Is it wrong for gay couples to adopt?

[meltzerboy]

What if a religious adoption organization was willing to adopt out children to couples of all religions except to Jewish couples? Would that be OK with you?

If that were an integral part of their religious beliefs, it would be fine with me. That doesn’t mean I agree with them or with Catholic Charities, but it is their religious and moral right.

 

[Thorolfr]

If that were an integral part of their religious beliefs, it would be fine with me.

And it would still be fine with you if a particular adoption service would adopt out children only to white couples?

 

[meltzerboy]

And it would still be fine with you if a particular adoption service would adopt out children only to white couples?

I can play this game too, in reverse. What if the couple were avowed neo-Nazis or Satanists but otherwise qualified to adopt? Should they be allowed to adopt from ANY agency, or should there be some moral restrictions?

Black children only to White couples? That would be a little odd. Or ANY children only to White couples? How about Black children only to Black couples? Would you object to that?

 

[Thorolfr]

I can play this game too, in reverse. What if the couple were avowed neo-Nazis or Satanists but otherwise qualified to adopt? Should they be allowed to adopt from ANY agency, or should there be some moral restrictions?

Good question and I don’t know the answer. But if the standards for who can adopt are left to each individual adoption service (rather than to the state), then perhaps a neo-Nazi couple would have to go to a neo-Nazi adoption service (or they could just hide the fact that they’re neo-Nazis).

And BTW, I don’t know where the line should be drawn between one group’s religious or ideological liberty and another group’s right not to be discriminated against.

 

[goout]

Good question and I don’t know the answer. But if the standards for who can adopt are left to each individual adoption service (rather than to the state), then perhaps a neo-Nazi couple would have to go to a neo-Nazi adoption service (or they could just hide the fact that they’re neo-Nazis).

And BTW, I don’t know where the line should be drawn between one group’s religious or ideological liberty and another group’s right not to be discriminated against.

Hopefully under the principle of subsidiarity, the local folks would not make a Neo Nazi adoption service viable.

Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.

 

[Bookcat]

Surely a gay couple’s adoption of a child is better than the child’s not having any permanent and loving home.

Hum me thinks some studies (such as big one from 2016) were missed…

Anyhow:

And yet another straw man.

A false dichotomy.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t think that anyone has said that Catholic Charities should be forced to do anything (such as adopt children out to same-sex couples). But if they don’t meet state qualifications for providing adoption services, should they be allowed to do so?

You mean qualifications that would run contrary to their Christian faith?

No such would be wrong and invalid qualifications. An unjust law.

 

[Bookcat]

Have not listened to it (unless I did back in 2010?): The Perils of Gay Parenting

But here from Catholic Answers: catholic.com/audio/cal/4211

 

[Rau]

If that were an integral part of their religious beliefs, it would be fine with me. That doesn’t mean I agree with them or with Catholic Charities, but it is their religious and moral right.

You can’t place ultimate authority (or freedom) in the hands of religious organisations simply because they are religious organisations. One can envisage behaviours of self-proclaimed religious organisations that may be unacceptable to the community or its proxy, the State.

It may be that various “non-discriminatory” requirements go too far in proscribing behaviours. Personally, I’m not sure why it is a problem for anyone that a Catholic adoption agency takes the view that it will prefer in general to place children with couples not exhibiting behaviour it considers immoral. Some States deem this to be unacceptable behaviour - but how could they expect otherwise of the Catholic Church? If the State requires absolute control, perhaps it should operate all adoption agencies?

 

[Faithdancer]

I just don’t buy that argument. There are many couples who are unable to conceive children of their own but that in itself has no bearing on the quality of their parenthood if they decide to adopt children. They might be better parents than many children have who are raised by bad parents who conceived them.

Certainly true, if the adoptive parents are one man and one woman, married and monogamous. That’s no issue at all!

 

[BornInMarch]

Hi everyone…

So just so everyone knows I truly believe that denying a child the right to be raised by a father and a mother is child abuse, and that the best and only way to raise a child is with a mother and a father.

I don’t think this is a right. What if one of the child’s parents dies early in the child’s life, should the widow mother or widower father be obliged to remarry or see their child taken away from them?

But what about the children without a family dying on the streets, or what about those children suffering in foster homes or in 3rd world countries? Wouldnt it be better for them to be taken in by a homosexual couple than live in the conditions they are in? Wouldn’t that at least give the children some love and dignity being raised by a couple even if its a homosexual one?

Just wondering…

I think it would be, because I am not yet convinced that being raised by two fathers or two mothers (or only one mother or only one father) will screw a child up. I need empirical evidence before I will believe that; flowery rhetoric isn’t enough for this one.

In any case, if somebody is trying to give a good home to a child and is not a bad influence (not abusive, not neglectful, not smothering/spoiling, etc) then I say we should support them. Jesus did tell us not to prevent someone from doing something good or right (Matthew 23:13).

 

[Rau]

I don’t think this is a right. What if one of the child’s parents dies early in the child’s life, should the widow mother or widower father be obliged to remarry or see their child taken away from them?

I believe the OP was referring to a situation where the lack of one parent is by choice, not brought about by unplanned circumstances.

I think it would be, because I am not yet convinced that being raised by two fathers or two mothers (or only one mother or only one father) will screw a child up. I need empirical evidence before I will believe that; flowery rhetoric isn’t enough for this one.

Keep in mind that there will rarely be only the very limited choices proposed (eg. starve in the street or be adopted by a same sex couple). The real question is “what is the best option for the child?”.

 

[o_mlly]

Food for thought…

“For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.”

Matthew 35-40

I might argue that a homosexual couple taking in orphans could fall under this. One sin doesn’t negate all of the good qualities a person has. Many heterosexual couples who adopt also fall short on certain aspects of Christianity.

Luke 17:2.

 

[WilliamE]

But let’s not get too off topic here and focus on the original question involving homosexual couples

I think necrophiliac couples are much more interesting.

 

[edwest2]

It’s interesting how the “what if” situations apply. Not everyone is able to adopt for various reasons. From the purely secular view, anyone could, within certain limits, or not, do anything. But from the Catholic perspective, the answer is clear:

“As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.”

Full document: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Of course, adoptions by gay couples have occurred, but that’s why Catholic adoption agencies closed when the State gave them an ultimatum that was against their beliefs.

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

It’s interesting how the “what if” situations apply. Not everyone is able to adopt for various reasons. From the purely secular view, anyone could, within certain limits, or not, do anything. But from the Catholic perspective, the answer is clear:

“As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.”

Full document: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Of course, adoptions by gay couples have occurred, but that’s why Catholic adoption agencies closed when the State gave them an ultimatum that was against their beliefs.

Ed

The problem with this statement is that there is no real evidence provided to show that children with two fathers or two mothers do not have normal childhood developments and grow up to be maladjusted adults. But I personally know many adults who grew up with a father and a mother and horrible examples of fatherhood or motherhood or both that they could have done without and which certainly did leave lasting scars. Having such unfit parents did violence to them.

 

[edwest2]

The problem with this statement is that there is no real evidence provided to show that children with two fathers or two mothers do not have normal childhood developments and grow up to be maladjusted adults. But I personally know many adults who grew up with a father and a mother and horrible examples of fatherhood or motherhood or both that they could have done without and which certainly did leave lasting scars. Having such unfit parents did violence to them.

I understand you. Really. But that does not automatically give a default position to gay couples. With all due respect for people’s private lives, gay couples are divorcing, there are child custody issues and the “no real evidence” part of the argument is yet to be proven.

The ‘heteros can be bad parents too’ is not a valid comparison. We cannot assume that gay couples will do better, or just as good or as bad. What experience the document I posted from can be accepted or rejected, I get that. But it is the Catholic answer.

And we cannot assume that most hetero parents are or were bad parents.

Ed

 

[Rau]

…But I personally know many adults who grew up with a father and a mother and horrible examples of fatherhood or motherhood or both that they could have done without and which certainly did leave lasting scars. Having such unfit parents did violence to them.

Lack of logic. The failure of parenting to which you refer was not an outcome of the implicit choice to parent by way of mother + father. Denying motherhood or fatherhood to a child is a conscious choice - you may argue that “two instances of father” is in general as good as 1 father and 1 mother, but that would be a remarkable position to hold.

I suppose you’ll retract (or at least reformulate) your argument (which you’ve made based on your personal aquaintenances) the moment you personally encounter a failure of parenting in a same sex relationship.

 

[Thorolfr]

Lack of logic. The failure of parenting to which you refer was not an outcome of the implicit choice to parent by way of mother + father. Denying motherhood or fatherhood to a child is a conscious choice - you may argue that “two instances of father” is in general as good as 1 father and 1 mother, but that would be a remarkable position to hold.

I suppose you’ll retract (or at least reformulate) your argument (which you’ve made based on your personal aquaintenances) the moment you personally encounter a failure of parenting in a same sex relationship.

Assuming that we are talking about parents, both gay and straight, that are good and loving parents, there is still no solid evidence yet that children who grow up with two father or two mothers will be less likely to grow up as happy and well adjusted adults and that having two father or two mothers will have any negative impact on their development. Stating without proof that having both a father and a mother is inherently better does not make it true.

 

[Rau]

Assuming that we are talking about parents, both gay and straight, that are good and loving parents, there is still no solid evidence yet that children who grow up with two father or two mothers will be less likely to grow up as happy and well adjusted adults and that having two father or two mothers will have any negative impact on their development. Stating without proof that having both a father and a mother is inherently better does not make it true.

You can close your eyes to all but empirical studies, but you may have to wait decades for sufficient statistical data.

Or you can consider the reasonableness of your proposition that there is nothing special about either of motherhood or fatherhood.