Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?

[Stephen168]

I will defer to the biologists on this one. From the Wikipedia article “Homosexual Behavior in Animals”:

“A definite physiological explanation or reason for homosexual activity in animal species **has not been agreed upon **by researchers in the field. Numerous scholars are of the opinion that varying levels (either higher or lower) of the sex hormones in the animal, in addition to the size of the animal’s gonads, play a direct role in the sexual behavior and preference exhibited by that animal. Others firmly argue no evidence to support these claims exists when comparing animals of a specific species exhibiting homosexual behavior exclusively and those that don’t. Ultimately, empirical support from comprehensive endocrinological studies exist for both interpretations.”

I bolded those two sections for emphasis. It appears that biologists aren’t as sure as you are, and some happen to agree with my contention that genuine sexual preference may be involved in some cases.

But by all means, continue to psychoanalyze animals instead of listening to the biologists.

None of the “homosexual” animals raise children.

 

[LisaA]

None of the “homosexual” animals raise children.

Touche or perhaps game, set, match.
Lisa

 

[Oreoracle]

Do you have any response to the issue being discussed?

Certainly. The matter of an adoptive couple’s sexuality seems to be a non sequitur. Thus, to me, the question “Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?” amounts to asking “Is being adopted better than living in a group home?”. In general, the answer would be a resounding “yes”.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

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?

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.

This has nothing to do with the OP. You have no evidence for same sex couples being able to raise children better than a foster home. We do have evidence that a single parent of one sex is not able to raise children as well as a heterosexual couple can.

 

[Oreoracle]

None of the “homosexual” animals raise children.

Then again, animals in general don’t adopt children. In most of the animal kingdom, you’re out of luck if your original parents don’t care for you. So we should just let those kids who are now wards of the state run free, right?

 

[Catolico65]

Certainly. The matter of an adoptive couple’s sexuality seems to be a non sequitur. Thus, to me, the question “Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?” amounts to asking “Is being adopted better than living in a group home?”. In general, the answer would be a resounding “yes”.

Not if one is concerned about the child’s education nor emotional wellness.

lifesitenews.com/news/children-from-same-sex-households-much-less-likely-to-graduate-high-school

 

[Stephen168]

Certainly. The matter of an adoptive couple’s sexuality seems to be a non sequitur. Thus, to me, the question “Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?” amounts to asking “Is being adopted better than living in a group home?”. In general, the answer would be a resounding “yes”.

And a heterosexual couple is a better bet than a same sex couple.

 

[Stephen168]

Then again, animals in general don’t adopt children. In most of the animal kingdom, you’re out of luck if your original parents don’t care for you. So we should just let those kids who are now wards of the state run free, right?

No, give them to heterosexual couples to raise just like nature intended it. Let nature be our guide.

 

[Oreoracle]

Not if one is concerned about the child’s education nor emotional wellness.

From the same article: “The study’s publication continues the emergence of new, population-based research in this domain, **much of which has undermined scholarly **and popular claims about equivalence between same-sex and opposite-sex households echoed by activists and reflected in recent legal proceedings about same-sex marriage.”

Note the bolded portion.

 

[Oreoracle]

Not if one is concerned about the child’s education nor emotional wellness.

lifesitenews.com/news/children-from-same-sex-households-much-less-likely-to-graduate-high-school

Thanks for offering real evidence. I will respond after I’ve read Allen’s article for myself.

 

[LisaA]

Then again, animals in general don’t adopt children. In most of the animal kingdom, you’re out of luck if your original parents don’t care for you. So we should just let those kids who are now wards of the state run free, right?

Obviously you were not raised on a farm. Animals FREQUENTLY “adopt” young when their dams (that means momma for the farm challenged) die or are unable to care for them, or provide milk. There are even inter species adoptions in the animal kingdom. There are species of birds that deliberately lay eggs in other birds’ nests so the nesting female raises the intruder as well as her own. The mothering instinct is quite strong in the animal kingdom too.

Your ridiculous scenarios are not nearly as clever as you seem to think.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Certainly. The matter of an adoptive couple’s sexuality seems to be a non sequitur. Thus, to me, the question “Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?” amounts to asking “Is being adopted better than living in a group home?”. In general, the answer would be a resounding “yes”.

Evidence? Sounds like you are the world’s best expert on your own opinion. That you claim to be an atheist doesn’t give your opinions much credibility on a Catholic forum so you’ll have to really put on your thinking cap and come up with a cogent argument.

Lisa

 

[Oreoracle]

Obviously you were not raised on a farm. Animals FREQUENTLY “adopt” young when their dams (that means momma for the farm challenged) die or are unable to care for them, or provide milk.

1. It’s interesting that you’ve discarded that earlier notion of “natural” of which you were so fond. A farm is an artificial environment created by humans, no? Animals are forced into circumstances they wouldn’t otherwise encounter. Which leads to my next point.
2. You can’t assume that domesticated animals will behave similarly to wild animals. My dogs obey me, but that doesn’t demonstrate that wolves are generally obedient to humans.

There are even inter species adoptions in the animal kingdom. There are species of birds that deliberately lay eggs in other birds’ nests so the nesting female raises the intruder as well as her own. The mothering instinct is quite strong in the animal kingdom too.

What is it about the words “most” and “usually” that so many on this forum don’t grasp? I don’t normally make categorical, absolute statements. I said that most of the time, abandonment by an animal’s parents results in the death of the animal. This is particularly common among mammals. You’ll always find some exceptions, just as I’m sure there are some exceptional cases where homosexual animals adopt another offspring.

Frankly, I’m surprised that you didn’t misrepresent me further. You could have pointed out, for example, that some species don’t require parenting at all.

Your ridiculous scenarios are not nearly as clever as you seem to think.

And you appear to think I’ll be stumped by farming examples. I live in Indiana, after all. I’m surrounded by corn and cattle in all directions.

Evidence?

You want me to provide evidence to refute a non sequitur? Okay, tell me how you would provide evidence against the following claim: “Couples who wear boxers are worse at parenting than couples who wear briefs.”

I don’t know what else I can do but point out that the undergarments that one wears are inconsequential to one’s parenting skills.

 

[carpenter383]

Even if we ignore the increased risk of abuse, we can’t ignore the danger that a homosexual couple poses to a child’s soul. Such a couple is in a state of open, persistent, and grave immorality. Placing a child in such an environment is practically a spiritual death sentence.
Remember our Lord’s warning that “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)

The problem with this line of thought is that it fails to recognize what any given environment is typically like. It fails to account for statistical data, or plain old common sense. Would you say that we should let known meth dealers adopt kids, since some of them would be better parents than some normal parents? Of course not, because, on average, the meth dealer will provide a significantly worse environment for the child. It’s the same situation with homosexual couples. In studies done using random sampling (as opposed to the self-selected samples homosexuality advocates usually rely on), homosexual couples produced objectively inferior environments to raise children in.

Agreed

 

[LisaA]

1. It’s interesting that you’ve discarded that earlier notion of “natural” of which you were so fond. A farm is an artificial environment created by humans, no? Animals are forced into circumstances they wouldn’t otherwise encounter. Which leads to my next point.
2. You can’t assume that domesticated animals will behave similarly to wild animals. My dogs obey me, but that doesn’t demonstrate that wolves are generally obedient to humans.

What is it about the words “most” and “usually” that so many on this forum don’t grasp? I don’t normally make categorical, absolute statements. I said that most of the time, abandonment by an animal’s parents results in the death of the animal. This is particularly common among mammals. You’ll always find some exceptions, just as I’m sure there are some exceptional cases where homosexual animals adopt another offspring.

Frankly, I’m surprised that you didn’t misrepresent me further. You could have pointed out, for example, that some species don’t require parenting at all.

And you appear to think I’ll be stumped by farming examples. I live in Indiana, after all. I’m surrounded by corn and cattle in all directions.

You want me to provide evidence to refute a non sequitur? Okay, tell me how you would provide evidence against the following claim: “Couples who wear boxers are worse at parenting than couples who wear briefs.”

I don’t know what else I can do but point out that the undergarments that one wears are inconsequential to one’s parenting skills.

Obviously you have way more time to waste on off topic rabbit trails. Enjoy your Sunday.
Lisa