What are your arguments against adoption to gay couples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shockerfan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
nodito said:
I agree with most of this, except your conclusion. It’s not that conservatives worry that a new generation won’t fear gays (really, who wants that?), but you’re right that it’s hard to view something as disordered when you’ve been taught to the contrary your whole life. This is the disservice we do to the children of gay couples, because the homosexual relationship is disordered and so we are presenting their children with a false view of human sexuality and asking them to accept it as normal.
Click to expand...
This is a key point. We should not deliberately put children into a disordered living situation. It is an egregious disservice to them.
 
Oreoracle said:
"No one’s asking people to accept homosexuality as “normal”.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think that’s exactly what liberal activists want. Many people want gay marriage to be accepted as normal. The normalcy of it arises from the growing expectation that you should marry the person you love and are attracted to, regardless of that person’s gender. I don’t mean that the homosexual relationship will become typical, only that it will eventually conform to the standards we set as a society.

Though I of course agree that morality isn’t determined by popular vote.
 
SuperLuigi said:
, research conducted at the University of Minnesota and University of Texas-Austin seem to indicate that gay parenting is actually a burden on the state, which is prominent feedback against so-called gay “marriage”.

frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
Click to expand...
Outrageous lies which is a sin.

This so called “study” had nothing to do with same-sex parenting. And Mark Regnerus admitted it lately in the interview and actually he disclosed in the study itself that there were no same-sex FAMILIES examined who RAISED children.

But I guess sit will do for Catholic crowd… 😃

What we see is catholic religious extremists waging a war on children of gay people. They don’t want these children to be socially protected.All in the name of their god and their catholic agenda.
This is the disservice we do to the children of gay couples, because the homosexual relationship is disordered and so we are presenting their children with a false view of human sexuality and asking them to accept it as normal.
Click to expand...
  1. Their relationship is scientifically and naturally ordered.
  2. You do not have the right to present THEIR children with anything. Especially with a distorted view on human and mammals sexuality contrary to Nature and science.
But I do understand why would you want to indoctrinate these children with anti-natural, anti-scientific, anti-human ideology invented by shamans of the long gone past.
We should not deliberately put children into a disordered living situation
Click to expand...
who do you think you are that we should ask you whether we should raise our own kids with a family member he\she loves and cares about?

Because let’s be honest here. If Catholics had the power they would not only prohibit same-sex adoption but they would take away children raised by,say, a mother who gave birth to a child and her partner based on the logic Catholics expressed here.I mean, after all, don’t all children deserve to be protected from being raised in an "unhealthy, distorted , intrinsically morally evil environment?

Well, guess, what. You just try that. And you’ll see what happens to people who wage war on our children.
"No one’s asking people to accept homosexuality as “normal”.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to ask to.

Homosexuality and bisexuality is a variant of norm among mammals according to official science and Nature ( don’t confuse with so-called “natural law” concept) itself.
 
Eleanor_Wood said:
This so called “study” had nothing to do with same-sex parenting. And Mark Regnerus admitted it lately in the interview and actually he disclosed in the study itself that there were no same-sex FAMILIES examined who RAISED children.
Click to expand...
According to this, the study involved “people, ages 18 to 39” (i.e., adult children) and included some “who said they grew up in a house where a mom or dad eventually had a same-sex relationship.” But he also said it didn’t “include children raised by same-sex couples in a stable relationship.”

huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/mark-regnerus-gay-marriage_n_4896142.html
 
Eleanor_Wood said:
Homosexuality and bisexuality is a variant of norm among mammals according to official science and Nature ( don’t confuse with so-called “natural law” concept) itself.
Click to expand...
Eleanor, welcome to Catholic Answers. I hope you enjoy your time here.

I think you misunderstand what we mean when we say homosexuality is not in accord with nature. Just because something appears in nature does not mean that is is in accord with nature. After all, we know that some mammals are born blind. Some are born without the ability to ever walk. These things are “natural” in the sense that an animal or person was born that way, but it is clear to us that eyes are designed for seeing and that legs are made for walking, even though we can find examples that seem to prove the contrary.

You mentioned natural law. Are you familiar with it?
 
shockerfan said:
So here is the question posed to me: Why is the Catholic Church against gay adoption, especially when the alternative might be leaving a child in an orphanage or foster care?

What might your replies be?
Click to expand...
Our arguments mirror the arguments of the Catholic Church.
 
“It’s not a question of being ‘anti-gay’ or ‘homophobic’ but a question of understanding that the welfare of the child requires that he or she not be thrown into an environment which is inevitably going to make the child a helpless pawn in somebody else’s experiment in alternative lifestyles,” said Father Richard Neuhaus, editor of the journal First Things.

Source: ncregister.com/site/article/church_reasoning_ignored_in_adoption_debate/#ixzz39pc2TmYB
 
This study was admitted to have flaws. They measured all children of heterosexual couples (accidental children, etc.) against those of the homosexual couples. A homosexual child only very deliberately choose to have a child and therefore, you don’t get the really tragic home life that you get with a child who is really unwanted. However, the study does not measure the effect the homosexual couple has on the child’s spirituality, which is going to be skewed due to having two moms or two dads. Adopted children of heterosexual couples tend to be very well adjusted.
theCrow said:
Actually there is no good argument against adoption to gay couples, in fact a Major new study finds kids raised by SSCouples are “healthier and happier”
It’s the rallying cry for opponents of same-sex marriage: “Every child deserves a mom or a dad.” But a major new study finds that kids raised by same-sex couples actually do a bit better “than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion.”

The study, conducted in Australia by University of Melbourne researchers “surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children.” The children in the study scored about six percent higher than Australian kids in the general population. The advantages held up “when controlling for a number sociodemographic factors such as parent education and household income.” The study was the largest of its kind in the world.

The lead researcher, Dr. Simon Crouch, noted that in same-sex couples parents have to “take on roles that are suited to their skill sets rather than falling into those gender stereotypes.” According to Crouch, this leads to a “more harmonious family unit and therefore feeding on to better health and well being.”
Click to expand...
 
shockerfan said:
I realize that, however, many of the people I debate with are not Catholic, and many are not religious.
Click to expand...
While I understand what you’re wanting, I’ve always personally felt that you should use arguments that truly resonate with you. To use other arguments would amount to rationalizing. If you’re against gay adoption because you’re Catholic, there’s your reason.

Since you have to poll people on the Internet for a secular argument against gay adoption, that’s a good indication that there aren’t any. Even if there were, they wouldn’t motivate people to care. Again, if Catholicism is your main argument against gay adoption, such secular arguments clearly didn’t motivate you, so why would they motivate others?

Trust me, a secularist will realize when you pretend to care about secular issues. Don’t pretend.
 
Here is an article about gay adoption through surrogacy. The same principles apply. It’s about using children as pawns in adults’ sexual lifestyles and adults’ desires.
 
Oreoracle said:
Since you have to poll people on the Internet for a secular argument against gay adoption, that’s a good indication that there aren’t any. Even if there were, they wouldn’t motivate people to care. Again, if Catholicism is your main argument against gay adoption, such secular arguments clearly didn’t motivate you, so why would they motivate others?
Click to expand...
Person A not knowing of a good supporting argument for something says little to nothing about whether such an argument exists. I agree with you that a good supporting argument often fails to motivate the listener to care. That person A fails to be motivated by a particular argument says nothing about whether Person B will be motivated by it. Practically every person I have ever known is motivated by some argument or another that means little to me.

I dislike using arguments that seem meaningless to me, but in some contexts they are helpful.
 
Pug said:
That person A fails to be motivated by a particular argument says nothing about whether Person B will be motivated by it. Practically every person I have ever known is motivated by some argument or another that means little to me.

I dislike using arguments that seem meaningless to me, but in some contexts they are helpful.
Click to expand...
Right, but if I convince someone else to cooperate with me for reasons that wouldn’t convince me, then we aren’t truly in synch. Any agreement we have is illusory or at least coincidental.

I’m assuming that a Catholic wouldn’t feel that it’s “good enough” to convince a secularist to merely cooperate. They like agreement and cohesion. You’ll never get that with rationalizations. Also, it really makes me question someone’s integrity when I know they’re rationalizing, and I’ll probably be less receptive to what they have to offer.
 
shockerfan said:
I realize that, however, many of the people I debate with are not Catholic, and many are not religious.
Click to expand...
Cause and effect. Everyone is supposed to be Catholic. Perhaps an evangelical mission would be more fruitful in the long run, as well as increase the odds that in this new adopted Catholic framework, the potential for the reception of the truth will be better received.
 
Oreoracle said:
While I understand what you’re wanting, I’ve always personally felt that you should use arguments that truly resonate with you. To use other arguments would amount to rationalizing. If you’re against gay adoption because you’re Catholic, there’s your reason.

Since you have to poll people on the Internet for a secular argument against gay adoption, that’s a good indication that there aren’t any. Even if there were, they wouldn’t motivate people to care. Again, if Catholicism is your main argument against gay adoption, such secular arguments clearly didn’t motivate you, so why would they motivate others?

Trust me, a secularist will realize when you pretend to care about secular issues. Don’t pretend.
Click to expand...
Well, there are secular arguments against gay adoption…some I have used. For example, and it doesn’t take a white paper to understand this, is that men and women are complimentary. A child gets certain attributes from their fathers, that their mothers cannot provide. A child gets certain attributes from their mothers, that their fathers cannot provide. My mother took care of me when I was sick, slid me money to do things behind my back, would make me cookies late on a Friday night, and was always the most positive person when I was struggling. My father taught me about perseverance in the face of difficulty, would wrestle / roughhouse with me…which taught me force with restraint, and taught me other “guy things”. The gold standard of parenting is a loving mother and father.

I also have very Catholic reasons for being against gay adoption. The Church has spoken about the right of a child to have a mother and a father. If a person disagrees, one simply look no further than “He who hears you, hears me” (Luke 10:16), plus an incredible host of other quotes from the Bible and the early Church Fathers to realize that the Catholic Church is Church Jesus Christ founded 2000 years ago, and is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Peter 3:15).

The purpose of this post is to expand my arguments. Some presented in this thread have led me to studies on the subject that I was unaware of, like this one.
patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2013/10/mark-regnerus-new-canadian-study-says-a-married-mom-and-dad-really-do-matter/

I get in a lot of debates. Simply “hanging your hat” on a single talking point might work with someone of similar background and faith, but my experience has shown me that it usually doesn’t work. If I am debating on a topic, I try to anticipate the reply I expect to hear, and have a planned response. I try to have multiple layers of answers.

As it relates to this topic, I am passionate about not experimenting with the lives of children, and am convinced that every child needs a mother and a father, but to be effective in the marketplace of ideas, I want to be prepared to answer questions and respond to objections.

Thus, the purpose of this thread.
 
djames99 said:
Cause and effect. Everyone is supposed to be Catholic. Perhaps an evangelical mission would be more fruitful in the long run, as well as increase the odds that in this new adopted Catholic framework, the potential for the reception of the truth will be better received.
Click to expand...
I agree. Much appreciated.
 
Oreoracle said:
Right, but if I convince someone else to cooperate with me for reasons that wouldn’t convince me, then we aren’t truly in synch. Any agreement we have is illusory or at least coincidental.

I’m assuming that a Catholic wouldn’t feel that it’s “good enough” to convince a secularist to merely cooperate. They like agreement and cohesion. You’ll never get that with rationalizations. Also, it really makes me question someone’s integrity when I know they’re rationalizing, and I’ll probably be less receptive to what they have to offer.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, its not always possible to get someone to agree with you because they are truly convinced. Heck, go to the World News section and read the debate on voting for pro-abortion candidates among Catholics.

Sometimes, when it comes to politics, I’ll take “mere cooperation”.
 
theCrow said:
Actually there is no good argument against adoption to gay couples, in fact a Major new study finds kids raised by SSCouples are “healthier and happier”
It’s the rallying cry for opponents of same-sex marriage: “Every child deserves a mom or a dad.” But a major new study finds that kids raised by same-sex couples actually do a bit better “than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion.”

The study, conducted in Australia by University of Melbourne researchers “surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children.” The children in the study scored about six percent higher than Australian kids in the general population. The advantages held up “when controlling for a number sociodemographic factors such as parent education and household income.” The study was the largest of its kind in the world.

The lead researcher, Dr. Simon Crouch, noted that in same-sex couples parents have to “take on roles that are suited to their skill sets rather than falling into those gender stereotypes.” According to Crouch, this leads to a “more harmonious family unit and therefore feeding on to better health and well being.”
Click to expand...
This is what it says about the study:
The self-selection of our convenience sample has the potential to introduce bias that could distort results. t is clear that the families from the ACHESS are earning more and are better educated than the general population. This has in part been allowed for in the statistical analysis by incorporating numerous control variables that are recognised to have an impact on child health outcomes but the results should be read with these differences in mind. If systematic bias was at play however, it would be anticipated that all outcome variables would demonstrate higher scores across the sample.
Click to expand...
biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/635

According to what I have read, it is not a random sample, and if there is self-reporting, the study is open to social desirability bias.
80% of children had a female index parent while 18% had a male index parent.
Click to expand...
Perhaps there are more lesbians raising children than male homosexuals, but if a study is going to be done on outcomes for children, should there be an equal percentage of children raised by people of different genders?
 
It’s all wrong of course, and particularly wrong when 2 lesbians try to raise a boy, or 2 gay men attempt to raise a girl. The child has no same-sex parent to identify with as he/she grows up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top