J
JB_Dugan
Guest
OK. I’ll take a stab at it…Yes!
- Status
Stephen168
New member
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Thank you.
L
LisaA
Guest
What is a “gay household?” You present a comlete oxymoron with the theory there is a “gay household” but the householders are not engaging in sex. So is this sexless"gay household" run by a single man with same sex attraction who is celibate, does not publicize his SSA? Is this “gay household” two gay men who are not sexually active but present themselves as roommates if nothing else?
Scenario one fails because I do not agree with allowing singles to adopt regardless of their sexual orientation. Aside from the obvious financial issues (unless you are Sandra Bullock) the child is denied either a mommy or a daddy.
Scenario two fails because of the above, and because the child will not see a normal male/female dynamic AND because the pair will cause scandal by their relationship which will be assumed to have a sexual component whether or not it does.
Instead of splitting hairs or making up ridiculous scenarios, why don’t you defend your position? I’ve just seen a lot of dodging of the issues instead of some kind of cogent argument. You state you are Catholic but seem to ignore very clear teaching on the subject, not to mention Pope Francis’ comments regarding gay adoptions.
Lisa
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Yes. The ones who are for “gay” adoption want to create a hypothetical that isn’t based on reality. They want to force a false assumption that there is no such thing as a good healthy marriage between a man and a woman and that homosexuals can do no wrong. This creates a false dichotomy. So, I balanced that with a few real examples of notorious homosexuals.
This post (#105) linked here.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
I don’t want to refer to a gay couple as married, because to me it’s not a marriage. And I don’t want to refer to them as a couple, because I don’t want to place it at the same level as a man/women couple. So household seemed generic enough to imply that there are gay people living there but without giving the relationship any kind of recognized status.
It’s just me playing semantics with a lifestyle I don’t approve.
My position remains what it was way back in the thread: I’m against gay adoption. But at the same time, I believe there may be circumstances when a gay adoption is the lesser of two evils. The child doesn’t exist in suspended animation while the best placement is found.
And finally, in my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that exposure to immorality (whether or not it’s referred to as an intrinsic evil) is as harmful as physical danger. I respectfully disagree with then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s words that exposure to gay lifestyles is violence.
L
LisaA
Guest
But you again create a false scenario based on false assumptions. If you claim there are circumstances where adoption by a gay couple/household whatever you call it, is preferable to suspended animation (?) or an orphanage, it falls right back into relativism. Which gay couple/household versus what type of “suspended animation” and for how long? Which gay couple versus which orphanage? It becomes a matter of opinion where logic and thoughtful decision making cannot exist. It’s relative to the parties and situation at hand.
The beauty of our Catholic faith is that it doesn’t provide these false choices and leave such grave matters to one man’s opinion. Violence isn’t always bodily harm. Violence is far more likely to be emotional than physical whether you are speaking of abusive parents or abusive spouses. Domestic violence is not limited to physical beatings nor is child abuse limited to physical harm. A child’s mind and spirit damaged makes a damaged person even if he is physically in good health. Exposing a child to a disordered relationship is never a good thing.
I realize no relationship is perfect or its parties without sin, but if your standard is placement with a heterosexual couple, you don’t START with a disordered and sinful relationship.
Lisa
T
tm30
Guest
(Slow clap)
“I studied moral theology for 6 years” is not exactly proof of understanding moral theology. Knowing how moral theology courses are presented (having attended), perhaps I should be asking you for evidence.
The same documentary evidence God will ask of me, which is none. The Church teaches what she teaches. Moral theology prowess is not a pre-requisite of knowing right from wrong.
No, we’re trying to save souls from eternal hell fire.
Or common sense, take your pick.
So let’s apply this to NAMBLA. If a man wants to marry the ten year old boy he adopted, is that cool with you? After all, it’s about the act, not the relationship, right?
Should we allow pedophiles back into the seminaries? Isn’t the Church being unfair and judgmental since it’s possible they may never commit an infraction?
Not really.
Or barnyard animals.
But feel free to continue pontificating through the rest of your post.
I can’t help you, if you truly believe this.
Because there’s always a path of normalization possible in the construct of a heterosexual relationship. There is no course of normalization in a sexual same-sex relationship. I won’t repeat what I’ve already posted, but review if necessary.
Actually, yes it can.
Jesus spoke through St. Paul, too.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
How? Where? I didn’t create any scenario at all.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
D
Durnford
Guest
Being brought up by two same sex parents is a terrible idea and will confuse the child no end
It is ludicrous that sociologists attempt to say it is fine.
It is ludicrous that sociologists attempt to say it is fine.
L
LisaA
Guest
The OP created a false choice because it is relative. Your posts indicated you felt there was a point to positing ridiculous scenarios that drills down to the commitment to our faith vis a vis an increasingly egregious situation for a child versus a “nice gay couple” and where we will step over the line.
My point is that if you reject Catholic teaching in certain situations, the decision becomes “one man’s opinion” versus a well thought out and supportable decision. Further the kind of sinful two parent family, indulging in adultery, sodomy and violence versus a chaste gay household that demonstrates only kindness, love and devotion to the child probably doesn’t exist any more than a choice between MIckey and Donald.
Perhaps we have wasted a great deal of time when the appropriate response was “no.”
Lisa
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Perhaps, a great deal of time. Relatively speaking.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
No.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I just love it - I answer your digital, barely civil, “have you stopped beating your wife yet” type questions but the one time I answer your question with a question in order to help you out of your intellectual straight-jacket with something deeper (to which you yourself do not reply
) you say I am avoidant:shrug:.And like they say, “assume” makes an asss out of you and me.
I fear that good faith dialogue with the sort entrenched carry on you are demonstrating here is impossible. You already know the full truth it seems.
More pontificating and spoken like a true Donatist
.While I have much sympathy for your holy rigor (as advocated by many in the Early Church under the onslaught of Diocletian), Pope Militiades settled the matter in favour of the weak - which is point of view I am attempting to communicate gently to you here. We are a Church of messed up sinners and if seven times we repent sincerely so shall we be forgiven regardless of whether we lapse immediately or not.
Most priests would not judge weak human nature as harshly as you have here.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Some very tortured concepts masquerading as reality here…
You have conveniently left out the context of the topic - orphanage (no parental love) versus loving gay parents. Its fairly clear to most people what, all things being equal, is going to be more damaging given the evidence coming out about institutional care in the 1950-1960s from a significant number of survivors.
What damage stats are you aware of wrt children brought up by gay parents?
What exactly is that damage?
I find it hard to understand why “theory” should trump empirical research into the matter to such an extent that the answer is so black and white that research need not even be done.
Smacks of the rationalist flat earth society to me.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
You have gone off from the topic on a slight tangent…
Onviously heterosexual parents are pref to a gay couple.
That is not the topic question.
The question is whether an impersonal govt? institution can do a better parenting job?
The track record for such institutions is increasingly being shown up for what it really was.
The question is an emprical one - which placement is likely to damage a child more?
This question cannot be solved by a black and white armchair ideology that need not take account of concrete circumstances, history and research.
I am quite sure that if the Sadducees had to choose where and how Jesus would be born and placed it wouldn’t be anywhere near where the Father actually decided.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Got it, you have absolutely no Magisterial evidence/authority to backup your personal “theological” opinion that relationships are made wholly and “intrinsically evil” because homosexual acts may occur.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
TM30…which one was that again? Teleport? Shadow ball? Sorry, I digress.
So I have a general question for any of the Catholics who’ve posted thus far: Does anyone have non-theological, concrete evidence that children raised by gays can’t realize the same potential as those raised by straight couples? I mean, is there an argument that doesn’t just appeal to the old template “Well, God said such-and-such…”? Real evidence, anyone? Evidence that doesn’t require faith to be seen?
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Exactly.
- Status