What are your arguments against adoption to gay couples?

[shockerfan]

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?

 

[Marty_E]

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?

Families are of primary importance as centers of living radiant faith. The Second Vatican Council calls the family the “Ecclesia domestica”, the domestic Church. Parents are “by word and example . . . the first heralds of the faith with regard to their children.”

The home is the first school of Christian life and “a school for human enrichment.”

To place a child in an intrinsically disordered environment violates the basic human right of the child to a proper upbringing and the State’s duty under the Natural Law to provide a proper environment for children who are adopted.

Being raised in an orphanage is not an intrinsic evil. Adoption is simply prolonged foster care. Assuming that being raised in an orphanage or in foster care is a greater evil than being placed in an intrinsically disordered household begs the question.

.

 

[SouthernBelle00]

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?

The Catholic Church is against gay adoption because

1- The gay lifestyle is a mortal sin
2- Gay couples cannot provide a stable life for children
3- Gay “marriage” isn’t recognized in the church and therefore is invalid.

 

[shockerfan]

Families are of primary importance as centers of living radiant faith. The Second Vatican Council calls the family the “Ecclesia domestica”, the domestic Church. Parents are “by word and example . . . the first heralds of the faith with regard to their children.”

The home is the first school of Christian life and “a school for human enrichment.”

To place a child in an intrinsically disordered environment violates the basic human right of the child to a proper upbringing and the State’s duty under the Natural Law to provide a proper environment for children who are adopted.

Being raised in an orphanage is not an intrinsic evil. Adoption is simply prolonged foster care. Assuming that being raised in an orphanage or in foster care is a greater evil than being placed in an intrinsically disordered household begs the question.

.

Thanks…any secular arguments? Many of the people I debate with are neither Catholic or are Catholic, but not properly catechized.

Not sure I’m comfortable with the statement “adoption is simply prolonged foster care”…seems that would irritate heterosexual couples who have adopted…not just homosexual couples. Thoughts?

 

[shockerfan]

The Catholic Church is against gay adoption because

1- The gay lifestyle is a mortal sin
2- Gay couples cannot provide a stable life for children
3- Gay “marriage” isn’t recognized in the church and therefore is invalid.

Thank you…any secular arguments in your arsenal?

 

[prometheus1]

The Catholic Church is against gay adoption because

1- The gay lifestyle is a mortal sin
2- Gay couples cannot provide a stable life for children
3- Gay “marriage” isn’t recognized in the church and therefore is invalid.

I thought the catholic church was against homosexual sex, not the lifestyle…surely everyone deserves respect.
Why can’t a gay couple provide a stable life for a child…some of the nicest, most educated and emotionally stable people that I have had the pleasure to meet have been gay…now put a child in an environment where they suffer physical and psychological cruelty at the hands of its ‘normal’ parents!
A gay couple can offer as much love and support as a heterosexual couple.

I can’t argue with your third point lol

 

[theCrow]

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.”

 

[maryjk]

For me, I cannot see intentionally and by design, denying a child either a Mother or a Father. Children deserve both.

 

[SMGS127]

I don’t think that we should necessarily oppose adoption by gay couples. If there were enough healthy heterosexual couples to take care of all of the kids in the world on a permanent basis, I would agree with it, but there just really aren’t. Better for a kid to have a disordered family than none at all.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Thank you…any secular arguments in your arsenal?

The family is how the child develops an understanding of male/female relationships, even a basic understanding of genders.

Two men or two women can not model a male/female relationship. You may want to think that one takes the ‘mom’ role or ‘dad’ role but they don’t. In fact they can’t. It’s one thing to say you can’t hit a female, it’s quite another to see Dad maintaining his composure even when Mom’s really upset and chewing him out.

Two men are two men. A homosexual male doesn’t identify as a female, he’s not trying to pretend he’s a female or act as a female. Heck, there are many homosexual men that are more masculine than myself.

Homosexual women are the same- they don’t think of themselves as male, or as one of them being male. They’re two women. They can’t model a male/female relationship. As much as you want to say they can model a loving relationship-- well, yeah, between two women. Which isn’t the same.

This is anecdotal but, I know a few kids raised by homosexual couples, they’re good kids.They’re well behaved kids, but they’re confused kids and awkward. As they got into their teens they really did have trouble figuring out how to interact with the opposite sex, moreso than their peers.

Now, let’s get into not the kid in the orphanage but the tendency for homosexual couples to adopt via a surrogate/artificial insemination. I’m a single Dad, I can not tell you how fundamental the connection between a child and their biological parent is. How devastating it is for a kid to wonder what they meant to their biological parent. To wonder if they were an impediment or inconvenience to their parents happiness. Note how many adopted kids, no matter how well treated or loved they were by their adoptive parents, feel the compulsion to track down their biological parents. To know where they come from. The circumstances they were created in, the reason they were let go. The child born out of surrogacy to a gay couple knows what about themselves? That their existence was created specifically in response to two people who didn’t want them to have either a father or a mother depending? Will they see themselves as just a testament to their homosexual parent’s ego-- to want a child but not to provide the child with a family with a mom and a dad. They’re there for their parents vice their parents being there for them? Were they just a commodity to their biological parent? Something to be sold or traded, or donated with no thought to their progeny or emotional connection to them? Teen kids can get pretty angsty (if that’s a word) as they develop their sense of identity.

As a single Dad-- kids need both parents, Mom and Dad. We do a disservice to the child by promoting placing them in situations from the start where we don’t have both.

Bottom line-- horse is out of the barn. We’ve embarked on a grand social experiment with homosexual adoption with virtually no basis for understanding its long term consequences, if any. Kind of like no-fault divorce and the promotion of single motherhood over the last 30 years-- it’s been disastrous for kids. Kids raised by single parents have far higher rates of abuse of every kind.

 

[estesbob]

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.”

Thoroughly debunked study. What the study said is that homosexuals who adopt believe their children are healthier and happier. Hardly a surprise and totally meaningless as far as the debate goes.

 

[Corki]

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?

Here’s the thing - the choice you present is very rarely the one being made. Children deserve, whenever possible to be raised by a loving mother and father. There are all kinds of sad circumstances - widowhood, divorce, single parents, etc. that make that not always possible but when there is a choice to be made, that should always be the first choice.

Most of the same sex couples who are seeking to adopt aren’t trying to adopt the hard-to-place children that haven’t been adopted by normal couples. They want equal consideration, and even preferential consideration, for those “desirable” adoptions - infants, especially.

I would not stridently object to a preference system that made adoptions available to same sex couples (and single adoptive parents) ONLY if no suitable mother/father family was able to adopt the child. If a same-sex couple is TRULY the only option other than permanent foster care, it might be preferable. But it is not something that should be promoted or encouraged.

 

[shockerfan]

Here’s the thing - the choice you present is very rarely the one being made. Children deserve, whenever possible to be raised by a loving mother and father.
.

Corki,

I’m pretty good with what I call the “first level” arguments. But typically, after I respond with the point about kids needing a mother and a father, and how they are different / complimentary, I get hit with the orphanage / adoption point. My understanding is that the Catholic Church is against even gay adoption of hard to place kids. I’m OK providing religious arguments…I just need to hone my secular arguments.

 

[JimG]

Many Catholic adoption agencies and Catholic foster care programs have been forced to close because they cannot comply with laws which require them to adopt to same sex couples.

 

[pianistclare]

Dear OP:
In regard to “secular arguments.”
Either it’s a good idea or it’s not. As someone said, most people, whether driven by a sense of morality or religion, OR by “we just want a child” do not investigate the older, pre-existing medical condition, mental issues, abuse issues, drug-babies.
They just don’t. Everyone wants a brand new bouncy “pink” baby.
But the other, “Less desirable” they deserve a chance to be raised with a mom and a dad as well.

I think the better question to ask them is: Do people want to give a parentless child a home, or do they feel like they “deserve” to be parents and that a child will somehow legitimize or complete their relationship?
Just my 2 cents…

 

[djchez]

Corki,

I’m pretty good with what I call the “first level” arguments. But typically, after I respond with the point about kids needing a mother and a father, and how they are different / complimentary, I get hit with the orphanage / adoption point. My understanding is that the Catholic Church is against even gay adoption of hard to place kids. I’m OK providing religious arguments…I just need to hone my secular arguments.

Where would you as a child have preferred to have been placed if you were in that situation? With a mother and a father, or some other type of arrangement?

thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/10/10996/?utm_source=RTA+Regnerus+Married+Moms+and+Dads&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email

 

[JimG]

Placing a child with same sex partners puts the child in a disordered living situation, without either a mom or a dad. That’s why Catholic adoption agencies will not place children with same sex couples. Only a man can be a father; only a woman can be a mother. It’s a disservice to children to ignore that.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

Not sure I’m comfortable with the statement “adoption is simply prolonged foster care”…seems that would irritate heterosexual couples who have adopted…not just homosexual couples. Thoughts?

---

 

[styrgwillidar]

Thoroughly debunked study. What the study said is that homosexuals who adopt believe their children are healthier and happier. Hardly a surprise and totally meaningless as far as the debate goes.

There were additional issues with the study. The folks who participated were volunteers solicited via advertisement being told the study’s purpose ahead of time. Additionally, all participants were high-income and well educated.

So, the study was of self-selected people from a very small demographic who knew the purpose of the study. As you stated, the study simply reported the parents stated opinion of how their own kids were doing relative to their peers. There was no cross-checking of grades, disciplinary records, achievements, etc.

There have been studies going both ways- but I don’t think any have been comprehensive and rigorous enough to rely on their conclusions. Again, very similar to the no-fault divorce/single motherhood issue. Initial studies went both ways, some claiming kids were better off without the stress of parents arguing etc. We now have the actual data of how it’s worked out in the real world. The highest risk-factor, even after correcting for income level, education of the parent, geographical location etc., for a kid being involved in violence and having emotional/psychological issues is being raised in a single-parent home.

I suspect we’ll keep seeing studies going both ways and eventually we’ll have the actual data on how it’s all working out for those children in 10 to 20 years.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

Why can’t a gay couple provide a stable life for a child…some of the nicest, most educated and emotionally stable people that I have had the pleasure to meet have been gay…now put a child in an environment where they suffer physical and psychological cruelty at the hands of its ‘normal’ parents!
A gay couple can offer as much love and support as a heterosexual couple.