How should a Catholic respond to growing evidence against church teachings on LGBT parenting?

[MarkRome]

To me, it would make more sense to say that a child has a right to good and loving parents.

Because that’s not a fundamental right. Again, it isn’t about how much love a parent/guardian gives. A child is born only from a mother and father. There is no other way to procreate. This is also why anonymous sperm banks and other unnatural means of conception are immoral.

While there may be some horrible parents, and the children should be taken from them and put into safe homes, any institution or arrangement that actively impedes this fundamental right is ultimately harming children.

This is a macro issue but unfortunately everyone seems to get caught up in the micro individual circumstances. You have to see the forest for the trees with this.

 

[Rau]

To me, it would make more sense to say that a child has a right to good and loving parents.

That’s arguably a right too, Thor but not more so than the other. And it does not detract from the right to know the parents that gave you life. Whose flesh is your flesh.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I can survive by eating skittles and bacon too. I am not sure that should be an argument for it being a normal diet. Besides, an argument for something is never persuasive if it relies on “well, it could be worse.”

Since the standards of what is considered healthy are different, it becomes nigh impossible to not make a case for or against gay parenting and lose the argument.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

To me, it would make more sense to say that a child has a right to good and loving parents.

That’s arguably a right too, Thor but not more so than the other. And it does not detract from the right to know the parents that gave you life. Whose flesh is your flesh.

So, your saying that children only have a right to know who their biological parents are but don’t have a right to live with or be raised by their biological parents (who might not be suitable to raise children)? From what I’ve read, some unwed mothers are encouraged to give birth to their child and give it up for adoption rather than have an abortion. In that case, the child obviously doesn’t have a right to live with its mother. Also, many people who give a child up for adoption don’t want the child to know their identity and many adoption agencies, at least in the past, kept this information confidential. And the stuff about “whose flesh is your flesh” can sometimes be greatly overrated. What if someone was conceived through rape? Would they want to know who their father is or consider that person to be their “flesh”? Sometimes, it’s best not to know.

 

[Jen95]

@Thorolfr
Have you read the catechism?
CCC 2376

 

[Lea101]

Besides, an argument for something is never persuasive if it relies on “well, it could be worse.”

True but it does become more valid if we’re talking about a situation where the only two options would be gay parents or the foster system/orphanage.

 

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

As a survey of one, I can promise you it’s not always a good idea…

 

[Rau]

So, your saying that children only have a right to know who their biological parents are but don’t have a right to live with or be raised by their biological parents (who might not be suitable to raise children)?

No Thor, I didn’t say that at all - you wrote those words and then claimed I said them. That’s quite improper of you.

You should apologize.

 

[Pattylt]

He did ask it as a question…

 

[Rau]

He did ask it as a question…

Expressed as a statement but with a question mark at the end… And when there is no reasonable foundation. Thor has known me for a long time - I don’t think he had a genuine doubt…

 

[Pattylt]

Ok…I’ll mind my own business.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

So, your saying that children only have a right to know who their biological parents are but don’t have a right to live with or be raised by their biological parents (who might not be suitable to raise children)?

No Thor, I didn’t say that at all - you wrote those words and then claimed I said them. That’s quite improper of you.

You should apologize.

I didn’t claim anything. As you might notice, I put a question mark at the end asking if that’s what you meant. I’m just not sure I understand what you’re saying and am trying to clarify.

 

[Thorolfr]

Pattylt:

He did ask it as a question…

Expressed as a statement but with a question mark at the end… And when there is no reasonable foundation. Thor has known me for a long time - I don’t think he had a genuine doubt…

Actually, it’s not true that I really understand what you’re saying, because I don’t. If, for example, I was adopted as a child because both my biological parents had been killed in a car accident, I might have a right to know who they were, but how could I have a right to live with and be raised by them? That’s why I asked if you were merely talking about a child having a right to know the identity of their biological parents. I don’t understand what you believe the right is that children have with respect to their biological parents.

 

[Rau]

That’s why I asked if you were merely talking about a child having a right to know the identity of their biological parents. I don’t understand what you believe the right is that children have with respect to their biological parents.

You are not this dull - why do make out that you are? Children have a right to know their parents. They have a right be be loved by and nurtured by their parents. Fulfillment of these rights can’t be guaranteed, but people should not act deliberately in a manner that negates those rights. For example: forms of surrogacy and sperm banks and the like.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

That’s why I asked if you were merely talking about a child having a right to know the identity of their biological parents. I don’t understand what you believe the right is that children have with respect to their biological parents.

You are not this dull - why do make out that you are? Children have a right to know their parents. They have a right be be loved by and nurtured by their parents. Fulfillment of these rights can’t be guaranteed, but people should not act deliberately in a manner that negates those rights. For example: forms of surrogacy and sperm banks and the like.

So, how would two gay men adopting a child that had been put up for adoption be negating the child’s right to know and be raised by its biological parents? It obviously wouldn’t be their fault that the child had been put up for adoption.

Do you think that a child also has a “right” to have two people, one of each sex, raising and nurturing it even if they aren’t its biological parents?

 

[Rau]

So, how would two gay men adopting a child that had been put up for adoption be negating the child’s right to know and be raised by its biological parents? It obviously wouldn’t be their fault that the child had been put up for adoption.

Again, you suggest your words are mine - I said no such thing Thor

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

So, how would two gay men adopting a child that had been put up for adoption be negating the child’s right to know and be raised by its biological parents? It obviously wouldn’t be their fault that the child had been put up for adoption.

Again, you suggest your words are mine - I said no such thing Thor

I didn’t suggest that they were your words, although I was under the impression that one of the main arguments in this thread against gay parents is that they violate children’s rights.

 

[Jen95]

I think that lgbtq parents adopting a child already up for adoption would be less morally wrong than lgbtq parents who purposefully conceive a child (depriving said child of two bio married parents on purpose).

 

[Rau]

I’ve addressed the latter scenario. As to the former, the adopting parents are likely well motivated. The perspective of the adoption agency, and the matters they must consider, are different again.

 

[Annie]

Should the right of the child to be raised by his or her biological parents be disrupted by death or very grave circumstances necessitating such a disruption, the child should then have as close to an ideal situation as possible, which would include having, say, a close relative who was single and living a moral life, or a married couple of the opposite sexes.

When a homosexual couple decides to adopt, they are thinking more about what they want than what the child needs. They want to adopt, but what they have to offer is not what is best for the child.