S.A. has highest percentage of gay couples raising children

[gilliam]

The Catholic Catechism states that homosexuality is thought to be a disorder, as listed below:

They are talking about a spiritual disorder, not a mental disorder. If a person were mentally ill they could not be held responsible for their actions and they would not be sinning. Homosexual sexual behavior is a mortal sin because people do have a choice and can choose not to behave in that manner.

We are off topic for this post and this discussion should be held in the Moral Theology forum, I think.

 

[rpp]

Where are you getting the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder? That is not a teaching of the Catholic Church that I know of. Homosexual behavior is a sin, but, by definition, sins are not mental disorders. If you think homosexuality is a mental disorder, than you cannot think that the act is a sin. Because to sin, you must do the act of your own free will.

I am responding to a secular idea of homosexuality. Personally, I do believe it is a mental disorder for some. However, it is a disorder which does not inhibit free will or the formation of a good conscience. On the other hand, some others fall into homosexual because it is now the “cool” or “rebelious” thing to do. The Catechism rightly calls it “disordered”, and you correctly point out that it is a spiritual disorder.

I stand by what I said. For some, it appear to be a congenital mental disorder which, unlike schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder, does not rob the sufferer of the ability to respond sensibly and rationally and act consistantly with their conscience. Of course those who choose to engage in homosexual behavior are certainly spiritually disordered.

 

[Julianna]

I was concerned about this very issue until I saw a news report several years ago.

A young woman (crack addict) had abandoned her son after he was born. Left him in the hospital and took off. The baby boy was small in weight and addicted to crack. The boy ended up in foster care. A gay couple took the baby in as foster parents. They told the story of how they were up nights rocking him, walking around with him as he went through withdrawal from crack. The baby was a year old and the couple petitioned for adoption, as the mother’s whereabouts were not known and she had made no attempt to contact children services about the baby. Fast forward 1 year. The mother is found, and it turns out she had been in rehab for 6 months and is now “clean” and wants her baby back.

The gay couple is devestated. They were the ones who got the boy off crack, they took him to the playground, and play groups, he had become part of their family, he had grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins. He lived in a home and had no financial worries.

The state of Florida in it’s infininate wisdom, returned the boy to his mother. Within 6 months, the boy was back as ward of the state. The mother could not provide a stable home for the child and yes, was pregnant again.

The outcome of this was never followed up on. But dollars to donuts, the gay couple adopted the child after the state of Florida made a huge mistake…

I am guessing the child is about 6 or 7 now, and lives quite comfortably with two people who love him.

Is he better off with the crack addict who sleeps around, or the two people who got him off crack and took care of him day after day for two years?

Gay adoption goes through the same guidelines as hetero adoption. Your life is an open book. Home visits unannounced…etc etc.

Any woman who takes crack and gives birth should be in jail for endangering the health of a minor.

 

[fix]

I was concerned about this very issue until I saw a news report several years ago.

A young woman (crack addict) had abandoned her son after he was born. Left him in the hospital and took off. The baby boy was small in weight and addicted to crack. The boy ended up in foster care. A gay couple took the baby in as foster parents. They told the story of how they were up nights rocking him, walking around with him as he went through withdrawal from crack. The baby was a year old and the couple petitioned for adoption, as the mother’s whereabouts were not known and she had made no attempt to contact children services about the baby. Fast forward 1 year. The mother is found, and it turns out she had been in rehab for 6 months and is now “clean” and wants her baby back.

The gay couple is devestated. They were the ones who got the boy off crack, they took him to the playground, and play groups, he had become part of their family, he had grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins. He lived in a home and had no financial worries.

The state of Florida in it’s infininate wisdom, returned the boy to his mother. Within 6 months, the boy was back as ward of the state. The mother could not provide a stable home for the child and yes, was pregnant again.

The outcome of this was never followed up on. But dollars to donuts, the gay couple adopted the child after the state of Florida made a huge mistake…

I am guessing the child is about 6 or 7 now, and lives quite comfortably with two people who love him.

Is he better off with the crack addict who sleeps around, or the two people who got him off crack and took care of him day after day for two years?

Gay adoption goes through the same guidelines as hetero adoption. Your life is an open book. Home visits unannounced…etc etc.

Any woman who takes crack and gives birth should be in jail for endangering the health of a minor.

So, morality is not being on crack and having no financial worries?

Morality is any type of living circumstances that do not involve illicit drug use and having access to a playground?

What is best for a child is either foster care or homosexual unions?

If we start from a false premise, that is any type of relationship that does not involve physical distress, is morally sound then we may as well start disregarding many other things as well. That is part of the plan when we accept moral relativism.

 

[rpp]

I was concerned about this very issue until I saw a news report several years ago.

A young woman (crack addict) had abandoned her son after he was born. Left him in the hospital and took off. The baby boy was small in weight and addicted to crack. The boy ended up in foster care. A gay couple took the baby in as foster parents. They told the story of how they were up nights rocking him, walking around with him as he went through withdrawal from crack. The baby was a year old and the couple petitioned for adoption, as the mother’s whereabouts were not known and she had made no attempt to contact children services about the baby. Fast forward 1 year. The mother is found, and it turns out she had been in rehab for 6 months and is now “clean” and wants her baby back.

The gay couple is devestated. They were the ones who got the boy off crack, they took him to the playground, and play groups, he had become part of their family, he had grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins. He lived in a home and had no financial worries.

The state of Florida in it’s infininate wisdom, returned the boy to his mother. Within 6 months, the boy was back as ward of the state. The mother could not provide a stable home for the child and yes, was pregnant again.

The outcome of this was never followed up on. But dollars to donuts, the gay couple adopted the child after the state of Florida made a huge mistake…

I am guessing the child is about 6 or 7 now, and lives quite comfortably with two people who love him.

Is he better off with the crack addict who sleeps around, or the two people who got him off crack and took care of him day after day for two years?

Gay adoption goes through the same guidelines as hetero adoption. Your life is an open book. Home visits unannounced…etc etc.

Any woman who takes crack and gives birth should be in jail for endangering the health of a minor.

While I agree with statement about a mother who endangers the children, I am utterly opposed to homosexual households, as well as any other type of unmarried household, adopting children. I do not even believe that single people should adopt. I say this as a single man so I exclude myself from the joy of raising a child unless I get married first (the prospects of which seem dimmer by the day.)

The Holy Father said that placing children in with homosexual “couples” “does violence” to the child. I cannot disagree.

I do not believe that it is a choice no adoption and gay adoption. That the child described in your story has had the most difficult of beginnings is very sad. It was good the homosexuals helped the baby recover from fetal addiction, yet as it grew older and would be exposed to disordered morality, that is a serious and intrisic evil that must be avoided at all costs. Placing hope that the mother beat her addiction is a good thing. However, if she fails, that is not an excuse to place the child in another intrinsically evil environment.

 

[HoppityRedux]

While I agree with statement about a mother who endangers the children, I am utterly opposed to homosexual households, as well as any other type of unmarried household, adopting children. I do not even believe that single people should adopt. I say this as a single man so I exclude myself from the joy of raising a child unless I get married first (the prospects of which seem dimmer by the day.)

The Holy Father said that placing children in with homosexual “couples” “does violence” to the child. I cannot disagree.

I do not believe that it is a choice no adoption and gay adoption. That the child described in your story has had the most difficult of beginnings is very sad. It was good the homosexuals helped the baby recover from fetal addiction, yet as it grew older and would be exposed to disordered morality, that is a serious and intrisic evil that must be avoided at all costs. Placing hope that the mother beat her addiction is a good thing. However, if she fails, that is not an excuse to place the child in another intrinsically evil environment.

Well, suppose the choice was no adoption or gay adoption?

 

[gilliam]

Well, suppose the choice was no adoption or gay adoption?

Personally, I would say go for the gay adoption if that is better than the environment the child is currently in. Same if it were no adoption or a prostitute adopting the child. That is if the home is still a sound home in all other ways. Still, the preference would be for a heterosexual couple (rather than a single parent) who has a stable home life to raise the kids. It is simple a better environment to raise the kids in. Preference whenever possible should always be given to the parents.

 

[Julianna]

Gay couples are adopting crack babies, abandoned babies, foster children, because the average childless couple wants a baby that doesn’t have “problems”. In other words, they want the baby of the cheerleader in Hometown USA that got knocked up by the quarterback and lives in Hoity Toityville. Unfortunately, the cheerleader is “keeping” her baby (very selfish), so there are fewer “non problematic” babies to adopt, so they end up going overseas to China, etc. etc.

If you are talking about morality, how moral is it for a woman to sleep around, get pregnant, smoke crack, and pop out babies like a pez dispenser and then take off? Is that parenting? Then she has the audacity to come back and take that baby who had been in a loving home for 2 years, because she is “clean”? oh, and pregnant again by the way…yeah, real moral. Oh, also, I forgot to mention there was NO daddy in the picture, because the crack momma doesn’t know who it is. Yeah, ring one up for morality. Did she sit up all night with that baby while it was going through withdrawal? Did she take to the emergency room, because it was not eating? No, she didn’t. She is not moral when it comes to the care of that baby. The men who took that baby into their homes did so out of love for the child. I would like to know where the church was when the crack momma took the baby back, were they there at her doorstep with assistance? Not hardly, but yet, the two men who had a “home”, an extended “family”, no financial worries are MORE immoral because of their gender preference.

Mr. and Mrs. Average Jones, don’t want to deal with crack babies, or children that have been from one foster home to the other. You will say, oh, yes, I know so and so, VERY RARE. In this case, if I were the judge, I would have left the boy where he was. It was best for him and his care. And I would suggest Ms. Crack, get herself sterilized to keep the innocent from suffering.

 

[a_cermak]

I think the Church’s position, and IMHO the correct one, is that it would have been better that a girl’s mother help her through those years. But one makes do as one can.

Why? The Church doesn’t say that the Mother should have custody. In this case, my Fa had custody, Ma wasn’t around and my Fa’s brother (my uncle) moved in after his divorce and was a second parent to me. I can honestly say that those two did the best job they could have in rearing me. To this day when someone asks me about my parents I think of Fa and Uncle Harry.

 

[Holly3278]

How disgusting. Children need to be raised by a married man and a woman, not a gay couple.

 

[fix]

Gay couples are adopting crack babies, abandoned babies, foster children, because the average childless couple wants a baby that doesn’t have “problems”.

So, the average couple is superficial by your understanding and the “gay” couple is more concerned for crack babies?

In other words, they want the baby of the cheerleader in Hometown USA that got knocked up by the quarterback and lives in Hoity Toityville. Unfortunately, the cheerleader is “keeping” her baby (very selfish), so there are fewer “non problematic” babies to adopt, so they end up going overseas to China, etc. etc.

If that is true then we need to look at reasons for such reasoning and behavior. Perhaps we ought to look to the acceptance of contraception, fornication, and homosexual “rights” as the reasons we have slipped deepely into relativism.

If you are talking about morality, how moral is it for a woman to sleep around, get pregnant, smoke crack, and pop out babies like a pez dispenser and then take off?

So, the choice is one form of immorality exchanged for another form of immorality?

Is that parenting? Then she has the audacity to come back and take that baby who had been in a loving home for 2 years, because she is “clean”? oh, and pregnant again by the way…yeah, real moral.

So, the biologic mother is wrong, but the fornicating, unnatural union, lacking proper complimentarity, and giving incredible false example to the child is superior?

Oh, also, I forgot to mention there was NO daddy in the picture, because the crack momma doesn’t know who it is.

So, the baby ought to have two “daddies”? That should really straighten things out for the innocent child.

Yeah, ring one up for morality. Did she sit up all night with that baby while it was going through withdrawal? Did she take to the emergency room, because it was not eating?

So, doing what is expected is now the morally superior standard?

No, she didn’t. She is not moral when it comes to the care of that baby. The men who took that baby into their homes did so out of love for the child.

Yes, if they cared for her while she was in trouble that is good. Does that make raising the child in that environmemt healthy and moral? No. We are back to what is a parent and what is a family. The bumper sticker reasoning is flawed. Simply giving cash and clothes and sweet talk is not a family. Neither is exposing a child to deviant behavior and twisted realtionships the goal for innocent children. You present a false choice. It is not a crack mother versus a gay couple. That is what we are told to believe by those who mistake authentic families with contrived false unions. It is no small issue. It is central to the well being and immortal soul of the child.

I would like to know where the church was when the crack momma took the baby back, were they there at her doorstep with assistance? Not hardly, but yet, the two men who had a “home”, an extended “family”, no financial worries are MORE immoral because of their gender preference.

I can’t speak to the specfic circumstnaces of the case, but I would like to know why you think morality is simply about housing and money while disregarding every other important moral issue?

Mr. and Mrs. Average Jones, don’t want to deal with crack babies, or children that have been from one foster home to the other. You will say, oh, yes, I know so and so, VERY RARE. In this case, if I were the judge, I would have left the boy where he was. It was best for him and his care. And I would suggest Ms. Crack, get herself sterilized to keep the innocent from suffering.

More “common sense” get oneself sterilized? That seems to be the common sense approach to morality today. It leaves out so much that I see why the Pope calles it the dictatorship of relativism. We are becoming secular pragmatists and materialists that see virtue and sin as simply a matter of comfort verses suffering. Hardly the message of the Gospel. Blessed are the ones who are comfortable and do what is easy?

 

[rpp]

Gay couples are adopting crack babies, abandoned babies, foster children, because the average childless couple wants a baby that doesn’t have “problems”. In other words, they want the baby of the cheerleader in Hometown USA that got knocked up by the quarterback and lives in Hoity Toityville. Unfortunately, the cheerleader is “keeping” her baby (very selfish), so there are fewer “non problematic” babies to adopt, so they end up going overseas to China, etc. etc.

If you are talking about morality, how moral is it for a woman to sleep around, get pregnant, smoke crack, and pop out babies like a pez dispenser and then take off? Is that parenting? Then she has the audacity to come back and take that baby who had been in a loving home for 2 years, because she is “clean”? oh, and pregnant again by the way…yeah, real moral. Oh, also, I forgot to mention there was NO daddy in the picture, because the crack momma doesn’t know who it is. Yeah, ring one up for morality. Did she sit up all night with that baby while it was going through withdrawal? Did she take to the emergency room, because it was not eating? No, she didn’t. She is not moral when it comes to the care of that baby. The men who took that baby into their homes did so out of love for the child. I would like to know where the church was when the crack momma took the baby back, were they there at her doorstep with assistance? Not hardly, but yet, the two men who had a “home”, an extended “family”, no financial worries are MORE immoral because of their gender preference.

Mr. and Mrs. Average Jones, don’t want to deal with crack babies, or children that have been from one foster home to the other. You will say, oh, yes, I know so and so, VERY RARE. In this case, if I were the judge, I would have left the boy where he was. It was best for him and his care. And I would suggest Ms. Crack, get herself sterilized to keep the innocent from suffering.

I’m sorry, are you Catholic? That is an honest question, really. So much of what you advocate here is against Catholic moral teachings. Gay marriage, gay adoption, voluntary, or even coerced, sterilization are all intrisiclly evil.

You make unsupported claims and you state unequivoclly that married heterosexual couples are sick selfish people with no concern for the well-being of others while homosexuals are selfless. That is so insulting that it bareley dignifies a response. Virtually everything you said is demonstrably false. But since **you **made the claims, **you **provide the evidence.

 

[HoppityRedux]

If there are American crack babies awaiting adoption, and if there are thousands of American couples adopting out of China, then I’d say there is a definite aversion to the crack babies on the part of the adopting American population.

However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with prefering a healthy Chinese baby to an American crack baby.

I applaud both the parents who take the Chinese baby and the gays who take the unwanted American crack baby.

Anyone ever wonder why all those Chinese babies are girls? And anyone ever wonder if the single people in the US who are adopting them are providing an alternative to abortion or throwing the baby in the creek? Is it better to take a header into the creek than be raised by a single person or a gay?