Putting a Child's Needs Over Adults' Desires is Not Discrimination

[Reepicheep]

It’s a question that is being asked from what I consider to be a more honest approach. The fact that it might have a more straightforward answer is not a matter of oversimplifying the question.

The question stands on its own merit and needs to be addressed: If a child has one parent of either sex, is the child better or worse off having an extra parent of the same sex?

If you say that the child is better off, then there is nothing more to discuss.

But if you say that the child is worse off, then you consider that adding that same-sex parent makes the situation worse (as opposed to that child simply missing a father or a mother). So let’s have some honesty and discuss what he problem with that parent might be.

First: you want to hear either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ when it is possible to honestly answer ‘sometimes’ or ‘it depends’.

Second; you are looking for an answer to apply to all cases. It’s not that simple.

Third: ‘homosexual activity is morally wrong’ is not the same thing as ‘every active homosexual person is wicked’.

Fourth: good intention does not necessarily insulate us from the consequences of wrong action. If gay sex is wrong the fact that two gay people are honestly convinced it is right will not necessarily keep their relationship form being harmful for children raised in their household.

 

[Peter_J]

What do you consider to be the better scenario:

One loving parent or two?

In both cases the child will having a loving mother (or father), so if your answer is one, then there must be something negative in having two of the same sex. Which is not the same as what you are implying, which is that two is better than one.

If you are honest, then what you are arguing is that a child is better off with one loving parent of either sex rather than two of the same.

Hi Bradski. Before we proceed can you cite a church document that claims that adoption by a single parent is preferable to adoption by a same-sex couple?

If you can’t then your question is a red herring.

 

[Bradski]

First: you want to hear either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ when it is possible to honestly answer ‘sometimes’ or ‘it depends’.

Second; you are looking for an answer to apply to all cases. It’s not that simple.

Third: ‘homosexual activity is morally wrong’ is not the same thing as ‘every active homosexual person is wicked’.

Fourth: good intention does not necessarily insulate us from the consequences of wrong action. If gay sex is wrong the fact that two gay people are honestly convinced it is right will not necessarily keep their relationship form being harmful for children raised in their household.

I’m quite happy with a ‘sometimes’ if you would like to clarify what times those would likely be. And I am not looking for an answer to all cases. That would be nonsensical. But assuming a loving single parent and a loving couple of the same sex, do you think the child would be better or worse off in either case.

And if you think that the child will be worse off because their parents have homosexual sex, then you have answered the question. If that is the case, I might ask how you would answer if the couple were celibate?

Hi Bradski. Before we proceed can you cite a church document that claims that adoption by a single parent is preferable to adoption by a same-sex couple? If you can’t then your question is a red herring.

I’m not asking for the church’s position on this. It’s a general question to anyone who is reading this thread. It appears to be at least one poster’s position that a single parent is better than two of the same sex. I’d like anyone who is interested to comment as they see fit.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not asking for the church’s position on this. It’s a general question to anyone who is reading this thread. It appears to be at least one poster’s position that a single parent is better than two of the same sex. I’d like anyone who is interested to comment as they see fit.

Fair enough. Although in that case, I wonder if you also care what else they believe, e.g. whether they believe that “Protestants are led by the devil” and other stuff that has been asserted by this or that Catholic.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m quite happy with a ‘sometimes’ if you would like to clarify what times those would likely be. And I am not looking for an answer to all cases. That would be nonsensical. But assuming a loving single parent and a loving couple of the same sex, do you think the child would be better or worse off in either case.

And if you think that the child will be worse off because their parents have homosexual sex, then you have answered the question. If that is the case, I might ask how you would answer if the couple were celibate?

I’m not asking for the church’s position on this. It’s a general question to anyone who is reading this thread. It appears to be at least one poster’s position that a single parent is better than two of the same sex. I’d like anyone who is interested to comment as they see fit.

I’m still waiting for what you define as ‘better off’ or ‘worse off’, please.

 

[St_Francis]

It’s a question that is being asked from what I consider to be a more honest approach. The fact that it might have a more straightforward answer is not a matter of oversimplifying the question.

The question stands on its own merit and needs to be addressed: If a child has one parent of either sex, is the child better or worse off having an extra parent of the same sex?

If you say that the child is better off, then there is nothing more to discuss.

But if you say that the child is worse off, then you consider that adding that same-sex parent makes the situation worse (as opposed to that child simply missing a father or a mother). So let’s have some honesty and discuss what he problem with that parent might be.

A child is best off when raised by his or her own biological parents who love each other.

Some children are in a situation where their biological parents are unable to raise them.

The adoption agency should place the child for whom they are responsible with as close to the ideal as possible; ie, a man and a woman who love each other in a long-term, committed relationship.

Sometimes parents find themselves raising children alone, most often the mother, so I will call the parent she and the child he, for clarity. The loving mother will realize that there is something missing from the child’s life (a father) and try to ensure that there is a form of father, a father-figure, in her child’s life. Not a perfect solution, because part of the idealness of the ideal family is that the parents love each other, but at least going in the right direction.

Adding another parent of the same sex does not solve the child’s problem of a single-parent household. It is like adding a steering wheel to a car that is missing a tire. It’s just not the solution in any way, because what makes the two-sex family work is the complimentarity between the sexes. Each of the opposite-ssex parents brings something different to the situation in a way that can not be replicated by two people of the same sex.

 

[Catholic13]

I’m quite happy with a ‘sometimes’ if you would like to clarify what times those would likely be. And I am not looking for an answer to all cases. That would be nonsensical. But assuming a loving single parent and a loving couple of the same sex, do you think the child would be better or worse off in either case.

The child would be much worse off in the household with the same sex parents…mainly because they would be teaching the child that homosexuality is normal i.e. something that is okay.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The child would be much worse off in the household with the same sex parents…mainly because they would be teaching the child that homosexuality is normal i.e. something that is okay.

These days, there is no guarantee that a child being placed with opposite sex parents would NOT be taught the same thing.

I am on the fence about this. I do think Catholic and other religious groups who find it immoral to place a child in a gay household, should still have a role in the adoption process. I am not ready to say “there should be a total ban on all adoption to gay people and a child is better off in an orphanage or a string of foster homes than with gay adoptive parents”.

Also not ready to say “there should be a total ban on all inter-racial adoption” though I know many people oppose this concept, many are African-American. I recall that when it was revealed Simone Biles was an adoptee, and that her adoptive father was her biological maternal grandfather, many used her case as an example of the ideal form of adoption, and also as an chance to publicly rail against the idea of inter-racial adoption as racist, even an attempt at “cultural genocide” of African-American youth,

 

[JoeFreedom]

What do you consider to be the better scenario:

One loving parent or two?

In both cases the child will having a loving mother (or father), so if your answer is one, then there must be something negative in having two of the same sex. Which is not the same as what you are implying, which is that two is better than one.

If you are honest, then what you are arguing is that a child is better off with one loving parent of either sex rather than two of the same.

I struggled with whether or not to insert myself into this, because I know I will not change the mind of Bradski, and he will not change mine. However, I want to point out a major flaw in the reasoning of the following statement:

What do you consider to be the better scenario: One loving parent or two? – And of course, the implication here is two female guardians or two male guardians (since parents cannot be the word attributed here correctly (that’s for another discussion).

Simply because one thing is intrinsically good (e.g.: a loving parent) does not mean it should be had (or consumed) in more than the proper quantity. For example, organic green beans are fantastic for you. However, consuming 5 lbs of them in one sitting is not good for you. The same applies to loving mothers, having one is great, but two does not equate to better.

 

[Exennial]

“Before the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Kay Faust, who was raised by a lesbian mother and her partner, wrote an emotional plea to Justice Kennedy explaining why redefining marriage would harm children. She serves on the Academic and Testimonial Council of the International Children’s Rights Institute, and founded the site Them Before Us. “We are ordinary people willing to state the cost that children, as well as society, pay when children are deprived of their fundamental needs,” Faust said about her site.”

ncregister.com/blog/armstrong/putting-a-childs-needs-over-an-adults-desires-is-not-discrimination

Doesn’t the fact that so many people are raised by single parents and do just fine, and doesn’t the fact that so many others are raised by an abusive dad and mom, obviate (make unnecessary) the need to ensure that children are raised by 1 dad and 1 mom?

 

[Finite]

I apologize for resurrecting a topic that hasn’t been active in two weeks, but I wanted to add my two cents.

There seems to be an assumption that if a gay couple seeks to adopt a child, they must be doing so for selfish reasons. I wonder if the people saying this have ever actually had children.

Ive made it known my son is gay. He is happily married to the man he has spent the last 12 years with. They became foster parents not because they desired to raise a baby, but because of circumstance. My son-in-laws sister was a drug addict who unfortunately passed away, leaving a 10-year-old daughter behind.

They took her in after a huge mess with her absent-until-up-to-that-point father and the State of Texas. Eventually they had to become foster parents and took her in. She did eventually go to live with her grandmother. The State then contacted them asking if they’d foster two other children in need.

They’ve done this ever since. Three of the kids they’ve fostered have legally became their children. They did not become parents to these kids because they were selfish. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

To call someone selfish for raising a child, no matter how that child comes about, makes one sound incredibly misinformed. I go by what I’ve seen in life, not what some self-serving “study” says.

If a child needs a family, they should be placed with the best. Maybe that’s a gay couple. Maybe it’s a straight couple. That doesn’t determine anything.

If i was left with the choice of sending a child to a married heterosexual couple with no children or a married gay couple with existing children, I’d probably pick the couple with experience who are better equipped. If it were the gay couple with no children and the straight couple with experience, I’d pick the straight couple.

Being a parent isn’t about penises and vaginas. It’s about giving your child the best life you can and teaching them to be the best person they can be. I’d like to think most parents agree.

 

[Peter_J]

I apologize for resurrecting a topic that hasn’t been active in two weeks, but I wanted to add my two cents.

The Church doesn’t make such a claim. (I don’t know whether such a claim has been made on-forum or not … there lots of stuff posted here and I make a point not to read all of it.)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Being a parent isn’t about penises and vaginas. It’s about giving your child the best life you can and teaching them to be the best person they can be.

Sure, but a child who grows up without a dad, or without a mom, is missing out. A child who grows up without two moms, or two dads, is not missing out.

That doesn’t mean that gay or lesbian couples should not ever raise children. But it does mean we should hesitate to make such a situation anything near an ideal.

 

[Finite]

Sure, but a child who grows up without a dad, or without a mom, is missing out. A child who grows up without two moms, or two dads, is not missing out.

That doesn’t mean that gay or lesbian couples should not ever raise children. But it does mean we should hesitate to make such a situation anything near an ideal.

At best that’s a theory.

And I’d disagree. A child who grows up without two moms or two dads, but only grows up with one mom or one dad, could just as easily be missing out.

Fathers are not the only source of male influence. Sometimes they’re not even the best source. Mothers are not the only source of female influence. Sometimes they’re not even the best source.

Not to mention, there are lots of adults today who were raised by same sex couples. A very small handful have actually come out and said they’re against same sex parenting.

I guess I just reject the notion that, by default, a mom+dad arrangement is the best arrangement. There is no default.

 

[Rau]

What do you consider to be the better scenario:

One loving parent or two?

In both cases the child will having a loving mother (or father), so if your answer is one, then there must be something negative in having two of the same sex. Which is not the same as what you are implying, which is that two is better than one.

If you are honest, then what you are arguing is that a child is better off with one loving parent of either sex rather than two of the same.

Trouble is, in many cases the choice you presume is not available - couples often go about creating a child (with a third person’s involvement) such that they may bring up a child, in an environment absent one of the biological parents (and absent either a mother or father figure). The question is - is this ethical?

 

[Rose71]

Finite, you have raised a wonderful son. Just because a person is born homosexual, it doesn’t mean that they are incapable of being a conduit of grace, love and compassion in so many aspects of life.

Why should somebody who God made (we’ll never know why until we die and I, for one, an in no hurry to do that ) with same-sex attraction not be capable of humanity, empathy, wisdom and generosity?

There was only one ‘perfect’ family. Mother was (according to many sources) about 14 years old, father was much older and not actually the father, baby was conceived out of wedlock and the real father got his messengers to do the explaining for him via dreams and visions!

I believe homosexual sex is an intrinsically disordered act, but I would never presume a gay man or woman who wishes to share their home with a child in need of a family is motivated by anything other than grace from God - their maker.

 

[Rau]

Finite, you have raised a wonderful son. Just because a person is born homosexual, it doesn’t mean that they are incapable of being a conduit of grace, love and compassion in so many aspects of life.

The cause of homosexuality isn’t known - so I’m not sure why you propose that as the premise for your statement. I think the point to make would be that a person choosing to engage in a homosexual relationship remains capable of good deeds, love and compassion.

I believe homosexual sex is an intrinsically disordered act, but I would never presume a gay man or woman who wishes to share their home with a child in need of a family is motivated by anything other than grace from God - their maker.

I don’t see why their motivation would differ from that of any other person. But I didn’t think the motivation of the would-be parents was actually being questioned or debated.

 

[Peter_J]

Finite, you have raised a wonderful son. Just because a person is born homosexual, it doesn’t mean that they are incapable of being a conduit of grace, love and compassion in so many aspects of life.

Why should somebody who God made (we’ll never know why until we die and I, for one, an in no hurry to do that ) with same-sex attraction not be capable of humanity, empathy, wisdom and generosity?

There was only one ‘perfect’ family. Mother was (according to many sources) about 14 years old, father was much older and not actually the father, baby was conceived out of wedlock and the real father got his messengers to do the explaining for him via dreams and visions!

I believe homosexual sex is an intrinsically disordered act, but I would never presume a gay man or woman who wishes to share their home with a child in need of a family is motivated by anything other than grace from God - their maker.

Good post. The acrimony that we often see on this forum against homosexual persons (not to be confused with homosexual sex) does not reflect the attitude of the Pope or the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Sure, but a child who grows up without a dad, or without a mom, is missing out. A child who grows up without two moms, or two dads, is not missing out.

That doesn’t mean that gay or lesbian couples should not ever raise children. But it does mean we should hesitate to make such a situation anything near an ideal.

At best that’s a theory.

And I’d disagree. A child who grows up without two moms or two dads, but only grows up with one mom or one dad, could just as easily be missing out.

I can’t speak for Prodigal_Son, naturally, but it might help if I say this: a child raised by let’s say two dads doesn’t miss out on being in a two-parent-family, but he/she *does *miss out on having a mom.

 

[o_mlly]

What do you consider to be the better scenario:

One loving parent or two?

In both cases the child will having a loving mother (or father), so if your answer is one, then there must be something negative in having two of the same sex. Which is not the same as what you are implying, which is that two is better than one.

If you are honest, then what you are arguing is that a child is better off with one loving parent of either sex rather than two of the same.

Upon hearing the muffled moans from the bedroom, little Johnny opens the door and, aghast at what he sees, asks, “Daddy, what are you doing to my other Daddy?” Daddy-two replies, “He just lovin’ me. Let me explain to you, son, how this works.”

Of course, the metaphorical birds and bees that daddy-two uses to explain are long since extinct because they never reproduced.