Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?

[Robert_in_SD]

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

Better for who? Are we considering the well-being of the child, or the “rights” of the gay couple? These are two different starting points.

And I think there needs to be some more context to the question. If by “gay” you mean living a very sexually open homosexual lifestyle with multiple partners and a very permissive environment with drugs and alcohol present, good quality foster care may be a better situation that would be less likely to expose the child to risk. On the other hand, a starving orphan in Africa may well be far better off in the home of two same-sex attracted persons who are living a chaste life in compliance with Church teaching.

Regarding the second part of the question, just because an end result under certain facts would be more positive, that does not necessarily justify a change in law. Perhaps a more case-by-case analysis is proper?

Peace,
Robert

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Some gob-smackingly un-supportable, black and white thinking being played out here… The only person I know who could possibly get away with pontificating like this, not surprisingly, would be the Pontiff himself.

Now what did he recently say…hmmmn, that’s right, … “who am I to judge.”

BTW effective parenthood isn’t all about sex - why is it that homophobes always have this excessive preoccupation with the sexual biology of parenthood. A large proportion of heterosexuals have just as many flaws wrt the required virtues re parenthood - as the hi incidence of promiscuity,unfaithfulness, divorce,violence, male chauvinism, lack of marital support and abandonment demonstrates. But of course these are red-blooded “natural vices” so these don’t in anyway compare to the grave evil of two blokes/gals sharing a life together quite possibly demonstrating the basic virtues of a christian family (apart from the bedroom of course).

Give us a break re these particular highly unbalanced subjective opinions .

 

[O_S_C]

And no, it’s not better! Children need a Mom AND a Dad.

Makes no sense. Can you please explain? What can my partner do as a women that I can’t do as a man?

 

[on_the_hill]

But of course these are red-blooded “natural vices” so these don’t in anyway compare to the grave evil of two blokes/gals sharing a life together quite possibly demonstrating the basic virtues of a christian family (apart from the bedroom of course).

But, from a theoretical standpoint, hypothetically speaking, at the very basic essence of a heterosexual relationship the possibility exists for the relationship to be unitive and ordered toward procreation. Practically speaking, there may be no possibility whatsoever for heterosexual couples. But in theory it exists.

Of course, the big picture question is whether we should live to the theoretical standards or the practical standards. The answer is that it has to be a mix of the two. Aspire for the theoretical and do the best we can in living with the practical.

 

[ringil]

Did forcing Catholic adoption agencies to close help more orphans to get adopted?

I support Catholic groups closing their adoption services in order to maintain Church fidelity. Really I would rather they stay open but if they are unable due to budgetary constraints this would be an unfortunate reality.

However, Catholic groups were not “forced” to close down. THey were informed that they must meet federal standards in order to receive taxes. THis happens all the time. Catholic groups, like Catholics Charities, CHSE to close their adoption services, and I agree with that choice.

No one was “forced”. That’s simply dramatizing events as is quite common around here.

 

[Forged]

I dislike discussing homosexuality…
I will, however, post two documented studies showing the detriment of same-sex parents:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

I would post studies of the opposing viewpoint, but I could not find one that had suitable citation.

 

[JimG]

I will just re-post the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger quoted in post #38:

“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.”

 

[Stephen168]

Some gob-smackingly un-supportable, black and white thinking being played out here… The only person I know who could possibly get away with pontificating like this, not surprisingly, would be the Pontiff himself.

"William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles:

“It is also concluded that the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality.”

why is it that homophobes

Interesting

 

[Country_Gal]

When I was a 7 year old girl, my father left the family and my parents got a divorce. My mother had to go back to work, she was a teacher, and was able to obtain employment teaching Special Education.

She started dating again. Her second boyfriend was Raymond, who taught at a high school for teenagers with mental and physical handicaps, with my Mom. Raymond was really, really nice to my brother and me. We really liked him. Raymond really loved kids. He was funny and added a lot to our lives.

We were troubled kids, especially my brother, who was very affected by my parents’ divorce. My brother was already getting in trouble before that, but he and my Mom sort of fell to pieces after my Dad left to marry his 23 yr old student. I was in my own world, and didn’t express my emotions much, and just kept busy with my fantasy world and my stuffed animals.

When my Mom and Raymond called us in to tell us that they were getting married, I was ecstatic! Raymond loved us kids, my own father was never much fun, he teased me all the time, was mean to my brother, and never did much with us. He was basically a self-absorbed narcissist.

Then, some time later, we were told the wedding was called off. I was heartbroken! My mother ended up marrying a man I didn’t like, who was mean to me, when I was 10. Later, I asked her “Why didn’t you marry Raymond, I loved him?!”

It turns out that Raymond was a homosexual. I think he was trying to have a ‘normal’ life and wanted a family. I think, if Raymond had become our father, my brother and I would have avoided so many of the problems that we ended up getting ourselves into. Raymond was the kindest adult I’d ever encountered in my young life.

 

[Oreoracle]

Practically speaking, there may be no possibility whatsoever for heterosexual couples. But in theory it exists.

I’m with you so far. But then you say this:

Aspire for the theoretical and do the best we can in living with the practical.

Aspiration entails possibility. You can’t aspire toward the impossible. Thus, if you admit that it’s okay for straight couples to marry with no possibility for procreation, the same must be admitted for gays.

 

[dshix]

Some gob-smackingly un-supportable, black and white thinking being played out here… The only person I know who could possibly get away with pontificating like this, not surprisingly, would be the Pontiff himself.

Hmm, black and white you say. A problem, you say? Isn’t that what Catholic morality is when it comes to what is grave matter and what isn’t?

You seem to be taking a very subjective approach to morality, which smacks of relativism.

Now what did he recently say…hmmmn, that’s right, … “who am I to judge.”

You missed about half of the quote. Go find the other half of that “who am I to judge” phrase, and it might make more sense.

BTW effective parenthood isn’t all about sex - why is it that homophobes always have this excessive preoccupation with the sexual biology of parenthood. A large proportion of heterosexuals have just as many flaws wrt the required virtues re parenthood - as the hi incidence of promiscuity,unfaithfulness, divorce,violence, male chauvinism, lack of marital support and abandonment demonstrates. But of course these are red-blooded “natural vices” so these don’t in anyway compare to the grave evil of two blokes/gals sharing a life together quite possibly demonstrating the basic virtues of a christian family (apart from the bedroom of course).

Give us a break re these particular highly unbalanced subjective opinions .

Aha! The “homophobe” word came out. Anger rating just went up about 5 points.

---

Ok, seriously now (you may have noted that I was being rather sarcastic and curt thusfar in the post, now I’m telling you why).

You have showed no understanding whatsoever of the main reason for concern which we on this board have: the children. You seem to think that homosexual behaviors and acts are “all right”, and you seem to think that somehow they will have no effect on children exposed to them. I contend that on this point, you are flat wrong for the reasons I and others have posted above. (In post #38, livingwordunity posted a very informative quote from the writings of Cardinal (at that time) Ratzinger which I suggest you read about five times.

I honestly have compassion for people who suffer same-sex attraction. I understand that many, not knowing that it is wrong, partake in such acts of sodomy with, perhaps, a relatively clean conscience. But that does not, by any means, mitigate the dangerous effect that their influence can have on children, and what tendencies that influence can lead their adopted children to take on.

You must agree that homosexual acts are objectively mortally sinful. You at least say you are a Catholic, and so if you disagree with this, I suggest that you take a hard look at the CCC and go to confession for intentionally contradicting one the Church’s teachings.

Thus, there can be no possible merit for children to be raised in an environment which leads them to think that homosexual acts are ok. They are not, by any means, and for an adoption agency or orphanage to put a child into the care of a homosexual couple would be to intentionally put that child into danger and leading that child into a prolonged occasion of sin.

I challenge you to refute the arguments made in post #38 and tell us just why the Church is wrong about homosexuality.

 

[Stephen168]

Thus, if you admit that it’s okay for straight couples to marry with no possibility for procreation, the same must be admitted for gays.

I don’t think you can talk about the answer to the “May I” question without first answering the “Can I” question. “Straight” couples may because they can.

 

[sesenena]

Personally I would say no. Fortunately there are many married couples who want to adopt and children are not enough. I don’t think a child would grow well with two fathers, they need a father and a mother.

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t think you can talk about the answer to the “May I” question without first answering the “Can I” question. “Straight” couples may because they can.

I was responding to the idea that it is still acceptable for straight people to marry even in circumstances in which it’s impossible for them to procreate. So if the wife is infertile, she answers the “Can I?” question negatively. I see no reason why the wife should be given a pass on the “Can I?” question just because other wives answer the question positively.

Personally I would say no. Fortunately there are many married couples who want to adopt and children are not enough. I don’t think a child would grow well with two fathers, they need a father and a mother.

Last I checked, there is a large surplus of children who need adopted, so large that it exceeds the demand. To say that gay adoption is unacceptable is to say that some kids should rot as wards of the state rather than live in a loving home. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, it has to be better than living with the state.

 

[JimG]

Personally I would say no. Fortunately there are many married couples who want to adopt and children are not enough. I don’t think a child would grow well with two fathers, they need a father and a mother.

This is of course, common sense, because it is the way sexual complementarity works. Every child is produced by the union of a father and a mother. And every child has a natural right to a mom and a dad.

This natural right is often frustrated by the human selfishness which results in divorce, or by premature death of one parent. But it remains the natural order of things in any case.

In order for same sex ‘marriage’ to even be considered, however, common sense must first be thrown out the window.

And as mentioned in the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger above, placing a child in an unnatural living situation consisting of same sex ‘parents’ constitutes a disservice to the child.

 

[Stephen168]

I was responding to the idea that it is still acceptable for straight people to marry even in circumstances in which it’s impossible for them to procreate. So if the wife is infertile, she answers the “Can I?” question negatively. I see no reason why the wife should be given a pass on the “Can I?” question just because other wives answer the question positively.

A broken thing is still that thing. It doesn’t allow something else to be that thing because it is just as broken.
Same-sex unions are not broken, they are something else.

Last I checked, there is a large surplus of children who need adopted, so large that it exceeds the demand.

If you have check within that last few decades, you would find the opposite.

 

[LisaA]

I was responding to the idea that it is still acceptable for straight people to marry even in circumstances in which it’s impossible for them to procreate. So if the wife is infertile, she answers the “Can I?” question negatively. I see no reason why the wife should be given a pass on the “Can I?” question just because other wives answer the question positively.

Last I checked, there is a large surplus of children who need adopted, so large that it exceeds the demand. To say that gay adoption is unacceptable is to say that some kids should rot as wards of the state rather than live in a loving home. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, it has to be better than living with the state.

Note bolded above. You show your hand in that you see the children as a supply of something for which there is a demand. We are not talking about a commodity but about human beings, small helpless and dependent human beings at that. You can’t look at this issue as if we were trying to put too many apples in too few baskets. But since you are self professed non-believer, your perspective is simply your own opinion rather than a reference point such as Catholic teaching or even Natural Law.

Further I completely dispute your claim there are far more children to be adopted than there are potentially adoptive married couples. The ONLY situation where this might be true is with respect to older children who have been in the system for years and finally parents have been denied parental rights or they have signed them away. If you are talking about babies or young children given for adoption, there are many many couples who have been waiting for years for their chance to take their child home.

Overall you posit a ridiculous scenario, assuming that a) there are a plethora of adoptable children waiting for a home b) there are not enough stable married couples to adopt them and c) group homes would necessarily be worse than homosexual parents.

Quite a stretch I’d say.

Oh and the answer to the OP is “no.”

Lisa

 

[Blue_Horizon]

DSHIX:
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.

Yep, looks pretty black and white to me. Please provide definite empirical evidence for that statement (instead of applying your allegedly “catholic” Rationalism which is immune to actually examining the world). You remind me of that bishop who told Galileo “I don’t need to look into your blurry telescope to know that it is your imagination that sees moons orbiting Jupiter. This is impossible as Divine Scripture tells us.”

I challenge you to refute the arguments made in post #38 and tell us just why the Church is wrong about homosexuality

You can huff and puff with strawman diversions and irrelevent challenges all you like.

Please show me where I denied anything in that statement?
What I am denying is the relevence.

You carry on as if heterosexual “parents” do not have grave parenting flaws by comparision when you focus on State orphanages as preferable to placing an orphan with a suitably reviewed gay couple. I and many others fail to see why, in this particular scenario, such a flaw must be any worse than non-orphans living with Catholic parents who may fight, bicker, drink, bludge the dole, divorce, have abortions, extra marital affairs be remarried and so on. Should we also not place kids with the dreaded “remarried” as that would also be placing them “into a prolonged occasion of sin?” Come on, drop the over intellectualised rationalism, its leading you to absurd and inconsistant conclusions .

Clearly your choice of this document you site is a very good example of you not engaging in “Relativism”. Well done on the rationalistic consistancy. Unfortunately by not taking into account real-world “context” and the particular scenario painted by the OP in this discussion your contribution simply becomes absurdly irrelevent.

The issue this document is arguing against is legalisation of Gay Unions - not the placement of a child with a gay couple as the last resort before an orphanage.

But as I say, the real problem with your approach is that your purely Rationalistic/Objective approach abstracts from a world of perfect heterosexual Catholic parents where flawed parents do not seem to exist in comparision to the evils of gay parenting. This is not the real world for the children of many heterosexual parents.

Given a more realistic appreciation of society and the straightened choices presented in this thread - why would we apriori think an otherwise family minded gay couple must do so much worse than the many dysfunctional straight “families” bringing up kids reasonably enough - meaning that an orphanage would be so much better .

Drop your blinkered rationalism and smell the roses.

 

[livingwordunity]

Did forcing Catholic adoption agencies to close help more orphans to get adopted?

I support Catholic groups closing their adoption services in order to maintain Church fidelity. Really I would rather they stay open but if they are unable due to budgetary constraints this would be an unfortunate reality.

However, Catholic groups were not “forced” to close down. THey were informed that they must meet federal standards in order to receive taxes. THis happens all the time. Catholic groups, like Catholics Charities, CHSE to close their adoption services, and I agree with that choice.

No one was “forced”. That’s simply dramatizing events as is quite common around here.

You are wrong in saying that they weren’t forced to close. Taxes was NOT the main reason why they had to close. See the following excerpt from a USCCB document about this:

In order to be licensed by the state, Catholic Charities of Boston would have to obey state laws barring “sexual orientation discrimination.” And because marriage had been redefined in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities could not simply limit its placements to married couples. Catholic leaders asked the state legislature for a religious exemption but were refused. As a result, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down its adoption services. (Source)

Therefore, my question has yet to be adequately addressed in relation to the question in the OP.

 

[tm30]

It would seem that placing a child in such a household creates jeopardy to that child’s soul, as he/she will be nurtured in an environment where intrinsic evil is, for all intents and purposes, a permanent condition.

One could argue the same if a child is adopted by the occupants of a drug den.

Of course there are horrific heterosexual households, but there is nothing intrinsically evil about a monogamous heterosexual marriage – that’s where the discernment of the adoption agency comes into play, to determine if, for example, a prospective parent is hindered by alcohol abuse or insufficiently aware of the grave responsibility of raising a child.

Although an orphanage is not an ideal living arrangement, it is not intrinsically evil. It’s evil in the sense that it falls short of God’s plan for the human family, but good can still come of it by virtue of grace working through those who are entrusted with their care. A same-sex couple has fatally impeded the possibility of being vessels of grace, at minimum, through their rejection of the Natural Law.