How would being raised by a homosexual couple be bad for an adopted child?

[bitterhope]

We live in anything but a ideal world and we all ought to grieve our exile. We live in a fallen world and we’re all in this together. Everybody fights for their rights, but few want responsibilities and sacrifice for the true benefit of others.

I believe that homosexuality is disordered, but not to the point of them necessarily lacking love and making respectful parents.

Yes! Kids need family. They deserve to have family. Imperfect is better than none. I’m all for fixing the system so more traditional families are able to adopt. That is ideal. Unfortunately it is also a problem that many parents that would be approved decide that they are not called to adopt. Fixing the system will not completely solve the problem. No one can force unwilling couples to adopt. Many people decide it’s not for them and go the IVF and other treatment route, never even attempting to adopt. Traditional couples have contributed to the problem we have today and are part of the reason these discussions need to happen. It’s unfortunate the kids are stuck in the middle of grown ups arguing about who makes better parents while they never will have an opportunity to have any of their own. And many of these kids waiting on the system to remember they even exist were removed from traditional homes that can’t possibly be worse than loving gay or single parents. We’ve made this mess ourselves. There is no easy fix. Every small step in the right direction should be taken while larger victories are fought for.

 

[estesbob]

We live in anything but a ideal world and we all ought to grieve our exile. We live in a fallen world and we’re all in this together. Everybody fights for their rights, but few want responsibilities and sacrifice for the true benefit of others.

I believe that homosexuality is disordered, but not to the point of them necessarily lacking love and making respectful parents.

So when pacing children for adoption the sexual behavior of the adoptees should have no bearing on their fitness to be parents?

As always I think its best to stick with the Church on these issues:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[HelenRose]

We live in anything but a ideal world and we all ought to grieve our exile. We live in a fallen world and we’re all in this together. Everybody fights for their rights, but few want responsibilities and sacrifice for the true benefit of others.

I believe that homosexuality is disordered, but not to the point of them necessarily lacking love and making respectful parents.

The key word in this conversation is “parents”. Sure, if there is choice is between an orphanage or a dysfunctional foster home, any place where a child is loved is preferable. But to say that a same sex couple can give the same love as a mother and father together can give, is an illusion.

But my thoughts are not really directed toward same sex couples but are directed to fathers and mothers. Where are the fathers and mothers who sell their children on the open market? Sperm donors or egg donors are selling or giving their children away to be raised by lottery to the most convenient bidder. I can not imagine any situation where a mother or a father can, with advance forethought and knowledge, give away or sell their children. Same sex adoption is a sorry bandage for children whose father or mother have given their children away.

I think that God has an understanding for same sex couples who believe they are doing the right thing in adopting an orphan. But it is still preferable to find loving mother and father.

I doubt if He is pleased with the buying, selling, giving away of His precious little souls.

 

[HelenRose]

Also, in regards to children: They are not a “RIGHT”. They have “RIGHTS”.

Their fundamental right is the right to have a mother and a father.

No couple has a right to adopt.

 

[bitterhope]

Also, in regards to children: They are not a “RIGHT”. They have “RIGHTS”.

Their fundamental right is the right to have a mother and a father.

No couple has a right to adopt.

Yes, children have rights. One of those rights is to have a permanent family that loves them unconditionally. No one has the right to adopt. No one has the right to treat a child as disposable property either. People don’t have the right to biological kids through immoral medical treatments. Some people won’t adopt because they only want their own kids. Other people would love to adopt and can’t.

There is more outrage with the way shelter animals are treated than there is with institutionalized kids. Drop off puppies bring people to tears but people make excuses about abandoned kids. Some apparently don’t even know that there is a shelter system in the US.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, children have rights. One of those rights is to have a permanent family that loves them unconditionally. No one has the right to adopt. No one has the right to treat a child as disposable property either. People don’t have the right to biological kids through immoral medical treatments. Some people won’t adopt because they only want their own kids. Other people would love to adopt and can’t.

There is more outrage with the way shelter animals are treated than there is with institutionalized kids. Drop off puppies bring people to tears but people make excuses about abandoned kids. Some apparently don’t even know that there is a shelter system in the US.

Again the fact that children are sometimes mistreated in the foster system in no way justifies placing them in a disordered family

 

[bitterhope]

So when pacing children for adoption the sexual behavior of the adoptees should have no bearing on their fitness to be parents?

As always I think its best to stick with the Church on these issues:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

If homosexuality should be considered, so should pornography use, masturbation, adultery (including remarried without annulments), premarital sex, birth control use, and other sexual sins that occur between two consenting adults. Most parents in the US are guilty of something in this category at some point in their lives. Very few people are sin free.

 

[estesbob]

If homosexuality should be considered, so should pornography use, masturbation, adultery (including remarried without annulments), premarital sex, birth control use, and other sexual sins that occur between two consenting adults. Most parents in the US are guilty of something in this category at some point in their lives. Very few people are sin free.

If someone is openly living an openly disordered lifestyle then they should not be allowed to adopt.

 

[edlinked]

This will depend on what you believe is “truth”. On what you believe is good.

For Catholics, Love, Goodness, Righteousness are not “subjective”, meaning they do not depend on the person, they depend on the one that is Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

The problem of homosexuals adopting relies in their values and what they consider right, what they consider good. Because those are the values that the kid will probably be given as truth. And this ideas go against everything the church teaches. Remember that the best “good” for a man is God, in the means he steps away from Him, he will lose Truth, he will lose “ True Life” and the Way.

That’s why I would think that it isn’t a good idea to make it a normal thing (an option). Catholics cant accept a marriage between homosexuals, Why, because a marriage for the church needs three aspects, but remember that marriage is for the sanctity and holiness of the couple, because the point is getting to God :
-First procreation (existential order)
-Second the personal union of man and the woman.
-Third the proper direction of concupiscence
That’s the correct order although the three must be present.

Apart from this you have what the Catholic Church states as the meaning of love and its integration In the relation of a man and a woman. A man and a woman can only have sexual intercourse in marriage where the love (if built correctly) is fully mature. When this love is fully mature, the sexual intercourse between them, evolves to a personal level where there is no using. The only way that the sexual act can stop or cut out its utilitarian property, is the common end of procreation. Then pleasure stops being the end of the actual act. Why is this important, because a person cannot be used as tools for an end, as persons are ends by themselves and because of the nature of their specific creation. We are created under the image of God, where everyone has the final end of God. (We are top ends, this means that using for pleasure or for anything else would be degrading, to the essence of persons).

I believe the Church understand that two homosexuals can “love” each other, because Gods commandment to love is universal, so that’s not the problem (love thy neighbor as you love yourself, or the complete one: love others as I love you). Where the problem resides is that bodily love and sexual love, the one needed for procreation can only be performed by persons of different sex. This type of love is only permitted between a man and a woman, if not, the act or the sexual acts are mainly for pleasure leaving pleasure as the final end. This is the same case as in masturbation or any sexual act, even heterosexual ones, were both sexual organs do not join, and the hope of procreation is not possible, or not given a chance. It would be “using” as experiencing pleasure because of the other, or because of stimulation.

An objective finality of procreation is to unite the two persons of the human species (male and female), this goes with what the Gospel states of the creation of the world when God made Adam and Eve.

Homosexuality in a sense cuts the existential property of marriage and with it, it cuts the union of the male and the female person, and “states” that adam or eve for “me” is not that important, tossing the creation that God intended for each other, away.

Homosexuals (“acting ones”) cannot give a child the full grasp of humanity as they are one species short, they can give him “love”, but not the love that God intended, the one that comes from adam and eve.

Truth for a Catholic lies in God, and goodness lies in God. Therefore if you are not doing God ways you are doing bad things. This is important because the first commandment is to love God first, this means to deny yourself for His ways, because you believe that only in His ways you will truly do good. Then if you go against God (acting homosexuals in their unions), this means you have no problem going against His ways and stating that, that is a correct way, because that’s the way I like it. Then you are saying that good is only good if it “feels good” to you. This is something that a Catholic can never say it is correct. Understandings can only begin at the “Beginning and the End” for one that has faith (of course. So that we give due respect and Justice to the Creator, the one that is True goodness, true righteous, true love).

That’s why I started that this question will depend on what you believe to be truth, on what you believe what is good, on what you believe is the “Beginning and the End”.

 

[edwest2]

I am still having a difficult time understanding how a flawed adoption system justifies placing children in a sinful environment?

That’s the problem. No need to discuss this further. Gay couples have no rules in their relationships. They can do what they want because it’s their relationship.

Children need stability, rules and limits and adopted children will not be best served surrounded by openly sinful relationships. Example: Little kids in Gay Pride Parades.

Ed

 

[Robert_Sock]

If homosexuality should be considered, so should pornography use, masturbation, adultery (including remarried without annulments), premarital sex, birth control use, and other sexual sins that occur between two consenting adults. Most parents in the US are guilty of something in this category at some point in their lives. Very few people are sin free.

Good points.

 

[edwest2]

So when pacing children for adoption the sexual behavior of the adoptees should have no bearing on their fitness to be parents?

As always I think its best to stick with the Church on these issues:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

That is what we must know.

Ed

 

[on_the_hill]

Let’s see a show of hands. How many people who are worried about the spiritual violence done to children when they are placed in same sex couple homes are going to go to the county welfare office first thing tomorrow morning to sign up to be a foster parent?

 

[estesbob]

Let’s see a show of hands. How many people who are worried about the spiritual violence done to children when they are placed in same sex couple homes are going to go to the county welfare office first thing tomorrow morning to sign up to be a foster parent?

Why does it matter? If I don’t take in foster children that somehow makes the churches stance on homosexual adoption wrong

 

[bitterhope]

Let’s see a show of hands. How many people who are worried about the spiritual violence done to children when they are placed in same sex couple homes are going to go to the county welfare office first thing tomorrow morning to sign up to be a foster parent?

My parents had foster kids. I would live to as well but being a military family we are never somewhere long enough. I did get approved for an emergency placement for four little ones when their mother lost custody and dad was deployed. They were with my family for 6 months until dad got home and mom got back on her feet. The were reunited with their parents and praise Jesus are doing well. This was about five years ago. We plan to foster and/or adopt when my husband retires and we are in a permanent home.

 

[bitterhope]

Why does it matter? If I don’t take in foster children that somehow makes the churches stance on homosexual adoption wrong

No but it borders on being unreasonable.

 

[estesbob]

No but it borders on being unreasonable.

Actually it’s a silly argument. Remind me of the time I was told that my opposition to the death penalty meant I should be willing to put up convicted murderers in my own home .

 

[on_the_hill]

Actually it’s a silly argument. Remind me of the time I was told that my opposition to the death penalty meant I should be willing to put up convicted murderers in my own home .

Why do you think floster children are the same as convicted murderers? They’re innocents but you’re classifying them with evildoers.

The Church’s stance is not realistic or practical, which is unusual. The Church usually does a good job of handling social problems, but in this case misses the mark.

 

[estesbob]

Why do you think floster children are the same as convicted murderers? They’re innocents but you’re classifying them with evildoers.

The Church’s stance is not realistic or practical, which is unusual. The Church usually does a good job of handling social problems, but in this case misses the mark.

We have now entered the twilight zone …

 

[bitterhope]

We have now entered the twilight zone …

Something we agree on