for adoption, the background of a parent should be screened. If you know a potential parent will commit adultery, then find another. Just be sure to do the same for homosexuality.
Who knows that a couple is using birth control? You,…the child?
A want doesn’t make it a right.
Currently it requires some profound showing of ineptitude, neglect, abuse before public authorities will intervene and remove a child from a biological parent.
infertiltiy does not plague same sex couples…they have NO FERTLITY… will never be able to produce kids in a homosexual relationship…two men can not make a baby…two woman can not make a baby.
Well, for starters, not everyone agrees with the Catholic church, and shouldn’t be made to. Actually, The did interview the kids, they were both 32, one raised with two mums, and she had a husband, 2 kids and was a high profile accountant, the second was a boy raised with two dads, he was engaged, was working on his law degree, and both reported that their childhoods were pretty good. As one might see, it is how you parent, not your sexual orientation that matters in the end.godfrey:
Wammy101: And I don’t suppose this scientific organization you sited has any sort of agenda or bias? No, of course not. Nobody would use science in an unballanced manner.
And of course this is not the point to begin with. Gay marriage and adoption are wrong because it goes against Gods natural laws. Promoting an evil practice just because you cant find any short term negative consequences is still wrong. By the way, have they done any long term (like when they’re 30) research to find whether children adopted by gays have a greater chance of turning out gay themselves? Nope…but I think the results would be pretty obvious, and that’s another negative affect.
Actually, it isn’t how you parent that matters in the end…I’m sure there are many of us here who come from very dysfunctional homes. I know I did. I had a couple of alcoholic parents and I’m doing fine, not because their parenting was so good, but because of many other factors including good people who helped steer me in the right direction.
I think it is a horrible thing to deny people of rights because they are gay. If the Environment is stable ( clean house, stable jobs, always food on the table, enough love to go around, etc) I see no reason for people not to adopt, gay or otherwise.gay people aren’t necessarily bad. I don’t think they want special treatment, just equal treatment.
I agree
this arrangement would be intolerable for those who subscribe to the Catholic position on practicising homosexuals is that such a couple is living in an immoral and flagrantly sinful manner–presumably as inapproprite an environment as parents who were co-habiting fornicators, remarried divorcees, or couples practising birth control. Does that leave us with anyone to raise the kids?!
Infertility has does not deprive children of the proper gender roles and is not immoral behavior or poor example.
How is that analogous to two, or more, same sex folks pretending to be both husband and wife?
Would they be pretending to be both husband and wife? If so, then yes that would be gravely wrong.
Certainly bad behavior, but we all sin. The distinction here is not only grave sin, but exposing kids to an inverted notion of gender and the roles of mother and father.
You seem to be confusing the discussion here. All parents are sinners. Not all parents reject the authentic notion of gender, gender roles, and complimentarity needed to not confuse and distort a child’s mind.
Moral considerations aside, two people with a disordered psychosexual identity choosing a relationship liason and acting out a living arrangement based strictly on a disorded sexual preference is NOT a healthy basis for adopting and raising innocent children. Period. End of any reasonable discussion.
You make the point very well. This argument here occurs because we have lost the correct understanding of the roles of mother and father and what the words love and rights actually mean.
This is the succinct, rational, and hoped for ideal.
