When Homosexuals love eachother

[AyJSimon]

Catholic adoption agencies will not place children with same sex couples. In fact, Catholic adoption agencies have closed their doors rather than do so, when states have passed laws requiring them to place children with same sex couples. Their view is that to place a child into such a deviant living situation would be a serious disservice to the child and cannot be done.

Alright, fair enough - better for a child to have no parents at all than two male parents or two female parents who might theoretically love them. Thank you for your honesty.

 

[Faithvision]

Pretending homosexual partnerships are the same as marriage is wrong for many reasons. One of those reasons is what Karen mentioned, that it is not fair to deny a child a mother or father.

Your objection seems to be that she did not also point out every other possible situation where a child is denied access to one of his parents. I have seen others use this line of reasoning to defend homosexuality too but I do not really think it makes sense. I think it’s an attempt to excuse one sin by essentially saying “everybody else is sinning too”. Other scenarios may be wrong as well, but just because other scenarios are also wrong, it does not logically follow that it is therefore ok for homosexuals to do wrong too.

Homosexuality is a conscious choice people make, just as being “straight” is a conscious
choice. All would be better off and stay within Gods grace if one would just follow their religious beliefs and what the church teaches. All people have control over their own sexuality. The choice is yours. Homosexuality is a “reparative” attempt to achieve sexual pleasure, nothing else. TheBibledoesn’t speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as*sin. Just read the following passages.
Lev. 18:22
Lev. 20:13
1 Cor. 6:9-10
Rom. 1:26-28
It undermines God’s created order. It undermines the basic family unit of husband and wife which is the God-ordained means of procreation. The only hope for the homosexual and all people who break God’s laws is to realize that God is holy, and He will rightfully judge all who have sinned against Him by breaking his law. If He did not do this, then He would be approving of wrong doing. Don’t make the claim it is an illness, it is not. Homosexuality is one of the very grave sins there is. You do not want to die with a grave sin on your soul.

 

[ignatius777]

Alright, fair enough - better for a child to have no parents at all than two male parents or two female parents who might theoretically love them. Thank you for your honesty.

You can thank the govt for shutting down the largest adoption agencies in the US, those run by the catholic church namely catholic charities in most big cities.

 

[JimG]

Alright, fair enough - better for a child to have no parents at all than two male parents or two female parents who might theoretically love them. Thank you for your honesty.

Simply put, it is immoral to deliberately place children in a disordered living situation. Catholic adoption agencies will not do it. And when Catholic adoption agencies are essentially shut down by such requirements, it means that a great many children who could have been successfully placed are denied that ability by state laws which conflict with the free exercise of religion.

 

[AyJSimon]

You can thank the govt for shutting down the largest adoption agencies in the US, those run by the catholic church namely catholic charities in most big cities.

According to JimG, that would be silly. These agencies shut their own doors rather than comply with lawful statutes.

 

[ignatius777]

According to JimG, that would be silly. These agencies shut their own doors rather than comply with lawful statutes.

That violated the conscience of those who were providing the service. The govt and specifically this administration are undoubtedly more interested in their “lawful statutes” then they are with children.

 

[ignatius777]

Alright, fair enough - better for a child to have no parents at all than two male parents or two female parents who might theoretically love them. Thank you for your honesty.

So you’re saying that you would place children in homes you believed to be unhealthy because the government told you to?

 

[ignatius777]

According to JimG, that would be silly. These agencies shut their own doors rather than comply with lawful statutes.

At one time it was also a “lawful stature” to have slaves. Just because a govt decides something that doesn’t mean its right or proper.

 

[JimG]

According to JimG, that would be silly. These agencies shut their own doors rather than comply with lawful statutes.

Not what I said. When a state tells an institution that if you wish to remain in business, you must do immoral actions upon request, the agency has no choice but to close its doors.

Federal agencies have also tried to tell Catholic social agencies that if they wish government approval to operate, they must refer for abortion. Should Catholic institutions agree to enforce immoral laws?

 

[AyJSimon]

So you’re saying that you would place children in home you believed to be unhealthy because the government told you to?

Not if I had good reason to believe the prospective home was unhealthy. The belief that gay parents, by definition, create an unhealthy environment for children, has been long since discredited. The government recognizes this, and so retain the moral high ground in insisting that agencies not discriminate against gay couples in providing adoption services.

 

[JimG]

Some French homosexuals who marched in Paris in favor of traditional marriage would disagree with you.

And this adopted orphan also disagrees:
“We hear people say, ‘living with a gay couple is better than staying in an orphanage.’ Hear what I say about such an assertion: That statement reeks of dishonesty. There are tens of thousands of hetero couples waiting to adopt us. They say: ‘a gay couple is better than nothing.’ That is shocking. That is homophobia! “The best thing for a child is to have a mum and dad. I will not cease to repeat it. To say that an orphan, because it is in an orphanage, does not deserve to have any mother, or does not deserve to have any father, that is cruel! It is unjust! It is a denial of equality!..”
Source: newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5455

 

[AyJSimon]

Some French homosexuals who marched in Paris in favor of traditional marriage would disagree with you.

And this adopted orphan also disagrees:
“We hear people say, ‘living with a gay couple is better than staying in an orphanage.’ Hear what I say about such an assertion: That statement reeks of dishonesty. There are tens of thousands of hetero couples waiting to adopt us. They say: ‘a gay couple is better than nothing.’ That is shocking. That is homophobia! “The best thing for a child is to have a mum and dad. I will not cease to repeat it. To say that an orphan, because it is in an orphanage, does not deserve to have any mother, or does not deserve to have any father, that is cruel! It is unjust! It is a denial of equality!..”
Source: newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5455

Unless you’re willing to take just as seriously the claims of homosexuals in favor of SSM, and those of adopted orphans who didn’t care that their adoptive parents were gay, then we can safely dismiss these arguments from the other side.

 

[Midwest88]

The argument against same-sex relationships as not being equal has just gotten harder. See this video (read some of the comments):youtube.com/watch?v=PnDgZuGIhHs

the cafeteria Catholic mentioned that he thinks homosexual marriage is fine, that he knows a lot of homosexual couples that are just as in love and just as happy as he is in their relationships

I always find it difficult to combat the “love is love” card. It’s not that I agree with it, it’s just that it’s such an elusive, vague and somewhat vacuous counterpoint that it’s almost meaningless.

 

[Bradski]

I think much of your argument is based of your definition of marriage in which procreation isn’t mandatory. Most atheists from what I’ve heard have said procreation isn’t a requirement or a “must” for marriage.

This atheist agrees.

I think the problem here is you don’t think procreation is not necessary for a marriage then I think we need to discuss about what marriage is and the purpose of it is.

It’s a commitment that two people make to spend the rest of their lives together. Personally speaking, I don’t think that a formal marriage is a requirement – just the commitment. Once you’ve made that commitment, it’s a done deal.

Other scenarios may be wrong as well, but just because other scenarios are also wrong, it does not logically follow that it is therefore ok for homosexuals to do wrong too.

I’m not saying that the other scenarios are wrong. My point is that there are very many more children without a mother or a father because they are in a one parent situation then there are without a mother or father because the parents are in a same sex relationship. Only one scenario generates so many posts and the only difference is the fact that the parents are the same sex. So that is the reason for the posts, not any concern about the lack of a father or mother.

Homosexuality is a conscious choice people make, just as being “straight” is a conscious

You chose to be straight…?

 

[ignatius777]

Not if I had good reason to believe the prospective home was unhealthy. The belief that gay parents, by definition, create an unhealthy environment for children, has been long since discredited. The government recognizes this, and so retain the moral high ground in insisting that agencies not discriminate against gay couples in providing adoption services.

Discredited by whom? The govt once recognized slavery as legal. To use them as your standard for whats good, moral, just or healthy will leave you lacking every time.

 

[JimG]

Unless you’re willing to take just as seriously the claims of homosexuals in favor of SSM, and those of adopted orphans who didn’t care that their adoptive parents were gay, then we can safely dismiss these arguments from the other side.

No, I cannot take seriously claims that a non-marital marriage can ever be possible, or that a partnership between two persons of the same sex could ever be treated as if it were the same thing as marriage. It is not marriage and can never be marriage. The parties can not engage in marital relations, nor can the union ever be even potentially procreative in and of its own nature. When such an absurdity is proposed, it ought to be dismissed, and has been dismissed throughout history up to the present time.

Marriage preceded the Church. Marriage preceded the state. Neither has the ability to change the nature of marriage. Marriage in its essence concerns the physical complementarity of the sexes. Conjugal relations between husband and wife is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women. Same sex couples are incapable of marital relations and thus incapable of marriage. A marital act is an act directed toward procreation. Even in infertile couples, the act itself has a teleology directed to procreation. Any sexual act between same sex couples can never be directed to procreation. A uinion between same sex couples is simply not marital by nature and can never be.

 

[Pat_M]

Discredited by whom? The govt once recognized slavery as legal. To use them as your standard for whats good, moral, just or healthy will leave you lacking every time.

Exactly. There is definite disagreement on this. And the situation is not that some agencies will not place children in a homosexual environment, as bad as that is. The situation is that everybody must place children in homosexual environments just as they place them in father-mother environments. Why this compulsion? It definitely does not put the child’s wellbeing first. If there is a doubt - which there is - agencies should be allowed to do what they think best FOR THE CHILD.

 

[Rau]

…
Now, later on in the conversation, the cafeteria Catholic mentioned that he thinks homosexual marriage is fine, that he knows a lot of homosexual couples that are just as in love and just as happy as he is in their relationships. Unfortunetely, we were all throwing out so many beliefs that I didn’t get a chance to object to that…

Did anyone explain to you why 2 men would be engaging in sexual acts with each other?

 

[WilliamOK]

I was asking if one is better than the other. …

I know. And the answer was “neither”.

 

[ignatius777]

Exactly. There is definite disagreement on this. And the situation is not that some agencies will not place children in a homosexual environment, as bad as that is. The situation is that everybody must place children in homosexual environments just as they place them in father-mother environments. Why this compulsion? It definitely does not put the child’s wellbeing first. If there is a doubt - which there is - agencies should be allowed to do what they think best FOR THE CHILD.

The compulsion is to force acceptance of homosexuality.