Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?

[Catolico65]

Adoption of a child by a homosexual couple is a grave sin in the eyes of God and can do nothing but hurt the child. There is absolutely no love in a homosexual relationship, only a mutual decision to support one’s disordered desires. Furthermore, given the facts that the typical homosexual relationship is anything buy faithful this again show that this is a fruitless relationship. It is no wonder that the majority of homosexuals have a voracious appetite for partners as homosexual sex can never satisfy one properly, on the contrary their condition only can worsen.

Regarding homosexuality, I believe a few facts are in order. One, a recent and very comprehensive study has established without a doubt that homosexuality is not genetic in origin. Furthermore, homosexual desires for most people change to heterosexual with time so that there are actually more ex homosexuals than homosexuals.What has been published are studies with “suggested links”, nothing more. These are not vetted theories embraced by the scientific community, only uniformed persons and the gay lobby.

The Bible clearly establishes that homosexuality is not natural and not part of God’s design, so thus it cannot be biological.

The Catechism clearly establishes that homosexuality is disordered and psychological and not natural in origin (as opposed to biological). This of course perfectly matches with what the Bible says that God created the different sexes for a purpose. Some will claim the Churches stance supports a biological origin but these are lies perpetuated by the gay lobby, nothing more.

The Catechism defines sin as:

"Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

Sin is an act of defiance against “reason” and the “eternal law”. Therefore homosexual desires are a sin because they go against “reason” and “eternal law”. Some confused individuals would like us to believe that “science” has proven that there are biological origins of homosexuality and many other sins but this is completely false. Again, some studies suggesting links have been published but the are NOT DEFINITIVE.

There are many dangers with believing the “homosexuality is biological” false theory. First, and quite obvious is that disagrees with Scripture and God’s purpose for creating men and women and sex and procreation. Second, promoting the false and heretical idea that homosexuality is biological in origin causes much doubt among people who suffer from SSA, causing them to not realize there is a problem and turn to God for help. Three, promoting homosexuality’s origin as biological, in spite of the Church’s teaching and science, is used as a tool by the gay lobby to indoctrinate our children. In fact the biological origin is main argument by the gay lobby so for obvious reasons one should be cautious is associating oneself with such a diabolical institution.

Finally, for those who support the false concept that homosexuality is indeed biological and thus natural and created by God for a purpose yet is still a sin this is not a logical argument and thus fails the test of validity because the the definition of sin is doing something against “reason” and the “eternal law”. In other words if God did indeed create people to have homosexual desires, as is implied with biological design as He is the only author of said, they could not sin by having said desires by the very definition of sin.

Therefore, I would ask my fellow Catholics to defer to Scripture and the Catholic church and desist from promoting homosexuality as biological in origin because this is used as a tool by the devil that is destroying peoples lives every day and causing them to suffer and sin. I very well know as I was sexually abused as a child and suffered SSA because of it and societies false perceptions of what God had created in me.

 

[LisaA]

You seem to be saying that a well adjusted and supportive same sex couple who wishes to adopt a orphan is immoral. Moreover you write that by exposing the orphan to this would constitute child abuse. Seems to be a very value laden statement. I’m not sure there is any outcome evidence that would support you position. If an orphan can be adopted out to a well adjusted and supporting same sex couple, it would seem to be in the best interest of child which is always the criteria in the United States. Just a friendly observation.

While I defer to your apparent intellectual background being a PK myself (professors’ kid) please read the post. I said exposing a child to disordered and immoral behavior is a form of child abuse, whether or not it’s done by a homosexual or heterosexual parent(s).

Like the other gay apologists you immediately add your own value laden comment “well adjusted and supportive gay couple…” versus the sad fate of being an “orphan.” :ehh:

A false choice as it were. The best interest of a child is to provide loving parents/foster parents who provide a safe, secure, loving and positive environment where the child can observe normal relationships between a man and a woman, obtain the benefit of a mommy and a daddy who DO parent differently, and learn how to relate to both a same sex and opposite sex parent.

While there is probably not enough empirical evidence to determine whether or not all children raised by gays/Lesbians are impacted negatively there is a VAST amount of empirical evidence that children raised by a single parent (usually the mother) have a host of negative outcomes from teen pregnancy to incarceration to substance abuse to illiteracy.

Is it worthwhile, when all other social experiments have failed miserably, that we subject children to being human guinea pigs and see if it works this time? As a Catholic, how would you support children being adopted by gays/Lesbians when the relationship is
disordered, sinful and not life affirming?

In no way am I saying gays/Lesbians cannot be loving, kind, or supportive people, nor does their sexual activity (private and not a badge of honor or identity) mean they cannot have a positive influence on children. But as “parents” their relationship means a compromise by definition.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

There are many dangers with believing the “homosexuality is biological” false theory. First, and quite obvious is that disagrees with Scripture and God’s purpose for creating men and women and sex and procreation. Second, promoting the false and heretical idea that homosexuality is biological in origin causes much doubt among people who suffer from SSA, causing them to not realize there is a problem and turn to God for help. Three, promoting homosexuality’s origin as biological, in spite of the Church’s teaching and science, is used as a tool by the gay lobby to indoctrinate our children. In fact the biological origin is main argument by the gay lobby so for obvious reasons one should be cautious is associating oneself with such a diabolical institution.

Finally, for those who support the false concept that homosexuality is indeed biological and thus natural and created by God for a purpose yet is still a sin this is not a logical argument and thus fails the test of validity because the the definition of sin is doing something against “reason” and the “eternal law”. In other words if God did indeed create people to have homosexual desires, as is implied with biological design as He is the only author of said, they could not sin by having said desires by the very definition of sin.

Therefore, I would ask my fellow Catholics to defer to Scripture and the Catholic church and desist from promoting homosexuality as biological in origin because this is used as a tool by the devil that is destroying peoples lives every day and causing them to suffer and sin. I very well know as I was sexually abused as a child and suffered SSA because of it and societies false perceptions of what God had created in me.

Appreciate particularly the point bolded above. Homosexuality has gone from a mental illness to a lifestyle to a badge of courage in our society. Promoting the theory that one is “born this way” (you know based on the many scientific tests done by Lady GaGa) makes SSA a cudgel with which to bash those who disagree and turns a sexual activity into an agenda instead of being part of one’s private life.

Lisa

 

[Catolico65]

Appreciate particularly the point bolded above. Homosexuality has gone from a mental illness to a lifestyle to a badge of courage in our society. Promoting the theory that one is “born this way” (you know based on the many scientific tests done by Lady GaGa) makes SSA a cudgel with which to bash those who disagree and turns a sexual activity into an agenda instead of being part of one’s private life.

Lisa

Thank you. God bless you for seeing the importance of helping our brothers and sisters see the truth for the sake our beloved children.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

What about scandalously remarried parents who may (or may not) be regularly engaging in adultery in the very same home as their children? Is that a den of sin also? Would you have children removed from their care and given to decent once-married heterosexual couples for adoption? Why not?

Why the singular fetish and particular demonisation of homosexual acts amongst the many intrinsinsically evil acts that may regularly happen in the homes of even good heterosexual parents which we do not cause most of us to draw in a golly-gosh breath of disgust?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Re-Read the OP’s actual question my friend.
"Re: Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?"

Looks like a di-lemma to me?
What is it you don’t get…

 

[Stephen168]

What about scandalously remarried parents who may (or may not) be regularly engaging in adultery in the very same home as their children? Is that a den of sin also? Would you have children removed from their care and given to decent once-married heterosexual couples for adoption? Why not?

No. The subject of the thread is the placement of orphans. No one is talking about removing children from a home. But I would place a child in the home of a heterosexual couple before a homosexual couple.

Why the singular fetish and particular demonisation of homosexual acts amongst the many intrinsinsically evil acts that may regularly happen in the homes of even good heterosexual parents which we do not cause most of us to draw in a golly-gosh breath of disgust?

It is more than just the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts. It is the raising of children by two people of the same sex. This does not happen in the home of heterosexual couples.

 

[Stephen168]

Re-Read the OP’s actual question my friend.
"Re: Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?"

Looks like a di-lemma to me?
What is it you don’t get…

It is a false di-lemma, which I have explained to you several times.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

"exposed to sodomy"
Lets get a grip, were you ever exposed to your dad bonking your mum in front of you in the lounge or kitchen? .
Why would you think this would be normative behaviour for gay couples (or heterosexual couples) vetted for adopting kids?
Have you ever had any long term openly gay friends?

You are over-dramatising the obvious hohum reality that yes the child will be exposed to a committed, monogamous and caring relationship where partners are of the same sex.

Do children primarily experience their parents in sexual terms or as engaging in gay or straight sex as you seem to do as an adult? Surely they primarily see parents as caring for each other and caring for them (or not) unless they themselves have been sexually abused.

You know this (or were you perhaps sexually abused as a child?).
More likely, like me, you probably didn’t even know what sex was until you were 9 or 10 and even then the fact that your own parents actually did such things seemed even harder to believe until later.

Obviously the facts of life get communicated to children much earlier these days in the playground or on TV/Internet or more graphically through hidden dysfunctionalities in orphanages and families of which the heterosexual variety is certainly not immune.

They will be raised thinking that homosexual acts are not gravely disordered, and THAT is very, very wrong

To think that the Church or parents rather remote “example” has even the majority influence over how a kid’s sexual orientation turns out is but your opinion and I suggest very hard to substantiate. (Unless of course incest is involved).

If the Church’s teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered (as is divorce and remarriage) is correct then an important harmonising principle will come into play by the very natural order of things themselves.

That is, nature itself will teach the sincerely open and sincere. They will work it out for themselves over time despite the messiness of both the world and families - all of which have various degrees of dysfunctionality. That presumes a minimum of caring and respect from parents. I do not see why gay couples are all to be judged of intrinsically unable to provide those conditions .

Many children of broken homes do not believe that divorce or remarriage is the best way to go. I worked out for myself that smoking is bad for health even though both my parents were chain smokers and in those days society considered smoking cool.

And if nature itself goes astray (it seems that 5-10% of a population is genetically wired to homosexual feelings) even a strictly Catholic heterosexual household upbringing cannot turn the tide in many cases. It just gets turned underground.

My own experience suggests that “catholic” households that take this strangely demonising approach to the homosexual variety of family dysfunctionality (displayed above by your good self) will almost guarantee mental illness/neurosis in their homosexual oriented teenagers.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So don’t assume that there IS any empirical evidence that gays make better adoptive parents than a professionally run group home with proper procedures to prevent mental, sexual and physical abuse.

Lisa

Lisa you are still missining the point.
I don’t assume that there is empricial evidence re whether gay or institutional placements are better.

I simply say it is insane to opine that one does not need to make empirical enquiry at all (because some believe the Catholic Church teaches that no good can ever come from gay parents/relationships).
Just as the bishop wouldn’t look into Galileo’s blurry telescope just in case he saw something that might upset his fine black and white understanding of Catholicism.

One also needs to keep in mind that the question " Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?" can have different answers whether one is speaking of the betterment of society (a political question) or the betterment of a particular orphan (a personal question).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Lets give it up TM30 please…
Repeating your mantra doesn’t make it any more Catholic or influential in this forum if you cannot source a Magisterial authority to support such illogical seeming “pop theology” principles and terminology.

As I say, I believe (if you are sincere enough to actually look up some Catholic moral theology) you will find that only the objects of certain human acts are rightly called “intrinsically evil”.
Ongoing relationships where this regularly happens (which is what you are referring to) is more correctly referred to as “states of sin.”

To the best of my knowledge “states of sin” by that reason alone do not destroy the whole wider goodness of a relationship merely due to a defect of the part.

Also, the word “sin” here is not the same as that of “mortal sin”. Culpability (ie loss of God’s grace and friendship) is not necessarily implied in the expression as it is primarily a somewhat “material” or “external designation - just as is the case of “excommunication” and “bastard” (in olden times this was a sort of perduring “state of sin” for being born out of wedlock and loss of rights was involved)”.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa you are still missining the point.
I don’t assume that there is empricial evidence re whether gay or institutional placements are better.

I simply say it is insane to opine that one does not need to make empirical enquiry at all (because some believe the Catholic Church teaches that no good can ever come from gay parents/relationships).
Just as the bishop wouldn’t look into Galileo’s blurry telescope just in case he saw something that might upset his fine black and white understanding of Catholicism.

One also needs to keep in mind that the question " Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?" can have different answers whether one is speaking of the betterment of society (a political question) or the betterment of a particular orphan (a personal question).

No I am not missing the point, I disagree with you. Overriding my outlook on the subject is the Church’s teaching which contains eternal TRUTH even if not everything depends upon facts. This is where Scientism fanatics make their fatal error. Some things are true even if not subjected to peer reviewed studies. Further a peer review study does not upend an eternal truth. Same sex relationships are abnormal and disordered. By definition exposing children to abnormal and disordered relationships, is not in the children’s best interest.

There ARE a myriad of peer reviewed studies regarding the impact on children without two, opposite sex parents. Certainly we only need to look at crime, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, substance abuse and drop out rates of children raised by single mothers to determine that a father in the home is an essential element of raising children. There are far fewer single dad parents and I don’t know if any studies have been done on motherless homes but suffice to say, males and females parent differently. Children learn about normal male/female relationships first through their parents. They also learn how to relate to a parent of the same sex and the opposite sex. There are stages in each child’s life where one parent or the other has more interaction…early on usually the mother but as children become teens, particularly the males, a father’s influence becomes more and more important.

But somehow gays/Lesbians think if they are “loving” and “supportive” that it will make no difference that Susie has two mommies and no daddy. You can sugar coat it all you want but in reality gays/Lesbians adopting, by definition deny a child either a mommy or a daddy. FWIW I am also opposed to singles adopting and partly for the same reason.

You’ve waxed long about not knowing your parents had a sex life (please refrain from the crude language ok?) or that heterosexuals also engage in sexual sins, so it shouldn’t matter if the “parents” are same or opposite sex. The reality is that although same sex couples do not usually engage in public sex, that they are a couple who have an erotic element as opposed to just being same sex friends models a disordered relationship. It is public exposition of the private sexual sin. I am not saying that heterosexual sins should be ignored and I’d be as against adopting a child to a couple who were flagrantly public about their adultery as well. Like it or not, the public face of a married couple, does not by definition, provide an image of a disordered and abnormal relationship. Kids probably don’t know that daddy and mommy watch porn occasionally because it’s not done in the open. But a homosexual couple is “out” and at some point Susie is going to realize that her situation is NOT normal.

Again children should be more than pawns in a pro gay agenda. I am certain that there are many well meaning gays/Lesbians who simply do not accept that their relationships are NOT equivalent or as complete as an opposite sex marriage. But their selfish desire to normalize homosexuality should not use children as props, even if well intentioned, it’s not in the best interest of the child.

Lisa

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is a false di-lemma, which I have explained to you several times.

It may not be a likely practical scenario in 1st world countries (as I and others have mentioned a number of times). However I see no intrinsic reason why there could not be some unlikely circumstances where it may arise. Therefore it is worthy of discussing to see how the principles might be applied.

 

[Stephen168]

It may not be a likely practical scenario in 1st world countries (as I and others have mentioned a number of times). However I see no intrinsic reason why there could not be some unlikely circumstances where it may arise. Therefore it is worthy of discussing to see how the principles might be applied.

As long as you know you are talking about a fantasy world.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No I am not missing the point, I disagree with you. Overriding my outlook on the subject is the Church’s teaching which contains eternal TRUTH even if not everything depends upon facts. … By definition exposing children to abnormal and disordered relationships, is not in the children’s best interest.
Lisa

We do not seem to live in a world whose concrete realities correspond perfectly to our pure Platonic definitions of them. That to me is an obvious given.
People here speak about 2D “homosexuals” but really have no 3D appreciation of concrete in the flesh gays because it is obvious many have never had any real gay friends anyhow.

So we get all these stereotypes, some implicit and explicit on this thread, of all “gays have freely chosen their orientation and can be healed”, “gay couples are in mortal sin and so can do nothing wholesome let alone parent”, “gays are unfaithful and promiscuous scum who practice sodomy in front of children”, “gays are by definition mentally ill”, “gays want to make children just like them”.

Then on the other hand we see that heterosexual couples are automaticly assumed to be involved in no intrinsically disordered acts at all when of course such a concept is an imaginary construction.

Finally human life is mysteriously complex, full of a strange mix of limitations and freedoms which means that grace is operative even within dysfunctionality like the lotus (renowned in Asia and Buddhism for demonstrating that purity does arise from apparant and dirty, stagnant waters).

We live in a broken world, ideal placements simply do not exist or are often unavailable. Why single out gay couples as apriori, de facto, before-the-question, considerably worse than any other pretty dysfunctional option?

Loving permanent, committed care-givers whether they be grandmothers, a solo mum, an older sister, a promiscuous husband (Clinton) or a black slave can, in theory, and in actual empirical practice still do a good job regardless of their own material (as opposed to formal) peccadillos. Of course practical, empirical judgements must be made. Bit it can work. Love does cover a multitude of sins and gay couples can love despite those who ideologically (some call that “Truth”) believe this is not possible.

To me this is obvious from my own upbringing and non-ideologically driven view of reality.
Clearly many others have ideological agenda’s and pre-prepared truths/solutions in search of an empirical explanation that backs it up. I don’t see anything highly successful thus far.

Perhaps the more extreme opinions here come from people with abusive childhood backgrounds - I am at a loss to understand the sexual attitudes and demonising of homosexual dysfunctionalities when it is my experience that everybody has significant dysfunctionalities which should bar most of us from being good parents.

Yet it works when we care for others in a way where we forget ourselves.
Yes, there are gays who can do this.

“Let him who is without sin caste the first stone” is a lesson hard learnt by the pharisees.

Like it or not, the public face of a married couple, does not by definition, provide an image of a disordered and abnormal relationship. Kids probably don’t know that daddy and mommy watch porn occasionally because it’s not done in the open.

So in the end its the outside of cup and spoon that is most important in the issue of dysfunctionaility that we all in fact have?

But a homosexual couple is “out” and at some point Susie is going to realize that her situation is NOT normal.

Lisa, wake up, we are all “not normal” before God.
Your preoccupations/values here are white middle class more than Christian.
Most of the world is not white 1st world, middle class like us.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, wake up, we are all “not normal” before God.
Your preoccupations/values here are white middle class more than Christian.
Most of the world is not white 1st world, middle class like us.

Your long and rambling post is filled with strawmen and Red Herrings.

1. No one said gays/Lesbians have no capacity to love
   2)No one said gays/Lesbians choose their orientation
2. No one has said all straight couples are sinless, in fact many posters have noted that we are ALL sinners and heterosexual couples are no exception
3. No one has brought up child abuse
4. No one has brought up class or race

Your assumption that opposition to gay/Lesbian parenting is based on not knowing any homosexuals well is unwarrented. For one you don’t know do you? For another I assure you I have had long and close friendships with homosexuals. I have a homosexual cousin. I know several gay males well enough to ask them the most intimate of questions about their relationships. I left a very lucrative and prestigious job because of the treatment of some of my co workers who were gay. I have no animosity toward gay/Lesbian people. I have a LOT of animosity toward what I call the gay agenda. One can differentiate the two believe me.

In spite of the length of your post you failed to address the major points:

1. Children raised by gays/Lesbians be definition deny the child a mommy or a daddy. Is that in the best interest of the child?
2. We may not have enough empirical evidence about the impact of gay/Lesbian parents to draw any conclusion but we DO have significant evidence that not having a father is a MAJOR impediment to success in life. Is denying a child a mommy or a daddy in the best interest of the child?
3. A child raised by homosexuals does not observe normal interactions and relationships between males and females within his family. Is that in the best interest of the child?
4. A gay/Lesbian couple EXHIBIT their disordered relationship by definition whereas any sexual sin of heterosexual parents is not apparent to either the child or the public (Again not discounting these sins just their impact on the child)
5. Ideal placements do not exist in the context of normal families parenting their own children. However lowering the bar to accept a disordered relationship as the primary relationship in a child’s life starts with an impediment
6. The Church does not agree with homosexual relationships, nor those relationships parenting children. Why are you asking the question on a Catholic discussion forum unless you want to hear the answer is no?

I’ve been a volunteer in several social services organizations that dealt with children in crisis. While you and others refer to “orphans” more likely a child needing parents is one suffering from an abusive or neglectful parent who has had rights terminated. These fragile children need to be placed in the most caring and capable homes. They have suffered enough. Putting them into an abnormal situation with all of the attendant complications is not appropriate. Many of these children suffer from attachment disorder. It does not matter how loving a foster or adoptive parent is. These children have really complicated issues and need a great deal of professional guidance. They don’t need to be used as props for an agenda or guinea pigs for social experiments.

Lisa

 

[Oreoracle]

Animals need not be nor could they be psychoanalyzed.

If you’re going to make claims about what animals intend by certain sexual acts, then psychoanalysis is necessary.

However one can observe behavior and while there is male on male/female on female activity, this does not mean the animal is “homosexual.” You would find that in all cases, if the animal is given a choice or opportunity to engage in mating with the opposite sex, it will do so.

Umm…no. Read the article I referenced. It explicitly refers to some animals who engage solely in homosexual behaviors. This isn’t some kind of trick the liberal media is trying to play on you. Homosexuality really does occur in nature, both for humans and for other animals. By every meaningful definition of the word, it is “natural”.

That a particular self destructive behavior occurs in a minority population does not render the behavior normal even if it doesn’t have the power to destroy the species. Not all lemmings jump off of cliffs but it’s still not normal is it?

Well now you’re just moving the goalposts. First we were talking about what is “natural”, but now you seem to be talking about what is “normal” or “common”. Something needn’t be normal or common to be natural; it merely needs to occur in nature. If we take “natural” to refer only to what’s common, then planets, water, black holes, and indeed even organisms in general are not natural, since they are scarce throughout the universe.

Also, I see no reason why something should be immoral simply because it’s unusual. If I began a routine wherein I did 20 cartwheels around my house before I went to bed, that would certainly be unusual, but would it be morally wrong?

Despite rumors to the contrary, Catholicism is VERY much at home in the world of science. My mother a geneticist traces her “lineage” to Gregor Mendal…a monk.

That really isn’t what we’re debating. But for what it’s worth, the argument “So-and-so was religious, therefore religion is supportive of science” fails spectacularly in my opinion, in part because, historically, anyone who declared themselves atheist would often face ostracism or execution.

Even if people were religious by choice (and usually a priest would be religious by choice), the argument would still fail. It’s like saying “Most important discoveries and innovations were made by people with hair on their heads, so not being bald makes one more innovative.”

Science does not intimidate the Church but the Church has an added dimension of considering the morality of actions rather than just getting a specific result.

 

[LisaA]

If you’re going to make claims about what animals intend by certain sexual acts, then psychoanalysis is necessary.

Umm…no. Read the article I referenced. It explicitly refers to some animals who engage solely in homosexual behaviors. This isn’t some kind of trick the liberal media is trying to play on you. Homosexuality really does occur in nature, both for humans and for other animals. By every meaningful definition of the word, it is “natural”.

:

Baloney. A farmer knows when heifers are in heat they will mount each other. Experiments on animals placed in crowded and unnatural situations with same sex will sometimes result in homosexual rape. I see no reason to psychoanalyze mice or cows for that matter. What occurs is quite obvious to anyone with a brain and decent vision.

That homosexual activity occurs in nature might mean it’s “natural” but it’s not normal. If you wish to split hairs, so be it. No species’ behavior is normal if it either results in self destruction or failure to procreate. Wikipedia is hardly a peer reviewed scientific journal so don’t take such stock in it.

But this is way off topic so back to the actual subject being discussed. As has been noted repeatedly there are numerous arguments, some of which are biological and others psychological that indicate two gays or two Lesbians cannot provide an optimal situation for children who need parents.

Lisa

 

[Oreoracle]

That homosexual activity occurs in nature might mean it’s “natural” but it’s not normal.

Finally we can agree on something.

If you wish to split hairs, so be it. No species’ behavior is normal if it either results in self destruction or failure to procreate.

Indeed, the celibacy of priests is quite abnormal. They have deliberately chosen a lifestyle in which they will fail to procreate.

Wikipedia is hardly a peer reviewed scientific journal so don’t take such stock in it.

It’s a good deal better than appealing to “common sense” though.

 

[LisaA]

Finally we can agree on something.

Indeed, the celibacy of priests is quite abnormal. They have deliberately chosen a lifestyle in which they will fail to procreate.

It’s a good deal better than appealing to “common sense” though.

Do you have any response to the issue being discussed?
Lisa