Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?

[Stephen168]

I just love it - I answer your digital, barely civil, “have you stopped beating your wife yet” type questions

You are referring to a complex question; a question which contains assumptions which may or may not be true. My question, “Is sodomy intrinsically evil?” is not a complex question. There are actions which are intrinsically evil and sodomy are real actions. “Would the confession of a person in a active homosexual union be valid?” is also not a complex question. Yet you stalled or refused to answer these simple questions.

So is it complex or simple my friend, you cannot have it both ways…

 

[LisaA]

Clearly you have missed the point here.

If you hold that ALL ophanages (I just love your “group home setting” description) are always better placements than ANY gay couple then you must be able to affirm this of every practical case that may arise… That is reasonable is it not?

You, and others here, are indeed saying that there can never ever be a situation where a caring gay couple may actually be found and reasonably judged to be capable of doing a far better job of bringing up a child than an orphanage with underpaid staff who don’t give a flying toss about their charges.

I am not saying that the percentage is high.
I am saying we can make practical on the ground case by case judgements.
That is all.

To say that the Catholic Church says it will never ever work so don’t even consider it, always send them to an orphanage if no suitable hetero couples are available…

I say that non empirical approach to life is madness.
That approach isn’t coming from Catholicism, more likely from prejudice.

Do you think this young man, brought up by two lesbians, is more damaged than children raised in orphanages?".

While I do not agree that gay couples should be formally allowed to adopt - lets not pretend that fine young men and women cannot be brought up by gay parent(s) and that orphanages always do as better job.

Another strawman set ablaze. No one said ALL orphanages were paragons of virtue or that all orphanages always do a better job. No one. Like biological parents or single parents or any other adults given the responsibility for raising children, the ability varies from person to person.

You persist in generalizing…no affection, don’t give a “flying toss” about the children in group home settings. (No one uses orphanages these days, so Dickensian) while simultaneously claiming there must be SOME gay couples who are better. Who knows?

But all gay homes expose children to an unnatural and disordered lifestyle. Probably less so with Lesbians than gays, simply because of the difference between men and women. So by definition these homes start at a deficit.

Now as far as dueling anecdotes, let’s see. We had a Youth Authority officer who fostered and adopted a number of his charges. He was greatly lauded as compassionate and caring until one of the boys committed suicide leaving a note that the man had sexually abused him from the time he was a small boy and further OTHER boys then came forward following the one child’s death to admit they too were abused. Another case in this city, the nationally known advocate for homeless and street kids was knocked off his pedestal when he was found to have given multiple boys gonorrhea of the throat. Oh and to balance this off, we had a group home where the house leader also abused his male charges.

Of course the notorious case of the Russian gays who adopted a child to use in sex slavery and porn…what’s the common thread? Abusive and predatory gay males…we can add Jerry Sandusky and sadly a number of Catholic priests.

I don’t think the record is all that stellar for gay males in charge of children and when Lesbians adopt the children run into the impact of no father which is also devastating.

So don’t assume that there IS any empirical evidence that gays make better adoptive parents than a professionally run group home with proper procedures to prevent mental, sexual and physical abuse.

Lisa

 

[Oreoracle]

I think most of the Catholics who have posted so far have not supported their position with theological evidence. We have, for the most part, used biological evidence, and reasoned that if we are designed that way then it must be the best way.

The claim “we are designed that way” is not biological, but theological. Interpreting nature as if it were intended all along requires theology.

We have had single parenting for quit awhile, and compared to two biological parents, it is lacking.

Of course. I don’t see how you could compare a single parent to two parents, though. The former is lacking for financial reasons, for example. There is no need to appeal to theology to see why that option isn’t as good.

But children being raised by one parent is not natural, and it has a harmful effect when it happens; for whatever reason.

Here’s the problem: To a secularist, “natural” means “occurring in nature”. To a religious person, “natural” means “ordained by God”. Homosexuality and single parenting are both natural in the former sense. You could make up anything you want by the latter definition, however. The large variety of religions with vastly different moralities attest to this.

Thus, saying that a phenomenon is “unnatural” in the latter sense is the same as just saying “I don’t approve of this phenomenon”.

In same sex unions, like children raised by single fathers compared to single mothers, there isn’t enough evidence to say much for sure. And I think even if and when there is more evidence each side will try to poke holes in the data. But again it isn’t natural, so why play high stakes roulette with an individual child’s life; it can only be raised once.

And you can afford to have such a flippant attitude toward categorically denying certain lifestyles because you have nothing to lose on the matter.

 

[Oreoracle]

One this is simply your opinion. Concrete evidence?

It wasn’t the topic of this thread, so it doesn’t seem terribly important to substantiate it. I could be wrong and it wouldn’t negate my position on gay adoption.

But if you insist, there is evidence that marriage takes the distribution of resources into account. The original purpose of marriage, long before the advent of Christianity, was the securing of political alliances and the merging of the wealth of two families. It would be a bit messy to have multiple families in on the deal at once.

Further gay males are quite notorious and statistical evidence indicates that they do NOT limit their attention to a single partner, even if in some sort of committed relationship.

The same could be said of straight couples. So what?

The racial analogy fails on all accounts.

It wasn’t an analogy. Someone asked what standard of evidence I would accept. I presented a claim of which I was equally skeptical and said that the evidence should be at least as decisive as the evidence you’d need to support the claim that blacks can’t properly raise children. I was saying that the claims were, to me, equally doubtful, but they are not the same.

I don’t think any non-racist would accept a purely theological argument (if one hypothetically existed) to support the claim that blacks can’t raise white children. This is because it’s a very serious claim, and merits evidence that is far more concrete than “God said”.

 

[LisaA]

The claim “we are designed that way” is not biological, but theological. Interpreting nature as if it were intended all along requires theology.

Of course. I don’t see how you could compare a single parent to two parents, though. The former is lacking for financial reasons, for example. There is no need to appeal to theology to see why that option isn’t as good.

Here’s the problem: To a secularist, “natural” means “occurring in nature”. To a religious person, “natural” means “ordained by God”. Homosexuality and single parenting are both natural in the former sense. You could make up anything you want by the latter definition, however. The large variety of religions with vastly different moralities attest to this.

Thus, saying that a phenomenon is “unnatural” in the latter sense is the same as just saying “I don’t approve of this phenomenon”.

And you can afford to have such a flippant attitude toward categorically denying certain lifestyles because you have nothing to lose on the matter.

Are you KIDDING? Have you had a biology class? Have you heard of Natural Law? Do you not understand that males and females of any species from fish to human beings are designed to function in certain distinctly different ways? Of course there are common elements but only females bear young and only males can impregnate females. Now of course one can look to the Bible “male and female He created them” but my totally secular biology professor parents believed in males and females being different and they attributed nothing to God or God’s design. Like you they were atheists.

As a former livestock breeder it’s not a matter of opinion that females bear the young and it’s not up to my approval whether or not males impregnate the females. I don’t get a vote. When a mammal is conceived it’s either XY or XX regardless of whether or not I believe in God.

Honestly I wonder if you actually meant what you wrote.

As to the single parent meme, it’s not simply financial wherewithal necessary to raise a child but the distinct and important differences between how mothers and fathers relate to the child. That children of single mothers have many more issues and problems is not simply a matter of not having sufficient money but in their inability to be mothers AND fathers.

Again not a matter of opinion, there are numerous completely secular and valid studies about the difference in how mothers and fathers relate to and help raise their children.

Gays/Lebians simply worship the false gods of their feelings and their sexual constraints instead of considering whether or not they can adequately parent a child. It’s not opinion or theology that demonstrates how important it is to have the influence of both parents. Sorry that facts get in the way of a good ideology

Lisa

 

[Oreoracle]

…but my totally secular biology professor parents believed in males and females being different and they attributed nothing to God or God’s design. Like you they were atheists.

Indeed, there are differences between males and females. I didn’t deny that. But the differences are purely biological–all else is cultural. The only concrete difference between males and females is their sex chromosomes, and every other difference is derived from that. Nowhere in those chromosomes does it say “A mother and father are inherently better at raising children than gays”. Again, that requires a leap from biology to theology.

And neither can you say that straight couples have always raised children, therefore they should raise children. As Hume would say, you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”.

When a mammal is conceived it’s either XY or XX regardless of whether or not I believe in God.

Right, and those biological differences are the only differences biology can demonstrate (that should be obvious for semantical reasons alone ). Biology doesn’t tell us that women are more submissive, nurturing, and sensitive, or that men are dominant, aggressive, and practical. Those differences are the product of culture. As I said earlier, it is conceivable that there could exist cultures in which those traits are reversed. We already know those traits do not apply to every individual, so they are not a good basis for distinguishing men from women.

 

[Stephen168]

The claim “we are designed that way” is not biological, but theological. Interpreting nature as if it were intended all along requires theology.

No, I learned where babies come from in 6th grade. We learned about girl parts and boy parts and how they worked together. It was biological.

Of course. I don’t see how you could compare a single parent to two parents, though. The former is lacking for financial reasons, for example. There is no need to appeal to theology to see why that option isn’t as good.

Various studies show this

, and my antidotal observations of friends and relatives confirm it. There are many explanations for this: not enough parents, lack of money, the sex of the parent, or maybe all of them.

I’m not appealing to theology and I already said there are many explanations for it, you just repeated one, but it is not the only one.

Here’s the problem: To a secularist, “natural” means “occurring in nature”. To a religious person, “natural” means “ordained by God”. Homosexuality and single parenting are both natural in the former sense. You could make up anything you want by the latter definition, however. The large variety of religions with vastly different moralities attest to this.

Thus, saying that a phenomenon is “unnatural” in the latter sense is the same as just saying "I don’t approve of this phenomenon”.

By looking at his creation, we learn about the creator. When I say natural, I mean as designed by nature (God). So neither single parenting or homosexuality are natural. As a secularist you have to ignore the biology and nature of man to call same sex unions natural, which is why most secularist I’ve talked to appeal to the law and not reason/biology/nature. Contrary to what you want to believe, Catholics do not have to appeal to God on this subject.

And you can afford to have such a flippant attitude toward categorically denying certain lifestyles because you have nothing to lose on the matter.

My attitude is not flippant, it is reasonable. Children have been created and raised by heterosexual unions since the beginning of man. You propose a new way, so before we change, prove the the new way is better. It is the children, not heterosexuals or homosexuals who have something to lose in the matter.

 

[Stephen168]

Biology doesn’t tell us that women are more submissive, nurturing, and sensitive, or that men are dominant, aggressive, and practical. Those differences are the product of culture. As I said earlier, it is conceivable that there could exist cultures in which those traits are reversed. We already know those traits do not apply to every individual, so they are not a good basis for distinguishing men from women.

These differences are a part of the nature of man. Men and women are different in more ways than their parts, so we can reason that these differences are required to raise the best children possible.

 

[Oreoracle]

No, I learned where babies come from in 6th grade. We learned about girl parts and boy parts and how they worked together. It was biological.

There is a difference between saying 1) babies come about through a biological process and 2) babies come about through a biological process designed by a creator. The first is biological, the second is theological.

By looking at his creation, we learn about the creator. When I say natural, I mean as designed by nature (God). So neither single parenting or homosexuality are natural. As a secularist you have to ignore the biology and nature of man to call same sex unions natural, which is why most secularist I’ve talked to appeal to the law and not reason/biology/nature.

We don’t ignore nature. Homosexuality naturally occurs in many mammal species. We are a species of animal too, and our homosexuality is no less natural than that of animals.

 

[Stephen168]

There is a difference between saying 1) babies come about through a biological process and 2) babies come about through a biological process designed by a creator. The first is biological, the second is theological.

It doesn’t change my argument. You asked for my argument, and my argument is biological. You have same obsession to insert God into my argument; he isn’t there.

We don’t ignore nature. Homosexuality naturally occurs in many mammal species. We are a species of animal too, and our homosexuality is no less natural than that of animals.

Everything lives for nourishment and reproduction. Same sex unions are not able to reproduce, by design. Human nature tells us that children are raised by their biological parents; one male and one female.

 

[LisaA]

There is a difference between saying 1) babies come about through a biological process and 2) babies come about through a biological process designed by a creator. The first is biological, the second is theological.

We don’t ignore nature. Homosexuality naturally occurs in many mammal species. We are a species of animal too, and our homosexuality is no less natural than that of animals.

The latter is utter baloney. What is called “homosexual behavior” is of a completely different nature than what humans consider homosexual relationships. One is situational homosexuality in which there are no females with which to mate. We can find a human version of this type of homosexual activity in prisons, on sailing ships of old and in cultures where females are secluded and unavailable. I would hate to tell you of the kind of sexual activity with boys in places like Afghanistan. The females are hidden away and the young males have sex with boys in the meantime. In the animal kingdom this may happen when there are unnatural situations such as overcrowded cages of lab animals. The second “homosexuality” in animals is dominance behavior. So for example Mr and Mrs Duck are walking along and Donald decides he’d like Mrs Duck for his own. If he is the stronger of the two he will “rape” Mr Duck and thus win the prize. Trust me, he’ll take Mrs Duck over Mr Duck anytime. The “homosexual” behavior was dominance. Third is the kind of activity of females in heat. If you have a group of heifers and one is looking for a bull she will mount and thrust on her “sisters” to get attention. This behavior is seen in other species.

There is no equivalent to the claim of “gay marriage” in the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is abormal, disordered and in the words of my atheist biology prof parents “No species engaged in non-procreative or self destructive behavior survives. It is by definition abnormal.”

Aside from that a male lion taking over a pride will kill all of the offspring of the original pride dominant male. That’s “natural” in lions. And we think we can just assume because something happens in nature it’s “natural” and “normal.”

Biology lessons are obviously lacking in today’s schools
Lisa

 

[Oreoracle]

The latter is utter baloney. What is called “homosexual behavior” is of a completely different nature than what humans consider homosexual relationships.

I will defer to the biologists on this one. From the Wikipedia article “Homosexual Behavior in Animals”:

“A definite physiological explanation or reason for homosexual activity in animal species **has not been agreed upon **by researchers in the field. Numerous scholars are of the opinion that varying levels (either higher or lower) of the sex hormones in the animal, in addition to the size of the animal’s gonads, play a direct role in the sexual behavior and preference exhibited by that animal. Others firmly argue no evidence to support these claims exists when comparing animals of a specific species exhibiting homosexual behavior exclusively and those that don’t. Ultimately, empirical support from comprehensive endocrinological studies exist for both interpretations.”

I bolded those two sections for emphasis. It appears that biologists aren’t as sure as you are, and some happen to agree with my contention that genuine sexual preference may be involved in some cases.

But by all means, continue to psychoanalyze animals instead of listening to the biologists.

Homosexuality is abormal, disordered and in the words of my atheist biology prof parents “No species engaged in non-procreative or self destructive behavior survives. It is by definition abnormal.”

I agree that if most humans were gay, we would die out. But only a small portion of the population is. Indeed, if homosexuality became too prominent, natural selection would discourage the genes that cause it.

It’s interesting how you haven’t considered that this argument can be turned around on you. If individuals (not the species as a whole) choose a non-procreative lifestyle, then it’s unnatural, abnormal, and disordered, right? What do you make of the celibacy of priests?

And we think we can just assume because something happens in nature it’s “natural” and “normal.”

I’m so very daft. I foolishly assumed that “natural” meant “occurring in nature”. How silly of me! Let’s consult Webster’s Dictionary on the matter.

Natural: 1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.

1. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.

Yep, you’re right. “Natural” means that we whip out the ol’ holy book and…wait, what do those definitions say again?

 

[Oreoracle]

It doesn’t change my argument. You asked for my argument, and my argument is biological. You have same obsession to insert God into my argument; he isn’t there.

If you use the word “designed” in your explanation, then you are assuming the existence of God implicitly. A true biological argument wouldn’t assume a designer, nor a design.

Human nature tells us that children are raised by their biological parents; one male and one female.

Straight couples give birth to children, certainly. That is biological fact. But the decision of whom will raise them is a choice, not a constraint of biology.

 

[Stephen168]

If you use the word “designed” in your explanation, then you are assuming the existence of God implicitly. A true biological argument wouldn’t assume a designer, nor a design.

When I say ‘design,’ I mean how we are made. How we are made is a question asked and answered by scientists everyday. The Catholic Church is a big fan of science.

Straight couples give birth to children, certainly. That is biological fact. But the decision of whom will raise them is a choice, not a constraint of biology.

yes, we are made male and female and that is were children come from and it those same parents that have been raising their children for thousands of years. Human nature is a constraint of biology. Biology isn’t the only science involved with how we are made.

Heterosexual parenting is how we are made and has been very successful. You don’t have any data that would show same sex unions are as good. My personal observation is that it is worst.

 

[Stephen168]

It’s interesting how you haven’t considered that this argument can be turned around on you. If individuals (not the species as a whole) choose a non-procreative lifestyle, then it’s unnatural, abnormal, and disordered, right? What do you make of the celibacy of priests?

Not engaging in behavior is not deviant behavior. By deviant I mean deviating from how we are made.

 

[gailannie]

I know very loving moral gay couples raising loving caring children. I know heterosexual married couples living self centered,abusive lives…which would I choose to have children raised by? What would our pope say?

 

[LisaA]

I know very loving moral gay couples raising loving caring children. I know heterosexual married couples living self centered,abusive lives…which would I choose to have children raised by? What would our pope say?

Exposing children to immorality, disordered behavior is a form of child abuse whether or not it’s being done by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Read the thread and this has been discussed repeatedly.
Lisa

 

[LisaA]

I will defer to the biologists on this one. From the Wikipedia article “Homosexual Behavior in Animals”:

“A definite physiological explanation or reason for homosexual activity in animal species **has not been agreed upon **by researchers in the field. Numerous scholars are of the opinion that varying levels (either higher or lower) of the sex hormones in the animal, in addition to the size of the animal’s gonads, play a direct role in the sexual behavior and preference exhibited by that animal. Others firmly argue no evidence to support these claims exists when comparing animals of a specific species exhibiting homosexual behavior exclusively and those that don’t. Ultimately, empirical support from comprehensive endocrinological studies exist for both interpretations.”

I bolded those two sections for emphasis. It appears that biologists aren’t as sure as you are, and some happen to agree with my contention that genuine sexual preference may be involved in some cases.

But by all means, continue to psychoanalyze animals instead of listening to the biologists.

I agree that if most humans were gay, we would die out. But only a small portion of the population is. Indeed, if homosexuality became too prominent, natural selection would discourage the genes that cause it.

It’s interesting how you haven’t considered that this argument can be turned around on you. If individuals (not the species as a whole) choose a non-procreative lifestyle, then it’s unnatural, abnormal, and disordered, right? What do you make of the celibacy of priests?

I’m so very daft. I foolishly assumed that “natural” meant “occurring in nature”. How silly of me! Let’s consult Webster’s Dictionary on the matter.

Natural: 1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.

1. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.

Yep, you’re right. “Natural” means that we whip out the ol’ holy book and…wait, what do those definitions say again?

Animals need not be nor could they be psychoanalyzed. However one can observe behavior and while there is male on male/female on female activity, this does not mean the animal is “homosexual.” You would find that in all cases, if the animal is given a choice or opportunity to engage in mating with the opposite sex, it will do so. The heifers mounting each other will drop everything if a bull is introduced. Animals place in abnormal crowded conditions with the same sex will immediately return to normal sexual activity once they are removed from the unnatural situation. Funny thing cows and ducks seem to have more sense than humans .

That a particular self destructive behavior occurs in a minority population does not render the behavior normal even if it doesn’t have the power to destroy the species. Not all lemmings jump off of cliffs but it’s still not normal is it?

I do not bother using theology to discuss such issues with Atheists so please drop the snarky comments about “whipping out the Holy Book.” Despite rumors to the contrary, Catholicism is VERY much at home in the world of science. My mother a geneticist traces her “lineage” to Gregor Mendal…a monk. Science does not intimidate the Church but the Church has an added dimension of considering the morality of actions rather than just getting a specific result.

And back to the thread, exposing children to abnormal, disordered behavior is not a positive in their upbringing. I would say the same whether the behavior were exhibited by heterosexual or homosexual adults. It is, once again, the selfish desires of homosexual who seem unable to accept that their lifestyle is NOT the same as a male/female marriage. If they elevate sexual pleasure above all things, they give up other elements of life. It may not be a choice to have attraction to the same sex but behavior IS a choice.

Lisa

 

[universityprof]

Is gay adoption better than leaving a child an orphan? If so, shouldn’t it therefore be legal? And if not, why not?

Yes it should be legal and actually is some areas. It’s much better than leaving a child an orphan.

 

[universityprof]

Exposing children to immorality, disordered behavior is a form of child abuse whether or not it’s being done by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Read the thread and this has been discussed repeatedly.
Lisa

You seem to be saying that a well adjusted and supportive same sex couple who wishes to adopt a orphan is immoral. Moreover you write that by exposing the orphan to this would constitute child abuse. Seems to be a very value laden statement. I’m not sure there is any outcome evidence that would support you position. If an orphan can be adopted out to a well adjusted and supporting same sex couple, it would seem to be in the best interest of child which is always the criteria in the United States. Just a friendly observation.