Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?

[dshix]

Blue Horizon, you’ve not responded with any kind of sense to our arguments against your position, so I will not waste my time in responding to your fallacious arguments. I can certainly think of answers to everything you have said, but since I know you will ignore it and move on, I consider it a useless exercise.

Please stop acting like a troll and respond to the statements already made against your position in this very thread.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen I am not going to directly respond to this particular question. Your very question means you have not carefully read my previous contributions which is surely a reasonable expectation if you wish to be seen as sincerely engaging with another contributor?

The answer is clearly stated in a number of places in my previous contributions. Do come back to me if you do not understand those places or you feel I have been too ambiguous.

I’m not sure why you would assume I have not read your previous contributions, I have. I asked because I do believe you have been ambiguous. Now if you would please answer the question: Is sodomy intrinsically evil?

 

[Stephen168]

However, if they confess regularly and try to abstain

Would the confession of a person in a active homosexual union be valid?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by LisaA
Make it real or give it up. Your scenarios are like discussing the merits of a cartoon character’s ability to parent a child. I mean what do you think? MIckey Mouse or Donald Duck?
Lisa

Yes that is pretty much the common sense approach I am advocating OnTheHill.

This debate pretty much boilsdown to “catholic” rationalists who think these questions are solved from an armcahir with the CCC without even looking out the window (or telescope to re-use the Galileo example below) to see whether they well apply in particular concrete circumstances.

Obviously Lisa thinks that the very topic of this thread is not already Mickey Mouse perhaps? Who ever hear of orphans in first world countries these days? Since when have there been such huge numbers of gay-couples wanting orphaned children and not a straight family to be seen?

But, as you say, the question is useful in teasing out principles and how they should be applied in practice.

The Rationalist approach denies the need for taking much notice of the messy real-world. It tends towards a sort of high-functioning autism - the principles are black and white and the words “pastoral” and “application” really have no real meaning for them. They do not see that even at the level of principle there are often competing ones so application of them to reality is quite confusing and requires skill and discernment and close examination of circumstances. Rationalists hate confusion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Would the confession of a person in a active homosexual union be valid?

If a guy was reguarly unfaithful to his wife but had a firm purpose of ammendment at each confession do you think that confession be valid?

 

[Stephen168]

If a guy was reguarly unfaithful to his wife but had a firm purpose of ammendment at each confession do you think that confession be valid?

Are you able to answer questions?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m not sure why you would assume I have not read your previous contributions, I have. I asked because I do believe you have been ambiguous. Now if you would please answer the question: Is sodomy intrinsically evil?

Because you seem unable to understand my following contributions:

TM30: the same-sex relationship is sexual in nature, then it is intrinsically evil.

…you wholly denigrate a much wider reality simply on the basis of one part component of that relationship (sexual acts) being astray.

The Teaching Church… says “homosexual acts” are intrinsically disordered and always sinful if done freely

This is exactly the expression used in the latest CCC:
2357 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are** intrinsically disordered**.”

I do not believe you will find the word “sodomy” in the Catechism.

 

[Stephen168]

Because you seem unable to understand my following contributions:

That quote were not in the post I was referring to. So you are saying sodomy is intrinsically evil?

 

[dshix]

That quote were not in the post I was referring to. So you are saying sodomy is intrinsically evil?

Funny how he can’t seem to stop dodging the question…

Blue Horizon, the question is clear. We assume that you know homosexual acts are sodomy, so answer it: yes or no?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That quote were not in the post I was referring to. So you are saying sodomy is intrinsically evil?

What is the matter with you guys?
Reread my below post which is perfectly clear.

If you haven’t got it by now there is nothing left to “dialogue” further with you on this point. Your lack of open-ness is now palpable to the point it is clear you are unable to understand, let alone accept or discuss sincerely, any point of view other than your own (hidden) one .

Do read the Catechism source as I originally paraphrased to you - even if you didn’t know it at the time.

 

[Stephen168]

What is the matter with you guys?

Because you now say that sodomy is intrinsically evil and a sexually active same sex couple are not capable of a valid confession would you agree with the following?

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Because you now say a sexually active same sex couple are not capable of a valid confession …

(1) Where did I say this?
(2) It is an assumption to assume that all Catholic same sex couples are regularly having sex. Just as it would be to assume this of all remarried Catholics. The Church encourages them to live as brother and sister - some couples in both situations no doubt, if they are sincere Catholics, will be trying to do this.
(3) The topic of this thread is “gay adoption” not “active gay adoption” - you are above narrowing the topic unjustifiably. Some gay couples could be at it like rabbits, others rarely, others not at all. (As is the case with some heroic Catholic remarried). In fact “gay adoption” could also just mean a gay parent living alone (possibly with a part-time lover outside)?

Try and avoid the rationalism which always tries to keep things neat and tidy in well defined narrow little boxes and abstracts from the intrinsic messiness/circumstances of the real world.

Circumstances are much more varied and not so black and white as your statement is trying to make out.

Given these varied circumstances I see Confession being valid in many situations (for both the remarried and the gay).

 

[Stephen168]

Because you now say that sodomy is intrinsically evil and a sexually active same sex couple are not capable of a valid confession would you agree with the following?

(1) Where did I say this?
(2) It is an assumption to assume that all Catholic same sex couples are regularly having sex. Just as it would be to assume this of all remarried Catholics. The Church encourages them to live as brother and sister - some couples in both situations no doubt, if they are sincere Catholics, will be trying to do this.

1. You have avoided giving an answer, I assume you agreed
2. When I said sexually active that would mean they are actually have sex, we are not assuming it.

(3) The topic of this thread is “gay adoption” not “active gay adoption” - you are above narrowing the topic unjustifiably. Some gay couples could be at it like rabbits, others rarely, others not at all. (As is the case with some heroic Catholic remarried). In fact “gay adoption” could also just mean a gay parent living alone (possibly with a part-time lover outside)?

It is still a scandalous.

Try and avoid the rationalism which always tries to keep things neat and tidy in well defined narrow little boxes and abstracts from the intrinsic messiness/circumstances of the real world.

Circumstances are much more varied and not so black and white as your statement is trying to make out.

Given these varied circumstances I see Confession being valid in many situations (for both the remarried and the gay).

You are claiming that reason is bad. The Holy Father said reason is a good thing.

You avoided yet another question. It is hard to defend homosexuality and be rational, so I understand.

Given these varied circumstances I see Confession being valid in many situations (for both the remarried and the gay).

If you are in a sexual active relationship, it means you intent to have sex regularly. You can not have a valid confession if you intent to sin again.

 

[LisaA]

(1) Where did I say this?
(2) It is an assumption to assume that all Catholic same sex couples are regularly having sex. Just as it would be to assume this of all remarried Catholics. The Church encourages them to live as brother and sister - some couples in both situations no doubt, if they are sincere Catholics, will be trying to do this.
(3) The topic of this thread is “gay adoption” not “active gay adoption” - you are above narrowing the topic unjustifiably. Some gay couples could be at it like rabbits, others rarely, others not at all. (As is the case with some heroic Catholic remarried). In fact “gay adoption” could also just mean a gay parent living alone (possibly with a part-time lover outside)?

Try and avoid the rationalism which always tries to keep things neat and tidy in well defined narrow little boxes and abstracts from the intrinsic messiness/circumstances of the real world.

Circumstances are much more varied and not so black and white as your statement is trying to make out.

Given these varied circumstances I see Confession being valid in many situations (for both the remarried and the gay).

Must you use vulgarities? It really degrades the conversation. What I find baffling about your whole line of questioning is your insistence that if circumstances dictate, then we can ignore the Church’s teaching and Pope Francis for that matter who stated clearly that same sex couples adopting were engaging in a form of child abuse.

There are things black and white even though you think it’s clever to pretend there are shades of gray when it comes to grave sin. For example you could use the same specious argument to support an abortion if the child will be born to an evil murderess…I mean wouldn’t it be better to kill the child before birth than allow him to be born to this She Devil? Ditto with the whole gay adoption meme. If the heterosexual parents were so neglectful and if this wonderful gay couple, let’s call them Elton and David, were willing to take the child, wouldn’t that be better than an orphanage? That Elton and David are nice guys and certainly have the wherewithal to support a child financially, does that make their home appropriate for placing a child?

Again, such a stretch. Reality is far less clear and without a basis for making decisions, they become relative…fine to give a kid to a gay couple if it’s Elton and David, not so fine if it’s the two Russians that used their adopted son in sexual slavery How about accepting Catholics are supposed to follow the Church’s teaching even if some obscure situation would indicate the answer is not clear?

Lisa

 

[dshix]

Must you use vulgarities? It really degrades the conversation. What I find baffling about your whole line of questioning is your insistence that if circumstances dictate, then we can ignore the Church’s teaching and Pope Francis for that matter who stated clearly that same sex couples adopting were engaging in a form of child abuse.

There are things black and white even though you think it’s clever to pretend there are shades of gray when it comes to grave sin. For example you could use the same specious argument to support an abortion if the child will be born to an evil murderess…I mean wouldn’t it be better to kill the child before birth than allow him to be born to this She Devil? Ditto with the whole gay adoption meme. If the heterosexual parents were so neglectful and if this wonderful gay couple, let’s call them Elton and David, were willing to take the child, wouldn’t that be better than an orphanage? That Elton and David are nice guys and certainly have the wherewithal to support a child financially, does that make their home appropriate for placing a child?

Again, such a stretch. Reality is far less clear and without a basis for making decisions, they become relative…fine to give a kid to a gay couple if it’s Elton and David, not so fine if it’s the two Russians that used their adopted son in sexual slavery How about accepting Catholics are supposed to follow the Church’s teaching even if some obscure situation would indicate the answer is not clear?

Lisa

 

[on_the_hill]

Are you assuming all heterosexual couples of been banished from the earth? Or all heterosexual couples are only able to adopt one child?

Whatever. Any circumstances.

 

[Corki]

(1) Where did I say this?
(2) It is an assumption to assume that all Catholic same sex couples are regularly having sex. Just as it would be to assume this of all remarried Catholics. The Church encourages them to live as brother and sister - some couples in both situations no doubt, if they are sincere Catholics, will be trying to do this.
(3) The topic of this thread is “gay adoption” not “active gay adoption” - you are above narrowing the topic unjustifiably. Some gay couples could be at it like rabbits, others rarely, others not at all. (As is the case with some heroic Catholic remarried). In fact “gay adoption” could also just mean a gay parent living alone (possibly with a part-time lover outside)?

Who cares if they are sexually active? It doesn’t change the fact that the relationship being presented to the adopted child as “parents” is a twisted and immoral one.

 

[livingwordunity]

No one is pretending that heterosexual relationships are always pure and perfect and in line with Church teaching. But remember NONE of the homosexual relationships are avoiding sin, just by virtue of their existence.

And, it’s possible that a homosexual can be involved with more than the sin of being in a homosexual relationship. Since those arguing for adopting kids to an openly active homosexual are comparing homosexuals to the worst possible examples of a heterosexual let’s think of a few of the worst examples of a homosexual.

Notorious homosexuals:

Jim Jones - socialist suicide cult leader who massacred around 900 people including women and children.
Jeffrey Dahmer - serial killer who ate his homosexual male victims.
John Wayne Gacy - serial killer who dressed as a clown to lure his child victims to their death.

There’s also “gay on gay” domestic violence that goes on in some homosexual relationships.

 

[on_the_hill]

Notorious homosexuals:

Jim Jones - socialist suicide cult leader who massacred around 900 people including women and children.
Jeffrey Dahmer - serial killer who ate his homosexual male victims.
John Wayne Gacy - serial killer who dressed as a clown to lure his child victims to their death.

You left out Leopold and Loeb.

Is this even a serious argument? You list a few lunatics who happened to be homosexuals and consider that a valid point?

FWIW, I haven’t seen any post that advocates adoption into active homosexual households.

And no one has answered my question. Flat out yes or no: are there any circumstances when adoption into a gay household would be o.k.?

 

[dshix]

You left out Leopold and Loeb.

Is this even a serious argument? You list a few lunatics who happened to be homosexuals and consider that a valid point?

FWIW, I haven’t seen any post that advocates adoption into active homosexual households.

And no one has answered my question. Flat out yes or no: are there any circumstances when adoption into a gay household would be o.k.?

As he said in his post, he was citing these examples in response to Blue Horizon’s claims that heterosexual couples are bad. He was, essentially, showing the fallacy of Horizon’s argument by making a fallacious argument himself.