D
dshix
Guest
Absolutely.
- Status
T
Trigonometric
Guest
I don’t think you understood the point I was trying to make. What I’m saying is that if a situation is, on average, a bad environment in which to raise children, we should not adopt children into such situations, even if a few of these situations could turn out well. Note that it’s not about legality, but rather about the well-being of the child. For instance, alcoholism is perfectly legal, but you wouldn’t let an alcoholic adopt a child.
Since homosexual households are, on average, far worse places to raise children than normal households (as shown by studies such as the New Family Structure study), we should not place children in such situations. While it may not be as bad as a meth dealer, it’s still quite bad. We should also keep in mind that male homosexuals are in significant physical danger due to their high rate of AIDS. In fact, they may be in more danger than your average drug dealer; there are about 9,000 murders a year but over 17,000 HIV/AIDS deaths per year, and the CDC stats that active homosexuals account for only 2% of the population, but are responsible for almost 50% of all new AIDS cases.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the universe will always present you with a good option. Sometimes the choice is between bad or worse, and that’s all you can do. We can curl up in a fetal position, clamp our ears, close our eyes, and shout to the heavens that it isn’t true, but that won’t change the reality of the situation.
When those times come, it is your obligation as an aspiring moral individual to choose the lesser of two evils. You cannot alleviate your responsibility by refusing to act. Letting a child die poses the same problems as killing her. Letting a child rot as a ward of the state for years is just as bad as traumatizing them.
L
Lasting_faith
Guest
Even if I may sound like “Dr. Phil”, we must think what is the best possible option to the child. I can’t imagine how it would be to grow up in a home with parents being the same gender, but I reckon it can’t be good. I would, most likely, wonder why the other kids have a mother and father, not mother-mother or father-father. How would I know what is right? A child do what they see other doing, and two kissing men/women would most certainly confuse me.
A child need a safe and stable family an surrounding in order to grow up in. I understand that sometimes they may lose one parent, but what they have left is still a home that is as normal as it can. I don’t say that gay-parents or a unmarried couple mean a “bad” home, but the gay couple can’t raise a kid to understand that there is two different genders and how they interact with each other, and a unmarried couple can’t offer a secure environment because very often they are not married because they are afraid to commit them self “for life” and they do tend to split up more often then married couples, it does not make them bad parents, and this goes for all, but the risk is higher, and there is always the child that come first no matter what.
My grandparents did raise me, or actually I had do it myself. My grandfather died in 1971 when I was only eleven, and even if my grandmother did love me, and did all she could, I had to raise myself, and it was not easy, and I did not make a good job. I was happy and loved, but sometimes that is not enough, God bless my granny, (she died 1999, at age 98) she did what she thought was right but most of the time she did not have a clue what she should have done, I had a happy childhood, but I think that I would be a better person with both parents.
The RCC have a good reason for teaching what it does, and it is for our best, even if it is hard to always grasp.
A child need a safe and stable family an surrounding in order to grow up in. I understand that sometimes they may lose one parent, but what they have left is still a home that is as normal as it can. I don’t say that gay-parents or a unmarried couple mean a “bad” home, but the gay couple can’t raise a kid to understand that there is two different genders and how they interact with each other, and a unmarried couple can’t offer a secure environment because very often they are not married because they are afraid to commit them self “for life” and they do tend to split up more often then married couples, it does not make them bad parents, and this goes for all, but the risk is higher, and there is always the child that come first no matter what.
My grandparents did raise me, or actually I had do it myself. My grandfather died in 1971 when I was only eleven, and even if my grandmother did love me, and did all she could, I had to raise myself, and it was not easy, and I did not make a good job. I was happy and loved, but sometimes that is not enough, God bless my granny, (she died 1999, at age 98) she did what she thought was right but most of the time she did not have a clue what she should have done, I had a happy childhood, but I think that I would be a better person with both parents.
The RCC have a good reason for teaching what it does, and it is for our best, even if it is hard to always grasp.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
How about this:
Back to the OP:
Yes or no?
Back to the OP:
Yes or no?
O
Oreoracle
Guest
The simple answer is that there isn’t a “right” answer. If some household raised kids around cats, would anyone say “Most families have dogs, so how will the kids grow up to know which is right?”
Why is being abnormal bad? Are we to assume that the status quo is a basis for morality?
As well they shouldn’t. The fact that the gay couple exists proves that the normal perception of how men and women interact is inaccurate. You can’t speak of being open with children about how sexuality works while simultaneously forcing us to repress their knowledge of others’ sexualities.
When gays do get married, they tend to divorce in lower proportions than straight couples.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
At the risk of derailing the thread, there are probably a lot of factors that explain this situation, and it might not necessarily be the result of gay people being more committed to their relationships, which it seems to point to.
V
VanSensei
Guest
Anyone can get HIV. (which develops into AIDS after blood cell count gets to a certain number)
If it means that they’re in a stable, monogamous household, then by all means put children with homosexuals.
L
Lasting_faith
Guest
I don’t think I need to answer this one. All I can say is that we both defend what we think is right, and I hope it never go far enough to forget that there is innocent kid involved in debates like this, and that is what we need to think about. We must protect our children from what WE think/know is wrong. A child always comes first, if we forget that we have done the biggest mistake we can as parents, and as human beings. A animal know how to protect it’s puppies or what they may be called, and most of the time they do a better job then we, but we must try, and behind every child there is a story, and let us pray that story ends good, sadly, that is not always the case, but try we must, all the way. God give us the gift we call a child, and that is the greatest gift we can receive, and a gift we need to love and care for.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Umm…alright.
J
JimG
Guest
Gay adoption is unnecessary and a disservice to children.
That is why Catholic adoption agencies closed their doors rather than provide gay adoptions.
That is why Catholic adoption agencies closed their doors rather than provide gay adoptions.
D
dshix
Guest
This thread is not the place to discuss the difference between “lesser of two evils” and the principle of Double Effect. Besides, you being an agnosic or an atheist (you can’t be both; that’s a contradiction) you wouldn’t see the difference between the two, anyway, nor are you to bound by Catholic morality (you not being Catholic) to implement the difference.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
In terms of consequences, acting by the Principle of Double Effect and choosing the lesser of two evils are identical. It’s a highfalutin Scholastic concept that restates “choosing the lesser of two evils” in terms that are more palatable to those partial to deontology.
D
dshix
Guest
Which is why I said that you, as a non-Catholic, are not bound to observe the principle of Double Effect, because the end is practically the same.
From a moral standpoint, it is not the same, however. By no means.
Let’s not derail the thread.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Where is this black and white “truth” coming from?
If I limp does that automatically mean I have a flawed understanding of how to walk?
If I, a limper who would prefer not to limp, bring up a child with two good legs will they somehow be infected or so much in admiration of my limp that they will end up with a limp too?
We all get screwed up to varying degrees in our upbringings, that is inevitable in life.
Any once abandoned child will tell you that one is more seriously screwed up (sexually and emotionally) by not having committed caring parent(s) than by not having heterosexual parents.
C
Corki
Guest
Is it better to throw orphaned children off of bridges or leave them outside in zero degree weather?
One is certainly the lesser of two evils. But should we make that one legal? No.
My example is actually better than yours because in mine, evil will befall the child with either choice. In your example, a child who is not adopted by a “gay” couple at least has at least a chance of either a) being adopted by a loving family with a mom and a dad or b) being raised in a nurturing group setting.
D
dshix
Guest
Your analogy does not fit the issue at hand. Homosexuality is not an incurable physical ailment; it is an emotional and mental flaw in understanding in what sex is and what it is for.
That can certainly have a lasting damaging effect on an impressionable child.
Find a better analogy to make your point.
Hmm. I’ve met multiple such children, and I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, in the moment that an orphaned child is adopted and feels loved, he certainly appreciates his parents, heterosexual or homosexual, but the later effects are what we should be considering here, not the immediate gratification of acceptance.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, authored by then Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons:
7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
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.
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons:
7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
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.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
And this is exactly where things fall apart. There are unfortunately too few nurturing group settings. It’s probably just as flawed to assume the availability of a nurturing group setting as it is to assume the availability of a moral gay household.
My sister and her husband lived in a group home as house parents for a small group of pre-teen boys. It’s not all that great a place to try to grow up.
Thinking all of this through, my fundamental opinion is that physical danger and deprivation is more harmful than exposure to immorality.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Did forcing Catholic adoption agencies to close help more orphans to get adopted?
- Status