Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?

[livingwordunity]

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?

Yes, there is non-theological concrete evidence why children typically do better with both a mother and a father. Some sources may try to avoid saying this because it’s not considered politically correct. The government wants to avoid offending the “gay” lobby. So, instead they might only talk about the advantages of “two parent homes vs. single parent” while not mentioning that these “two parent homes” are actually made up of a mother and a father. What would you accept as “concrete evidence”?

Men and women are different. And these differences are complimentary. Mothers and fathers each offer a unique gift to their child. A father can’t be a mother to a child, and a mother can’t be a father to a child. Therefore two mothers can’t equal a father, and two fathers can’t equal a mother. This is just basic biology and logic. But how many “gays” are you talking about? There’s a logical reason why heterosexuals are most often in coupled relationships, it’s because it takes one man and one woman to make a baby. What is the reason for limiting the number to two for homosexuals? Is it to mimic a heterosexual couple?

 

[on_the_hill]

Yes, there is non-theological concrete evidence why children typically do better with both a mother and a father. Some sources may try to avoid saying this because it’s not considered politically correct. The government wants to avoid offending the “gay” lobby. So, instead they might only talk about the advantages of “two parent homes vs. single parent” while not mentioning that these “two parent homes” are actually made up of a mother and a father. What would you accept as “concrete evidence”?

I can predict how this dialogue is going to play out:

Person A: “I want concrete evidence from a peer-reviewed journal.”

Person 2: “There isn’t any.”

Person A: “Why not?”

Person 2: “Because liberal academics and the government suppress those studies.”

Person A: “In other words, there is evidence but you can’t prove it exists?”

Person 2: “Yes.”

Person A: “Then how do you know it exists?”

Person 2: “Because liberal academics and left-wing bureaucrats always suppress conservative viewpoints.”

Person A: “There’s a conspiracy?”

Person 2: “Of course there is. Why else wouldn’t we have the evidence that we know is out there?”

Person A: “How do you know it’s out there?”

Person 2: “Because they only suppress what they don’t agree with.”

Person A: “And since you’ve never seen the evidence it must therefore exist?”

Person 2: “You’re a heretic.”

I’m sorry, but when you step back from it, it’s kind of fun to play with, isn’t it?

And I do believe that a mother & father is the best way to raise children. And I’m sure there’s evidence out there to prove it. I just don’t have the wherewithal to look for it.

 

[livingwordunity]

Person A: “And since you’ve never seen the evidence it must therefore exist?”

Person 2: “You’re a heretic.”

You made a straw man argument since I gave you non-theological reasons for why it’s better for a child to have a mother and a father. You didn’t answer a single point or question in my post. The secularists will claim to be all about science, but human anatomy, basic biology, and disease statistics are things they want to ignore.

 

[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.

I fear that good faith dialogue with the sort entrenched carry on you are demonstrating here is impossible.

It is hard to dialogue with people who refuse to answer questions and attack reason.

You already know the full truth it seems.

I know the teaching of the Catholic Church and I am capable of reason.

More pontificating and spoken like a true Donatist .

How judgmental of you. The Catholic Church has requirements for a valid confession and confessing with the intent to sin again voids it. Homosexuals in a self admitted sexual relationship can not have a valid confession because they are not weak in their sin; their sin is their admitted lifestyle.

You have conveniently left out the context of the topic - orphanage (no parental love) versus loving gay parents.

The OP and you are engaged in a false dilemma. A false dilemma is giving a choice between two things when there are more possibilities. Children are created by a man and a woman. The children have a right to the education and nourishment provided by their biological parents. If they have lost their parents, then the best substitute is another man and a woman to act as their parents. This is close to the way nature designed the reproductive process, so it is reasonable that it would be the default position. Also man and woman can create and raise more than one child, so heterosexual couples are available.

I find it hard to understand why “theory” should trump empirical research…

The reproductive process is based in empirical research and has been tested for thousands of years. Now take the research and reason with it.

 

[on_the_hill]

You didn’t answer a single point or question in my post. The secularist will claim to be all about science, but basic biology is something they want to ignore.

Nor do I plan to answer. I’ve already stated that a mother-father, husband-wife family is better than gay. I don’t disagree with you. I don’t see it as strictly as you do, but I agree.

On a point that’s come up regarding the “availability” of adoptable children: it’s a very complex system. In our state, there is a shortage of foster parents but not of adoptive parents.

People enroll in the foster system as a means to adopt, so what happens is they foster, then adopt, which leaves too few ‘career’ foster parents available. There’s almost always a shortage of appropriate placements for children in need. I hear stories about children spending the night on couches in social service offices because emergency beds aren’t available.

My brother and his partner were in the adoption system for several years…HA got ya!..his *partner *is his wife……before they were matched with their adopted son.

On the other hand, a friend and his wife adopted two children, both as infants, very soon after entering the system.

I think it was because of $$, unfortunately. My brother went through the state’s adoption network; my friend’s wife’s family has a lot of $$, and they had the resources to go through private adoptions.

 

[Oreoracle]

What would you accept as “concrete evidence”?

Here is a fair standard, I think: Suppose someone told you that blacks couldn’t raise children as well as whites. Assuming you aren’t racist, you would naturally be skeptical of that claim, and would require a high standard of evidence. Use the same standard you’d demand for someone making such a claim.

What is the reason for limiting the number to two for homosexuals? Is it to mimic a heterosexual couple?

The reason is because people usually find it easier to devote themselves to one person rather than divide their attention (and resources) among multiple partners.

 

[LisaA]

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.

Remember your advice that when you assume you make an *** of u and me? Your clearly pejorative comments “impersonal” “unloving” references to a group home setting while simultaneously inferring that the gay couple adopting will be like Elton and John not the two Russions who adopted a child in order to us him for porn movies and sexual slavery. It’s utter baloney.

As to your suggestion that we ignore the Church’s teaching, thousands of years of wisdom, to accept some sort of anecdotal evidence about the nice gay couple down the block that took in five special needs children because all of the heterosexual couples were selfish pigs who only wanted a perfect infant (preferably white)

You present false choices and expect a rational answer. Remember the old computer term? Garbage in, garbabe out.

Lisa

 

[Stephen168]

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?

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. To quote Thomas Aquinas “In man, however, since the child needs the parents’ care for a long time, there is a very great tie between male and female, to which tie even the generic nature inclines.”*

We have had single parenting for quit awhile, and compared to two biological parents, it is lacking. 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. But children being raised by one parent is not natural, and it has a harmful effect when it happens; for whatever reason.

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.

 

[Stephen168]

Here is a fair standard, I think: Suppose someone told you that blacks couldn’t raise children as well as whites. Assuming you aren’t racist, you would naturally be skeptical of that claim, and would require a high standard of evidence. Use the same standard you’d demand for someone making such a claim.

In this thread we are talking about should they or shouldn’t they. I would reason that all races are designed to create and raise children, so it would be racist to claim they shouldn’t.

 

[on_the_hill]

As to your suggestion that we ignore the Church’s teaching, thousands of years of wisdom,

Lisa

Even from a non-religious perspective, it’s hard to argue against thousands of years of social/cultural evolution. Man + Woman = Husband & Wife. Husband + Wife = Children. Husband + Wife + Children = Family.

It’s in the math. QED.

It still leaves open the argument that the world has changed to a point where a nuclear family is less necessary, in terms of basic survival, than in the past.

 

[LisaA]

Here is a fair standard, I think: Suppose someone told you that blacks couldn’t raise children as well as whites. Assuming you aren’t racist, you would naturally be skeptical of that claim, and would require a high standard of evidence. Use the same standard you’d demand for someone making such a claim.

The reason is because people usually find it easier to devote themselves to one person rather than divide their attention (and resources) among multiple partners.

One this is simply your opinion. Concrete evidence?

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 racial analogy fails on all accounts. A black man or a black woman is biologically identical to a white man or a white woman respectively. There may be cultural issues that indicate certain cultures have more effective parental practices…for example a culture that discourages single motherhood, and encourages strong religious practices, and monogamous marriages is far more likely to have children who become happy, healthy and productive citizens than some kind of inner city chaos dominated by single mothers with multiple partners and absent fathers. There is plenty of empirical evidenced that children born to white practicing Jewish parents are far more likely to achieve success in virtually all aspects of life than children of inner city minority single mothers. It has nothing to do with color of the skin but is because of cultural norms.

If anything the gay “culture” is the antithesis of stability and as has been pointed out repeatedly men and women parent differently. Again an inherent, biological characteristic. This is not based on theology although as always our Catholic faith uses Natural Law and reasoned thought regarding sexuality, family life, and marriage.

As was noted by another poster, since the cohort of gay/Lesbian adoptive parents is too small to provide statistically significant results and because other parenting experiences have proven to be very destructive to childrens’ lives, what possible benefit arises from using children as living Petri dishes and hope everything turns out?

 

[Stephen168]

It still leaves open the argument that the world has changed to a point where a nuclear family is less necessary, in terms of basic survival, than in the past.

I think the nuclear family is less necessary, in terms of basic survival, than in the past. But I want more than basic survival for mankind. To quote Thomas Aquinas again, “Nature intends not only being in the offspring, but also perfect being, for which matrimony is necessary…”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are referring to 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…which is just the contradiction I was trying to get you to realise. You ask naiively “simple” questions of me (wrt a very complex issue) that already assume certain “solutions” which by answering (either yes or no) will only confirm you in your poor theological and anthroprological assumptions.

So you throw the toys out of the cot when I choose not to be involved in your essentially solipsistic monologue .
So I answered one of your questions with another question to encourage you to think outside your intellectual straight-jacket.
Then you get upset that I don’t answer questions (when you yourself wouldn’t answer my question) and when I want to play my game instead of yours .

Such pontificatings, rationalisations, emotions and intentions if I discern them correctly seem more about control of others and “winning” at all costs than someone sincerely seeking truth together with others by true dialogue.
I don’t pretend to have have armchair ethical “answers” from pure theory (Catholic or otherwise) before the concrete situation is carefully analysed and fully understood.

You clearly think this Rationalist approach to “discussion” works.
I wouldn’t attempt this style in your personal life.

I know the teaching of the Catholic Church and I am capable of reason.

You are certainly capable of consistant rationality and an “over the hood” (as opposed to “under the hood”) appreciation of Catholic Moral Theology which is not the same thing.
High functioning autistics in asylums are also very logical and consistant and rational.

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
I find it hard to understand why “theory” should trump empirical research…

The reproductive process is based in empirical research and has been tested for thousands of years. Now take the research and reason with it.

We are talking upbringing and orphanages not biology and straight parents remember.

You are trying to suggest that no gay couple could ever do a better job than any state orphanage.
And your basis for this gob-smackingly sweeping statement?
Its simply on the basis that homosexual acts are disordered and somehow orphages (or straight parents) somehow are immaculately protected and don’t do anything disordered sexual or otherwise:shrug:.

If that is reason at play then someone is a monkey’s uncle and it probably isn’t me.
Me, I’d like to examine the orphanage and gay couple in question first before coming up with a decision. But obviously you think this is madness.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

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.

 

[livingwordunity]

Here is a fair standard, I think: Suppose someone told you that blacks couldn’t raise children as well as whites.

Suppose I told you that homosexuality is a sexual preference and not a race? And suppose I told you that there are many examples of homosexuals who change and go “straight” and that it is therefore not provable that anyone is “born that way”? I expect your response to my second question to be with the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy.

 

[dshix]

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.

You think she missed the point, but actually, I think you did.

Honestly, the question of who can raise the children better is somewhat vague, and irrelevant to this issue. The concern we have is the bad influence that the homosexuality of these couples itself is the problem. We contend that children exposed to sodomy at such a young age, and raised with an understanding that it is all 'ok", will be put in considerable spiritual and mental danger, because we know (yes, and you know) that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil and a blight on the human race.

That’s really all that matters. It doesn’t matter how intelligent these kids will be raised to be, or how well fed, or how well taught. They will be raised thinking that homosexual acts are not gravely disordered, and THAT is very, very wrong.

 

[tm30]

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 .

The intent is all it takes. I don’t have to physically commit adultery to commit adultery.

A household whose purpose involves the facilitation of the monstrous abomination of homosexual relations is a den of sin, a place of ground which can never be sacred under those conditions, i.e., intrinsically evil.

 

[tm30]

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?

If you reject the notion that the human potential involves both the body and the soul, you’re wasting your time asking Catholics for their opinions. Since the soul is governed by its supernatural character, and not the natural world, you might be better off taking up checkers, instead of demanding physical evidence for faith.

 

[PTL]

OP, I would say that it would actually be better for the child to remain an orphan than be adopted by a gay or lesbian couple, because the very fact that that couple is homosexual is a clear indication that they have a deeply flawed understanding of a basic and critical part of human life: sexuality. I would not consider it good or safe in any way for a child to be exposed to their flawed understanding.

That!

 

[Stephen168]

So is it complex or simple my friend, you cannot have it both ways…which is just the contradiction I was trying to get you to realise. You ask naiively “simple” questions of me (wrt a very complex issue) that already assume certain “solutions” which by answering (either yes or no) will only confirm you in your poor theological and anthroprological assumptions.

So you throw the toys out of the cot when I choose not to be involved in your essentially solipsistic monologue .
So I answered one of your questions with another question to encourage you to think outside your intellectual straight-jacket.
Then you get upset that I don’t answer questions (when you yourself wouldn’t answer my question) and when I want to play my game instead of yours .

Such pontificatings, rationalisations, emotions and intentions if I discern them correctly seem more about control of others and “winning” at all costs than someone sincerely seeking truth together with others by true dialogue.
I don’t pretend to have have armchair ethical “answers” from pure theory (Catholic or otherwise) before the concrete situation is carefully analysed and fully understood.

You clearly think this Rationalist approach to “discussion” works.
I wouldn’t attempt this style in your personal life.

My simple questions exposed your sophistry, which now causes you to attack true reason.

You are certainly capable of consistant rationality and an “over the hood” (as opposed to “under the hood”) appreciation of Catholic Moral Theology which is not the same thing.
High functioning autistics in asylums are also very logical and consistant and rational.

Name calling is not reasonable.

We are talking upbringing and orphanages not biology and straight parents remember.

You are trying to suggest that no gay couple could ever do a better job than any state orphanage.
And your basis for this gob-smackingly sweeping statement?
Its simply on the basis that homosexual acts are disordered and somehow orphages (or straight parents) somehow are immaculately protected and don’t do anything disordered sexual or otherwise:shrug:.

If that is reason at play then someone is a monkey’s uncle and it probably isn’t me.
Me, I’d like to examine the orphanage and gay couple in question first before coming up with a decision. But obviously you think this is madness.

You continue in your irrational false dilemma. A false dilemma is giving a choice between two things when there are more possibilities. The other possibility is having the child be adopted by a heterosexual couple. A heterosexual couple is the best place to raise children.