Homosexuals adopting children?

[corvidae]

Ok, I think the big issue here is what effect does it have on a child. I mean this, we know that those who grow up without a father or without a mother are more likely to have problems. This is because of the lack of a rolemodel of the same or opposite gender.

Now the question is, if you have two of the same gender, if they both pretend to be dads, both pretend to be moms, or try to have one be a dad and one be a mom. As for the both being a dad or a mom, you still do not have a rolemodel of the opposite gender, and the rolemodel of the same gender is skewed because you see two people, each claiming the role, and each doing it differently.

In my opinion this is no worse than having a father who will not behave as a father should, and so the child must go and find another rolemodel. However, one must remember, that we are placing the child there. It is not luck, or fate, but human interaction that has placed the child in the home, surely we can take some responsibility for finding the best home, and surely some heterosexual couples are not the best home, but some are.

As far as having a homosexual couple trying to fill both roles, that is even more confusing for a child. For now gender has nothing to do with gender roles, and perhaps even the roles themselves will be skewed, being a little of this and a little of that. All children learn predominately in the home, and some will come from bad homes. However, it is unwise to place them in a home that is not the best just to be politically correct. We should strive to give children the best homes that we can, and from a socialogical standpoint, in my opinion, that includes not giving them to homosexual couples unless there is grave cause for it. It should not be the norm.

A lone Raven

p.s.- wammy, it takes more than two subjects to make a scientific study, you need to review their data.

 

[setter]

We should strive to give children the best homes that we can, and from a socialogical standpoint, in my opinion, that includes not giving them to homosexual couples unless there is grave cause for it. It should not be the norm.

A lone Raven

Is not the fundamental psychosexual identity disorder of a homosexual lifestyle couple “grave cause” to prohibit adoption?

 

[Island_Oak]

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.

We have distorted these relationships and meanings to the point where we can impute any meaning we choose.

Is it Alice in Wonderland where the character declares?:

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

That sums it up I think.

I have no confusion about what the Church’s position is and the ideal it maintains.

However in the down and dirty of human reality and frailty, you propose it is preferable to leave orphaned, abandoned children warehoused, neglected even abused in the foster care system as opposed to allowing them into the world of gender-bending parenting by a loving and nurturing homosexual couple? There are greater evils to be suffered by a child than confused gender roles. I find this a hard pill to swallow in that waiting for the “ideal” means kids do grow up without a home of their own and never quite mend from a childhood of abuse and neglect.

 

[fix]

I have no confusion about what the Church’s position is and the ideal it maintains.

The “ideal” is the only way. The opposite is to sin.

However in the down and dirty of human reality and frailty, you propose it is preferable to leave orphaned, abandoned children warehoused, neglected even abused in the foster care system as opposed to allowing them into the world of gender-bending parenting by a loving and nurturing homosexual couple?

Hobson’s choice. The real choice is to care for the kids as their rights demand, or to expose them to deviant relationships because we mistaknely think the ends justify the means.

There are greater evils to be suffered by a child than confused gender roles.

Yes, so, what does that have to do with the discussion?
Murder of parents is more seroious than murder of a stranger. Which is more desirable?

I find this a hard pill to swallow in that waiting for the “ideal” means kids do grow up without a home of their own and never quite mend from a childhood of abuse and neglect.

You want to start with an immoral act and then declare there is some right that stems from such an act. It is backward.

We do not live in a world where the choice is children being abused and killed if they are not “saved” by the “loving” same sex couple.

 

[setter]

I have no confusion about what the Church’s position is and the ideal it maintains.

However in the down and dirty of human reality and frailty, you propose it is preferable to leave orphaned, abandoned children warehoused, neglected even abused in the foster care system as opposed to allowing them into the world of gender-bending parenting by a loving and nurturing homosexual couple? There are greater evils to be suffered by a child than confused gender roles. I find this a hard pill to swallow in that waiting for the “ideal” means kids do grow up without a home of their own and never quite mend from a childhood of abuse and neglect.

But same-sex adoptions is not a solution in good Catholic and social science conscience.

**Interview With Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons of Catholic Medical Association **
WEST CONSHOHOCKEN, Pennsylvania, 20 JULY 2005 (ZENIT)

Q: What do the social and medical perspectives of scientific research indicate about the needs of a child for a father and a mother?

Fitzgibbons: Dr. Reekers and Dr. Byrd’s summary of some of the vast literature on child development demonstrates the vital importance of a father and a mother for the developmental needs of a child.

In effect, the social science research supports the recent statement of the Vatican that to deliberately deprive a child of a father or a mother through adoption by those in the homosexual lifestyle would inflict severe harm onto those children.

The APA’s statement ignores the vast scholarship on the needs of children such as Henry Biller’s “Fathers and Families: Paternal Factors in Child Development,” which includes a bibliography of almost 1,000 separate articles or books on the positive effects of fathers on children.

These studies were not done as part of a political campaign, but as serious scholarship to increase our knowledge of child development. The literature on the needs of a child for a mother is even more extensive, and was equally ignored

.
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/zssmenthel.HTM

 

[fix]

But same-sex adoptions is not solution in good Catholic and social science conscience.

.
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/zssmenthel.HTM

Reading this it seems to me the problem here is very much like other problems with morality today. The seriousness of sin is dismissed when we refuse to accept the objective graveness of certain acts.

As an example how often have we read contraception is no big deal because the couple really loves each other? Why would God care about something so nominal? Who does it hurt?

Masturbation? It’s not like I robbed an old lady.

Homosexual realtionships raising a kid? No biggie at least the kid is not with some crack addicted person with no food.

The reasoning is perplexing to me. It leaves out rational discussion, moral reasoning, and right reason in favor of emotionalism and sentimentalism.

It as if there are only two choices. One is some pie in the sky ideal no one really ever attains and the “real” world where we place God on the shelf while we go out and live as if He does not matter.

 

[Syele]

It as if there are only two choices. One is some pie in the sky ideal no one really ever attains and the “real” world where we place God on the shelf while we go out and live as if He does not matter.

This is the real heart of the matter, most people ahve come to believe (through popular media) that sinners cannot help themselves, especially sexual sinners, and to demand they behave is unreasonable and mean.

What a sad state to live in… believeing that having good morals is hopeless!

 

[nydas]

This is the real heart of the matter, most people ahve come to believe (through popular media) that sinners cannot help themselves, especially sexual sinners, and to demand they behave is unreasonable and mean.

What a sad state to live in… believeing that having good morals is hopeless!

Wrong. What most people have come to believe is that this country is based on religious freedom, which means just because your religious belief say its wrong, does not make it so.

And morals are all relative. That is why we need people to make laws with out bias. So they can make laws that really are for the best of the people, and not just thier own personel belife.

There is no proof that anything bad will happen if gays are allowed to adopt. There is no proof that anything bad will happen if gays are allowed to get married. So denying these people basic rights, such as these, is un-American.

 

[Island_Oak]

Reading this it seems to me the problem here is very much like other problems with morality today. The seriousness of sin is dismissed when we refuse to accept the objective graveness of certain acts.

The reasoning is perplexing to me. It leaves out rational discussion, moral reasoning, and right reason in favor of emotionalism and sentimentalism.

It as if there are only two choices. One is some pie in the sky ideal no one really ever attains and the “real” world where we place God on the shelf while we go out and live as if He does not matter.

I’m not being dismissive of morality or ridiculing it in any way. However…sometimes there are only less than ideal options for the thousands of “unadoptable children”–mixed race, drug-affected, special needs, older kids and one is presented with a choice not between ideal and awful, but between the lesser of two evils, if you will. Both options involve immorality…leaving a child to falter in the social service sytem and deny a request to adopt by a homosexual couple-or-place this child in a less than perfect environment where his needs on many levels will be met. How do you look a real kid in the face and say you can’t have a home because I’m concerned the gender roles are not being morally or accurately portrayed–so back to the group home for you. Do you somehow imagine that his moral life is being fulfilled in foster care when his most basic physical, mental and emotional needs are not?!

 

[Syele]

Wrong. What most people have come to believe is that this country is based on religious freedom, which means just because your religious belief say its wrong, does not make it so.

And morals are all relative. That is why we need people to make laws with out bias. So they can make laws that really are for the best of the people, and not just thier own personel belife.

There is no proof that anything bad will happen if gays are allowed to adopt. There is no proof that anything bad will happen if gays are allowed to get married. So denying these people basic rights, such as these, is un-American.

I would much rather be un-American than a-moral. There are no people who can make laws without bias, everyone is biased. Even the American public schools teach with a Humanistic Bias. Bias is inherrant in human beings.

People belive that being gay is ok becuase they believe it natural and unchangable. Not because they are trying to ignore my morals. their belief that it is moral and natural and unchangeable does not make it so. I think it’s sad they think it’s unchangable. Telling me I may not have my opinion is Un-American as well.

 

[nydas]

I would much rather be un-American than a-moral. There are no people who can make laws without bias, everyone is biased. Even the American public schools teach with a Humanistic Bias. Bias is inherrant in human beings.

People belive that being gay is ok becuase they believe it natural and unchangable. Not because they are trying to ignore my morals. their belief that it is moral and natural and unchangeable does not make it so. I think it’s sad they think it’s unchangable. Telling me I may not have my opinion is Un-American as well.

I never said you couldnt have your opinion. Your more then welcome to have whatever opinion you wanted. I could care less if you thought all gays should rot in hell, but when your beleifs and opinions impose on the rights of others, then we have a problem.

 

[Syele]

the argument isn’t am I imposing on the rights of others, but what rights do/should others have. You have to draw a line somewhere. I believe that allowing Homosexuals to adopt children can cause the rights of Children to be imposed upon. Obvoiusly you disagree. But that is not me imposing on thier rights so much as concern for the rights of the innocents involved. I have much experience with the community in wich we are talking about and I can’t see how it is a healthy place for children.

 

[nydas]

the argument isn’t am I imposing on the rights of others, but what rights do/should others have. You have to draw a line somewhere. I believe that allowing Homosexuals to adopt children can cause the rights of Children to be imposed upon. Obvoiusly you disagree. But that is not me imposing on thier rights so much as concern for the rights of the innocents involved. I have much experience with the community in wich we are talking about and I can’t see how it is a healthy place for children.

And until you can provide proof that kids raised in homosexual households have a more significant chance of being screwed up, gays should be allowed to adopt.

 

[Syele]

How many screwed up kids would you say is enough to be called proof?

 

[setter]

I’m not being dismissive of morality or ridiculing it in any way. However…sometimes there are only less than ideal options for the thousands of “unadoptable children”–mixed race, drug-affected, special needs, older kids and one is presented with a choice not between ideal and awful, but between the lesser of two evils, if you will. Both options involve immorality…leaving a child to falter in the social service sytem and deny a request to adopt by a homosexual couple-or-place this child in a less than perfect environment where his needs on many levels will be met. How do you look a real kid in the face and say you can’t have a home because I’m concerned the gender roles are not being morally or accurately portrayed–so back to the group home for you. Do you somehow imagine that his moral life is being fulfilled in foster care when his most basic physical, mental and emotional needs are not?!

You work with improving the morally acceptable and psychologically/developmentally well-being grounded options. To default to placing children with a sexually joined “partnership” that is gravely immoral and intrincisally disordered as the “lesser of two evils” is a false proposition.This is where Christians need to stepup to the plate and put up or shut up, othwerwise the gay activists will exploit another evenue to impose and embed their illicit lifestyle in mainstream society.

 

[fix]

I’m not being dismissive of morality or ridiculing it in any way. However…sometimes there are only less than ideal options for the thousands of “unadoptable children”–mixed race, drug-affected, special needs, older kids and one is presented with a choice not between ideal and awful, but between the lesser of two evils, if you will. Both options involve immorality…leaving a child to falter in the social service sytem and deny a request to adopt by a homosexual couple-or-place this child in a less than perfect environment where his needs on many levels will be met. How do you look a real kid in the face and say you can’t have a home because I’m concerned the gender roles are not being morally or accurately portrayed–so back to the group home for you. Do you somehow imagine that his moral life is being fulfilled in foster care when his most basic physical, mental and emotional needs are not?!

I think one basic problem is that we fail to see these relationsips are disordered and pathological. Not only in a moral sense, but in a psychological sense. If we simply see these issues as equal to something like eye color or hair color then I would agree with you. But, the foundation for the relationship is profoundly wrong.

… My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won’t the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father’s high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex…
dawnstefanowicz.com/dawntestimony.php

 

[Island_Oak]

You work with improving the morally acceptable and psychologically/developmentally well-being grounded options. To default to placing children with a sexually joined “partnership” that is gravely immoral and intrincisally disordered as the “lesser of two evils” is a false proposition.This is where Christians need to stepup to the plate and put up or shut up, othwerwise the gay activists will exploit another evenue to impose and embed their illicit lifestyle in mainstream society.

Agreed…what would you suggest?! Are we (hertrosexual, married couples) are all morally obligated to adopt a child? Support a better safety-net type residential setting?

 

[Island_Oak]

I think one basic problem is that we fail to see these relationsips are disordered and pathological. Not only in a moral sense, but in a psychological sense. If we simply see these issues as equal to something like eye color or hair color then I would agree with you. But, the foundation for the relationship is profoundly wrong.

I think we both recognize what the problems/shortcomings are. Do you have any concrete solutions to propose or do we turn a blind eye to the suffering of the innocents and hope someone else will deal with it? Into the vacuume we create steps…?

 

[setter]

Agreed…what would you suggest?! Are we (hertrosexual, married couples) are all morally obligated to adopt a child? Support a better safety-net type residential setting?

No easy solutions as the problem is multifaceted. The wholesale societal promotion of sexual expression divorced from the sanctity of marriage and the procreative and unitive aspects is the fundamental basis for out of wedlock and uncared for children. Conversion and return to personal responsibility is needed to stem the flow of uncared for children. The challenge is to keep the innocent children from the snares of those persons and groups that have self-serving and distorted agendas. We can pray for the proper folks be led to rally and lead the cause for proper care and p[lacement of these children – both a macro- and micro-level of intervention.

For starters, combatting the devilish pro-homosexual lifestyle folks and supporters who are more than delighted to put the Catholic Church out of the foster care, residential placement and adoption business in serving the most needy and vulnerable among us.

On March 10, Catholic Charities of Boston had announced that it was being forced to shut down its highly regarded adoption services, since it could not in good conscience comply with the government’s demand that it place children for adoption with homosexual couples. Caught between the rock of Catholic teaching, which regards such adoptions as ''gravely immoral," and Massachusetts regulations, which bar adoption agencies from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, the Boston Archdiocese had hoped to obtain a waiver on religious-freedom grounds. But when legislative leaders refused to consider the request, the archdiocese was left with no option but to end a ministry it had been performing for a century.

Whereupon the Human Rights Campaign issued its news release. It was headlined ''Boston Catholic Charities Puts Ugly Political Agenda Before Child Welfare," and a more perfect illustration of psychological projection would be hard to imagine.

For the political agenda driving this affair is the one favored by the Human Rights Campaign and its many allies in the media and state government: the normalization of homosexual adoption. So important is that agenda to its supporters that they will allow nothing to stand in its way – not even the well-being of children in dire need of safe and loving families. Catholic Charities excels at arranging adoptions for children in foster care, particularly those who are older or handicapped, or who bear the scars of abuse or addiction. Yet the Human Rights Campaign and its friends would rather see this invaluable work come to an end than allow Catholic Charities to decline gay adoptions.
boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/15/kids_take_back_seat_to_gay_agenda/

 

[BlestOne]

I wonder.
Should single or divorced people be allowed to take in foster children?

BlindSheep…
I can answer this one since I was a foster parent when my ex walked out the door… They had a big ole meeting about me and decided that I was capable to be a foster parent as a single mom but that they would prefer a two parent family over me if one was available. I totally agreed with them!