Moral Conundrum: Gay Adoption

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michaeljc4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Michaeljc4

Guest
Here is a real life dilemma:

I have two friends, gay men who are married (we all live in Massachusetts). My two friends have adopted a baby. Clearly, on several levels, the church teaches that this is wrong: non-celibate homosexuality is wrong, gay marriage is wrong, gay adoption is wrong.

However: the baby that they adopted had been abandoned by the mother. The baby was born with both cocaine and alcohol in her system. The mother had already given birth to, and lost custody of, three children prior to this one. The little girl–she is black–would almost certainly have been relegated to state foster care, or been turned over to relatives who lived in the same poverty, despair, and addiction that the mother did.

There is always the chance that something would have worked out for this little girl had my friends not adopted her, but the statistics for children who are born into her circumstances are not encouraging. What’s almost certain is that my friends will love, cherish, support, and raise this beautiful little girl, and will provide her with a life that she would have otherwise almost certainly been denied. Both of these guys are college educated, have good jobs, and live in a town with an excellent school system. And…they just love this little girl to pieces. They saved her life, in my opinion.

So here is the dilemma: according to church teachings, my friends are doing something that is a grave moral evil: they are non-celibate gays who have both married and adopted. And yet…they are taking a child who almost certainly would have lived a life of misery, deprivation, and poverty and giving her a wonderful, love-filled life.

I’m conflicted. What is the moral alternative to this adoption? What’s more important, the life of this little girl, or the church’s adamant stance that gay adoption is a moral evil?

I find it hard to reconcile the church’s teaching on this issue with the observable phenomena of this little girl thriving in her new home. She has something she did not have at the beginning of her life: a chance.

I’m conflicted.
 
Michaeljc4 said:
Here
The little girl–she is black–would almost certainly have been relegated to state foster care, or been turned over to relatives who lived in the same poverty, despair, and addiction that the mother did.

.
Click to expand...
or if Catholic Charities had been allowed to operate in Mass there is also a chance that one of the thousands of married hetero couples in Mass who have been waiting years to adopt could have adopted this precious child and raised her in a home with an example of normal healthy relationships between the sexes, instead of adding to the problems she will have.

Myth: unwanted children are condemned to live in poverty or in the child welfare system.

Reality: there is a healthy married couple waiting to adopt every baby, and most have been waiting for years.
 
Puzzleannie,

Unfortunately, not true: black children are adopted at a far lower rate than white children. That’s just an unfortuante reality. 😦

(Addendum: similarly, children who are born with problems like drugs in their system are less adoptable, base on my understanding).

I agree totally, puzzleannie, about Massachusetts: the state should have given Catholic Charities a conscience-clause opt-out or something for their adoption services. That was uttlerly stupid on the part of the Commonwealth.

Thanks for your insight. It’s a difficult question, I realize.
 
Michaeljc4 said:
Here is a real life dilemma:

I have two friends, gay men who are married (we all live in Massachusetts). My two friends have adopted a baby. Clearly, on several levels, the church teaches that this is wrong: non-celibate homosexuality is wrong, gay marriage is wrong, gay adoption is wrong.

However: the baby that they adopted had been abandoned by the mother. The baby was born with both cocaine and alcohol in her system. The mother had already given birth to, and lost custody of, three children prior to this one. The little girl–she is black–would almost certainly have been relegated to state foster care, or been turned over to relatives who lived in the same poverty, despair, and addiction that the mother did.

There is always the chance that something would have worked out for this little girl had my friends not adopted her, but the statistics for children who are born into her circumstances are not encouraging. What’s almost certain is that my friends will love, cherish, support, and raise this beautiful little girl, and will provide her with a life that she would have otherwise almost certainly been denied. Both of these guys are college educated, have good jobs, and live in a town with an excellent school system. And…they just love this little girl to pieces. They saved her life, in my opinion.

So here is the dilemma: according to church teachings, my friends are doing something that is a grave moral evil: they are non-celibate gays who have both married and adopted. And yet…they are taking a child who almost certainly would have lived a life of misery, deprivation, and poverty and giving her a wonderful, love-filled life.

I’m conflicted. What is the moral alternative to this adoption? What’s more important, the life of this little girl, or the church’s adamant stance that gay adoption is a moral evil?

I find it hard to reconcile the church’s teaching on this issue with the observable phenomena of this little girl thriving in her new home. She has something she did not have at the beginning of her life: a chance.

I’m conflicted.
Click to expand...
As good as circumstances within the family seem to be now, consider the psychological and emotional damage the child will be subjected to, after witnessing a lifetime of gay romance between her parents. Girls in particular have a problem with ‘experimenting’ with homosexuality in puberty. Consider the influence of the parents on the child in that respect.
 
First you state she would have “certainly” lived a horrid life if she hadn’t been adopted by these men. You don’t know that. Secondly, you equate “horrid” versus “good” only in material terms.

What is certain is that now she will be exposed to a lifetime of disordered sexual activity in her own home and by psychologically impacted by being raised by two homosexual men. This is truly “horrid”.
 
Consider the influence of the parents on the child in that respect.
Click to expand...
Agreed: that’s a real concern. However…does that concern outweigh the likelihood that this child’s life would have been–most likely–horrible if she hadn’t been adopted? I guess that’s my real question: do the problems she’ll face as the adopted child of two gay men outweigh the problems she would have faced had they not adopted her? Is there any objective data that shows a negative impact on children who have been adopted and raised by gay parents? Does that negative impact outweigh the soul crushing deprivations of poverty, substance abuse, sexual abuse, and misery that so many children without families live in?

That’s what I can figure. The moral algebra is hard to calculate.
 
First you state she would have “certainly” lived a horrid life if she hadn’t been adopted by these men. You don’t know that.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct: I don’t know it for certain. However, the likelihood is very, very high. That I do know.
 
Michaeljc4 said:
…So here is the dilemma: according to church teachings, my friends are doing something that is a grave moral evil… I’m conflicted. What is the moral alternative to this adoption?..
Click to expand...
One moral alternative to gay adoption is heterosexuals living out the teachings of the Church. Apparently the child’s biological parents also committed grave moral evils. The Church’s moral teachings don’t just apply to homosexuals. The circumstances in which children are conceived and raised matters, which is why the Church must take a stance against sexual immorality in all forms.
 
gardenswithkids said:
One moral alternative to gay adoption is heterosexuals living out the teachings of the Church. Apparently the child’s biological parents also committed grave moral evils. The Church’s moral teachings don’t just apply to homosexuals. The circumstances in which children are conceived and raised matters, which is why the Church must take a stance against sexual immorality in all forms.
Click to expand...
True, but the horse has already run out of the barn and it’s too late to close that door.

Another moral alternative is for the “gay couple” to act as foster parents until a proper family could be found.
 
Another moral alternative is for the “gay couple” to act as foster parents until a proper family could be found.
Click to expand...
I imagine that would be a hard sell.

Time will tell, I guess. I hope and pray (and suspect) that this little girl will grow up happy and loved, and will go on to live to her potential as a human being.

It’s up to God.
 
The role of the Church is to help each of us get to heaven. Therefore, the Church cannot offer support for any sinful lifestyles that may separate us from God’s love.

I realize that the gay parents have made themselves available to care for the material needs of this child, and, fundamentally that is good, but how will her soul be nourished and led to heaven?

Perhaps the answer is not in removing this precious girl from her loving caregivers, but in getting them to reconcile their lives and dedicating themselves to God…
 
The problem with gay adoption is not lack of love, it’s that a gay couple can’t perform the single most important duty of child’s parents: to correctly develop the child’s conscience.

This child may be loved and provided for, but she will have a moral compass that doesn’t point north. The child will have a better chance of developing a proper conscience in a difficult life in which she can only turn to God, then when she gets her moral advice from unrepentant sinners.

As we all know that the conditions of which we live in this world are irrelevant compared to where we go in the next, we have an obligation to protect a child’s healthy relationship with God at all costs.
 
Michaeljc4 said:
Puzzleannie,

Unfortunately, not true: black children are adopted at a far lower rate than white children. That’s just an unfortuante reality. 😦 The true reality is that there are more roadblocks for a prospective adoptive white hetrosexual family in adopting a black or bi-racial child, special needs or not. Private adoptions are even a problem when the social worker places more importance on race then on the child.

(Addendum: similarly, children who are born with problems like drugs in their system are less adoptable, (when I worked for a foster care agency we found it close to impossible to find black families that were willing to adopt, most of our adoptions were within the white middle age communities and each and every child was born with special needs) baseed on my understanding).

I agree totally, puzzleannie, about Massachusetts: the state should have given Catholic Charities a conscience-clause opt-out or something for their adoption services. That was uttlerly stupid on the part of the Commonwealth.

Thanks for your insight. It’s a difficult question, I realize.
Click to expand...
As sad as this makes me to say the agencies I came upon were far more likely to keep the black child in the foster care situation. The pressures were high from both the state and local CYS systems. The income received was in most cases just necessary to maintain a family lifestyle. A cure for this could well be that the potential adoptive families should be able to still be paid for the needs these children will have for the rest of their lives. But with government money comes government interference and many potential adoptive parents just don’t want the interference in their families.
 
I will agree with the idea that only heterosexual couples be allowed to adopt when you can show me a heterosexual couple without sin. Otherwise all you have is a bias based on what sins people are allowed to commit while remaining eligible to adopt. We don’t have the right to such personal information in the first place.

Matthew
 
drafdog said:
I will agree with the idea that only heterosexual couples be allowed to adopt when you can show me a heterosexual couple without sin. Otherwise all you have is a bias based on what sins people are allowed to commit while remaining eligible to adopt. …
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t just about sin. Children deserve *both *a male parent (a.k.a. father) and a female parent (a.k.a. mother). Diversity. 😉
 
I’m not going to sit here and say that the end justifies the means, but, love is never evil. Even homosexual love isn’t inherently evil. I suppose the marriage is questionable in Roman Catholicism, but the fact that they love this girl and raise her well isn’t bad at all.
 
This is how I look at this kinda stuff.

Yes, there were moral evils all the way around, very bad things. Two gay men are never going to be proper parents for the poor girl regardless of how much they love her. It is really appalling how some peoples “needs” to feel like a “normal family” out weigh child’s need for a proper family. The influence on this girl as she grows up could do incalculable damage.

That said, it has happened and unless these two men do something really bad odds of her being removed form their home are not good. Pray for her, pray for them, be a positive influence in their lives. Love your neighbors, hate the sin. Nothing is impossible with God, he can make something good out of the bad.
 
How exactly are two gay people going to hurt a kid? I mean, it’s not like they’re going to rape her. I guess that’s a possibility, but we’ve been told these parents love her very much.

Granted, since this girl is being raised by two men, perspective on homosexuality may be changed, and even to some extent, on gender roles (maybe). But outside influences affect us just as much as our parents do, and it’s up to us to shape who we are once we get to a certain age.

I don’t think these people would hurt her; at least not in the way you all seem to think. I mean, where’s some evidence, and not just “I know of this one girl” sort of thing.
 
I don’t think anyone thinks they will physical hurt her, but children need a mother figure and a father figure in there lives. Aside form that her view on sexuality and what is and is not moral acceptable are likely to be completely missed up.
 
Agreed, it is important that children have a man and a woman in a family so that they can form correct ideas about family. It’s not the “end of the world” if a child is raised by two homosexual men, but its not an ideal situation and given the number of heterosexual couples looking to adopt.

The only situation where I would not object would be if the homosexual were an uncle or other close relative, I have a somewhat medieval view of family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top