Should I Baby-Sit the Child of Lesbians?

[JimG]

This is a private home. No one is required to answer a solicitation (or a personal request) for employment. Nothing would be violated. People are entitled to turn down a job offer or advertisement based on discomfort. No one even has to articulate the reasons. People sometimes decline to accept job offers in certain localities due to safety concerns, whether real or imagined.

Also, you have it in reverse. The law would apply if the person answering an employment solicitation were to expressly be rejected by the employer based on orientation. That is the reverse of the dynamic here.

I think I agree with you. But still I worry. If a person did babysitting for a number of clients but turned down one for this reason, would they be safe from litigation? I hope so. But lawyers love litigation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think I agree with you. But still I worry. If a person did babysitting for a number of clients but turned down one for this reason, would they be safe from litigation? I hope so. But lawyers love litigation.

No, I’m afraid you’re being paranoid. The law does not work that way, Jim. Please re-read my second paragraph that you quoted. That’s the operative paragraph. It’s the person seeking employment who is protected as a category. If the Lesbian couple were to turn down a straight person, there could be legal issue on the part of the heterosexual candidate, but even then in order to reach a litigation stage, there would have to be something provable, such as an advertisement that solicited “gays only,” etc. And probably, the way our society works, the lawsuit would not be carried forward because the majority class is not a ‘protected class.’ Rather, the minority class is.

So the only thing that would apply to your concerns would be if the couple was heterosexual and had expressly advertised, 'No homosexuals need applly," and a lesbian or gay man answered the job, identified his or her orientation, and was then turned down for the job.

You’re reaching here.

 

[francisca]

I think that stating that “choosing to be homosexual” means you are automatically an unfit parent (post #32) is highly unfair and inaccurate.

There are many examples where good parent turn unfit parent. If a woman was a good mother but then she turn to alcohol to a certain point that she become unfit parent eventhough she used to be a good mother. If a person fall sick to a certain degree he/ she may become unfit parent.

It may not happen “automatically/ suddenly”, but they may one day become unfit when their condition reach a certain degree. More accurate words: the potentiality (of being unfit parent) is there.

Similar to people with gambling, drugs, just because they struggle with their inclination, doesn’t mean that they can give up everything to follow their hearts.

 

[Personanongrata]

Even if the child was born of one of the two women, they were born of heterosexual relation.

My point is : if you choose to be gay, you are not fit to be a parent, simply because all children are the fruit of heterosexual relation.

And you were right when you said that all children are the gift of God, they certainly have their own right to know love, the love from where they come from. Certainly not gay love, because gay love can’t produce children.

I won’t hesitate to babysit, totally agree with you on this one.

A woman can be inseminated and become pregnant without heterosexual relations. Straight, married women use this method as well. I personally know many women who chose this method to have children. The love of their children is the same.

 

[Personanongrata]

As Mother Teresa is credited with saying, “If you judge people, you have no time to love them.”

I love this one!!

 

[Edward_H]

A woman can be inseminated and become pregnant without heterosexual relations. Straight, married women use this method as well. I personally know many women who chose this method to have children. The love of their children is the same.

And these methods are a natural byproduct of unitive love? One elegant act?

 

[JimG]

A woman can be inseminated and become pregnant without heterosexual relations. Straight, married women use this method as well. I personally know many women who chose this method to have children. The love of their children is the same.

And of course, there is ultimately a man involved. But such impregnation separates the procreative from the unitive, and is prohibited by the Church for the same reasons as is artificial birth control.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And of course, there is ultimately a man involved. But such impregnation separates the procreative from the unitive, and is prohibited by the Church for the same reasons as is artificial birth control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Personanongrata
[A woman can be inseminated and become pregnant without heterosexual relations. Straight, married women use this method as well. I personally know many women who chose this method to have children. The love of their children is the same.]

And these methods are a natural byproduct of unitive love? One elegant act?

On the above grounds, as well as the ground of the lifestyle itself, anybody is morally justified in not accepting such a baby-sitting job without violating any commandment of charity and being further subject to “judgment” by CAF posters. Not required to withhold services, but not bound to provide services, either.

Naturally it is not necessarily charitable to enumerate any reasons; gracious decline (or lack of response) suffices, without condemning the individuals.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

I think that stating that “choosing to be homosexual” means you are automatically an unfit parent (post #32) is highly unfair and inaccurate. There are plenty of people that struggle with same-sex attraction, get married and have a family, and do a great job as a parent. They have that particular cross to bear, it does not make them a unfit to be a parent. When someone like that ends up leaving their spouse and taking up a homosexual lifestyle, does he/she all of a sudden lose their ability to parent? Or their right to be a parent to their child? That is absurd, and unjust.

Yes, they do lose the right to ability to parent. They are just as bad as any other parent that abandons their children and spouse, as far as I’m conserned they don’t deserve happiness by artifiical means.

As for the OP, I take it back-don’t accept their job. Let them find someone who is completely tolerate their abomination; someone who’ll praise them for being so open-minded and all that garbage.

 

[Corki]

When someone like that ends up leaving their spouse and taking up a homosexual lifestyle, does he/she all of a sudden lose their ability to parent? Or their right to be a parent to their child?

Well, yes. If someone abandons his/her family to take up the homosexual lifestyle he/she would have demonstrated that he/she does not have the ability to parent and should not have the same parental rights.

That is absurd, and unjust.

How is it unjust for someone who walks out on his/her family to lose some rights? Actions have consequences.

 

[white_sheep]

I wouldn’t do it.

I also would absolutely not secretly baptize their child if I did take the job. The Church is against that and for good reason. Neither would I attempt to proselytize them. You’re at work, they’re the boss, it’s just a bad idea.

Taking the job would mean putting yourself under the influence of people with what is almost certain to be hostility towards the Church and who hold many radical ideas based in falsehood. Why put yourself through that?

 

[runningdude]

Providing child care (babysitting as opposed to parenting) is a morally neutral service, as such it is totally up to the discretion of the OP as to whether to accept the employment offer.

If the babysitting is merely a luxury for the parents, simply supporting immoral behavior (excessive weekend getaways, etc), then that might be reason to reject it. However, if its child care so the parents can go shopping to provide basic necessities (such as food and clothing) then there isn’t so much reason to reject it.

And while not necessarily the OP’s situation, in the event that child rearing is such a burden, that couple is unable to earn enough to support the child unless both parents work, then providing child care would be particularly acceptable. It might even be a profound act of charity if the couple is experiencing severe discrimination and can’t find any other child care.

The church does not require refusal of all services to homosexuals; indeed it calls for profound respect for their dignity, while of course respecting moral boundaries. Bottom line, it is totally within the OP’s discretion as to whether or not to accept the employment, and under what circumstances.

 

[OraLabora]

And of course, there is ultimately a man involved. But such impregnation separates the procreative from the unitive, and is prohibited by the Church for the same reasons as is artificial birth control.

Presumably the lesbian couple are not Catholics, and therefore are not bound by Church law. The OP is though, and therefore should not conceive through artificial insemination.

That’s a moot point of course, the OP is Catholic and likely is trying to follow Church teaching, otherwise she wouldn’t be asking us about this issue. And even if the lesbians are Catholic and flouting Church law… well all of us are flouting Church law in one way or the other, because we are all sinners. We would all do well to remember the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican.

Would the OP turn down babysitting for a Protestant or atheist heterosexual couple using ABC? If not, but if she would turn down a Lesbian couple, then I would say she is discriminating against the Lesbian couple.

If you’re going to turn down babysitting for a Lesbian couple, you should therefore also be crossing Protestants, Atheists, lapsed Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, and just about everyone else off from your list.

I loved the quote above, “judging people doesn’t give you the time to love them”. That’s a priceless one that I am going to remember!

 

[JimG]

Presumably the lesbian couple are not Catholics, and therefore are not bound by Church law. The OP is though, and therefore should not conceive through artificial insemination.

That’s a moot point of course, the OP is Catholic and likely is trying to follow Church teaching, otherwise she wouldn’t be asking us about this issue. And even if the lesbians are Catholic and flouting Church law… well all of us are flouting Church law in one way or the other, because we are all sinners. We would all do well to remember the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican.

Would the OP turn down babysitting for a Protestant or atheist heterosexual couple using ABC? If not, but if she would turn down a Lesbian couple, then I would say she is discriminating against the Lesbian couple.

If you’re going to turn down babysitting for a Lesbian couple, you should therefore also be crossing Protestants, Atheists, lapsed Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, and just about everyone else off from your list.

I loved the quote above, “judging people doesn’t give you the time to love them”. That’s a priceless one that I am going to remember!

I wasn’t saying that the OP should not babysit for the lesbian couple. That is entirely up to her. I was merely pointing out that homosexual couples are biologically incapable of producing children, and that producing a child through such means as IVF is an injustice to the child.

And Church teaching on artificial contraception is based on natural law. Whether or not the couple is Catholic, violation of natural law is harmful. Being non-Catholic does not eliminate the effects of sinful actions.

 

[Catholicpotato]

Tell me would you be comfortable with say a Mormon rebaptizing your child in secret while they baby-sat?

As for the OP, if your comfortable enough I suppose. Honestly I find it so bizarre that people are going the “we are all sinners” talk and then at the same time try to fight gay marriage.

I would advise against the secret baptism. Although I have done that to one child I sat. I probably would not do it again. But your quote on Mormons is funny as they DO “baptize” non mormons all the time. Living and non living…

 

[Catholicpotato]

Tell me, what if this “couple” simply lives together and does not have sex with each other? Does that change anything? Would the same go for a man/woman couple who are not married but have a child together?

To me this is what the gay population has done a great job with as far as PR. The idea that gay people just want to hold hands and walk down the street or cuddle up in front of a good movie on the couch together is exactly what blinds the populaton to the sin. But when yuo strip it down to sex. well then we dont want to imagine the idea… Kind of like abortion, where is the problem if we cant see it? Sad.

 

[Catholicpotato]

As Mother Teresa is credited with saying, “If you judge people, you have no time to love them.”

But how far do you take this with mortal sin? Grave matter is grave matter, It can condemn to hell. Would you say the same if the person were a child molester. The idea that we cannot judge is so far away from true Christian gospel that I shiver for our own souls somtimes more than those we “shouldnt be judging”

I might babysit but what are the “parents” doing? Would you babysit so they could go to a gay bar? A “pride’ parade. Or what if they just are going out to a romantic dinner. I might feel like I was participating in their lie.”

Again, would you babysit so a bank robber could rob banks?

 

[OraLabora]

Being non-Catholic does not eliminate the effects of sinful actions.

But it mitigates culpability through invincible ignorance.

 

[Catholicpotato]

But it mitigates culpability through invincible ignorance.

Surely you do not argue that homosexuality can be mitigated if one is not Catholic. There is natural law and the entire human history in all cultures that guides us as well.

 

[OraLabora]

Surely you do not argue that homosexuality can be mitigated if one is not Catholic. There is natural law and the entire human history in all cultures that guides us as well.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

But how far do you take this with mortal sin? Grave matter is grave matter, It can condemn to hell.

Another person can discern if a matter is objectively grave or not. What another person cannot do, is discern the state of the other sinner’s soul. Whether that grave matter translates into mortal sin or not, is not something that we can judge.