Ah. Very good, then. Thanks!
I think the Church would say that raising a child as a single parent unfortunately sometimes happens, and it’s hard. It sounds like this is an ever growing trend with divorce rates being so high, and so on. Sometimes other things happen too - parents abandoning their families, deaths, etc.
But I know of a single woman, never married, who adopted and raised many children. The children were “purposefully placed in her home.” She was not biologically related to any of them. By what you have said, she would have to be condemmed as much as the gay couple. And in the case of a gay couple, it may just be one of the two who is adopting, since the couple may not be able to be married in the state in which they live. So legally, it is a single individual adopting a child and is thus no different (at least from a legal point of view).
I think that there is a difference on environment. That would be my take.
There is no evidence that the environment of children raised in a same sex parent homes is harmful to their well being. In fact the few valid studies show that same sex parenting is as good as and sometimes better. Such studies point to the competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation such as the best know sturdy from the American Academy of Pediatrics
Where is the example of a father, of a mother? Those are scientifically proven to be important for the development of a child. The quote you provided implies that it’s actually the opposition to same sex marriage that harms the family unit, without taking into consideration what the traditional family actually offers. The role of parents are important, studies show that. It’s not about which can produce healthier children more than the other, it’s about which environment provides the best way for the child to grow, to learn, to live. Same sex couples naturally cannot provide the exact same thing as a traditional couple. That’s what I understand about the Church’s view.
Yes, because agenda driven data can always be trusted.
Thank you, but what is the Church’s position? Does the Church make a similar claim?
I can’t find an exact quote on the issue, but from everything I’ve read on these forums and the views of the Church on marriage, I would have to say that the Church would say that a same sex couple cannot model traditional marriage roles, and that a mother, father, and child make up important roles in a healthy household. A marriage, in the Church’s view is an image of the Trinity. A male and female get married, and out of a loving union a child is born. This is something that a same sex couple cannot represent, even if they were legally allowed to marry, and these important things are things that a child needs to see, especially in today’s ever increasing fatherless household and divorce torn homes.
Another social service lost because of the state. Does anyone else see how the state likes to take over social services provided by the Church? With more and more services offered, the Church becomes more irrelevant in this important sphere of spiritual life. And this activity by the state draws more and more people to worship the state. Freedom of religion is a myth taught to us by the state.
I am not arguing that you are not correct in your knowledge of church rules. You say that some things are scientifically proven but offer no references to valid scholarly studies that back up your statement.
What kind of unintended consequences are you expecting. Are you seeing any unintended consequences. Surely 30 years is a sufficient period in which unintended consequences would have at least started to become known. On the on the other hand there exists numerous evident consequences of poor quality parentingYes, because agenda driven data can always be trusted.
Yes, because Thousands of years of experience is worthless compared to 30 yrs. of agenda driven studies.
Yes, because unintended consequences were not studied, because they haven’t surfaced yet, but so what?
Yes, I believe anything couched in liberal scientific-speak
That doesn’t make sense because we already know that adoption isn’t the best situation for a child, so how can same sex adoption not only become a great place for an adoption, but actually the best place for the child, even more than with a mother and father?
You are the one not making any sense. You do not appear to have any appreciation for what is. In the US there are around one half million children in foster care that are in need, of permanent loving families – that is the what is. My point is simply that 30 years of experience and valid studies, as in the above study I cited from the American Academy of Pediatrics has shown it is not the sex of the adoptive parents but the quality of parenting that is in the best interests of the child’s well being.