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

[Thorolfr]

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.

Of course, the OP says that numerous organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics have taken the position that children suffer no harm from having same-sex parents. And the OP also had a link to a review of the literature on “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parented Families” prepared for the Australian Psychological Society which states:

As detailed in this review, the family studies literature indicates that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting and relationships within the family) that contribute to determining children’s wellbeing and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents. The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.

So, I’m not sure that there really is much scientific evidence that (everything else being equal) children automatically do better if they have opposite sex parents instead of same-sex parents.

 

[Annie]

So, I’m not sure that there really is much scientific evidence that (everything else being equal) children automatically do better if they have opposite sex parents instead of same-sex parents.

I know that when these studies first started coming out, it was the adults reporting on how the children were doing, and the call for responses went out through university and gay community word of mouth or smallish venues for volunteers.

I don’t know what more recent studies look like.

I also remember when the divorce rate started to go up in the 1970s, there was a similar process with the studies on the effects of divorce. Even later, they talked with or had college students whose parents had divorced fill out questionnaires, things looked fine.

It wasn’t until the college-gojng children of divorce were older that their difficulties in trusting and maintaining a long-term relationship were discovered.

And it wasn’t until there was a large enough number of children in different ranges that they were able to do broader studies that didn’t rely on volunteers reporting on the state of their children that they discovered the many difficulties children whose parents divorced or never married really have.

So, I don’t really trust these early studies about homosexual couples raising children.

 

[tuffsmurf]

A child has the right to know about the identity of and be raised by their biological family, AS FAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE. If the parents can’t or won’t take care of the child for some reason, society has a duty to ”replicate” the family by providing the child with an adoptive mother and an adoptive father.

 

[Thorolfr]

A child has the right to know about the identity of and be raised by their biological family, AS FAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE. If the parents can’t or won’t take care of the child for some reason, society has a duty to ”replicate” the family by providing the child with an adoptive mother and an adoptive father.

What if there isn’t an opposite sex couple who wants to adopt the child? Would it then be OK for a gay couple to adopt the child or should the child go instead into foster care?

 

[Thorolfr]

So, I don’t really trust these early studies about homosexual couples raising children.

Then we’ll all just have to wait and find out what new information becomes available in the future because there are a lot more gay couples raising children now than in the past.

 

[Annie]

Precisely.

 

[tuffsmurf]

The thing is that there are more people who want to adopt than there are children eligible for adoption globally. Most children in orphanages and foster care are not ”adoptable”, because their parents are still alive and have not consented to adoption.

 

[otjm]

I’m not asking this in order to doubt God, but I am asking because this is something I have found difficulties doing myself where I am arguing for the position of the Catholic Church in regards to these issues, but am meeting a brick wall when faced with scientific evidence that I can only oppose on a pure moral ground. Is that the only ground this argument truly holds?

There is “scientific evidence” and then there is scientific evidence. I am not a social scientist nor do I intend to get into the argument; but only to point out than in the 74 years I have been around, I have seen “proof” of a nearly phenomenal number of things, much if not most of which has eventually been debunked, other studies pulled apart and shown to be poorly constructed; and studies shown to be purposely slanted to substantiated a previously held opinion. All of them were passed off as “Scientific evidence”. You may not be familiar with
Alfred Kinsey, but he makes a good study of skewed research. "Skewed being the most polite term I could think of.

Without getting into a diatribe that all families are dysfunctional, There is more than ample evidence that children generally are raised best when they have both a male and female parent. A homosexual couple may display certain characteristics in one of the two which could be referred to as reflective of the opposite sex (e.g. one male being “effeminate” or one female being “mannish”), but children model on both parents for their identity.

We are now in a miasma of confusion typified by the “discussions” which are going on about gender and sex. Given the general push in that direction by people one would presume to have some basic common sense, a presumption that seems to be overcome on a daily basis, I am not the least surprised that “scientific evidence” abounds to deny reality.

In short, I am going to listen to the Catholic Church, and members within it who have far more expertise at teasing out problems within the studies than I will ever have; and in the mean while I will attend to what I need to - my salvation.

 

[BlueKumul]

Remember that most scientists are leftists. Its nothing new. In the 1920s many scientists believed the Bolshevik revolution is the best thing since sliced bread. And I’m even more worried by many scientists’ (e.g. Seth Shostak) excitement about robots replacing humans.

Another side of the story: gay relationships are usually short-lived. How can be a child adopted into a “family” that probably won’t exist in 5 years?

https://mygenes.co.nz/myths.html

Gay relationships last 4.5 years (+ or -2) for both gays and lesbians, whereas in the divorce-prone US a heterosexual couple has nearly an even chance of reaching their silver wedding anniversary (25y).

 

[Mister_Friscus]

1. The Christian theology teaches a man and a woman with a child. You’re free to criticize the religion, but just know that your issue isn’t with individuals, but the religion itself.
2. If “love” is all you need, that opens up many immoral instances… such as pedophilia.

 

[Thorolfr]

Without getting into a diatribe that all families are dysfunctional, There is more than ample evidence that children generally are raised best when they have both a male and female parent. A homosexual couple may display certain characteristics in one of the two which could be referred to as reflective of the opposite sex (e.g. one male being “effeminate” or one female being “mannish”), but children model on both parents for their identity.

If there’s more than ample evidence, then perhaps you could cite some of it for us. And gay male couples don’t typically have one who is effeminate and one who is more masculine. That reminds me of the silly question which some straight people sometimes ask gay couples, “Which one’s the wife?”

 

[otjm]

I am not a social scientist nor do I intend to get into the argument;

As I said: "I am not a social scientist nor do I intend to get into the argument; "; apparently you skipped over that part…

If you truly want to know the evidence, you are welcome to do the research as to what the Church holds and what the Church considers backs it’s holdings.

If you want. And if you don’t want, then I have all the more reason to not enter into debate.