Which is better: kids growing up in a foster home or kids growing up with gay parents?

[vz71]

Just because a gay couple could provide for and raise a child does not legitimize homosexuality. Yet, if they have the means they should not be disqualified.

It is far better for a child to learn proper morality in a foster family then to learn immorality from a couple or people pretending to be parents.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If gay adoption is banned the kids that were going to be adopted by gay couples would just stay in foster care instead. This is a fact. So what is better for a kid? A gay couple raising them or for them to grow up in a group home.

You know for a fact, because you’ve checked with all agencies, that there are only two choices: “staying in foster care” or “being adopted by a gay couple”? Then I wonder how several of my single, straight female friends succeeded in adopting. I just don’t buy the either/or.

From best to worst choices, assuming in all below that the adopting home is healthy emotionally, morally and financially:

(1) married heterosexual couple
(2) single heterosexual person of the same gender as the child
(3) cohabitating heterosexual couple

(2) and (3) are not ideal, but in both cases they are healthier for the child than a gay household because of more likelihood of both genders being present in the child’s life. The big condition to this is that, in addition to the above criteria for maximum health, an adoption agency should be able to include as a factor the broader social environment of the adopting parent, especially any single parent. That is why a homosexual couple is last on my list. It has a tendency to close the child off to other-gender influences because of the perceived ‘self-sufficiency’ of the so-called cough/cough “marital” unit.

Obviously #3 is not acceptable for a Catholic couple. I’m addressing the question from a broader societal perspective, not from Catholic morality.

So I actually don’t know where to put the choice, “remain in foster home,” because it entirely depends on the emotional and social environment of that foster home. Of inquiring adopting families, it could be that the current foster home is superior to the three inquiring categories at a particular given time, but the options could change at a later date.

I do not find a homosexual home a healthy environment for a child. It’s difficult for me to believe that it would become the “only” choice for any particular child, vs. other choices (above).

 

[VonDerTann]

I know of a mixed-race baby who was found by police on a barroom floor at 2am, wearing only a diaper, in the middle of winter, while bioparents sat stoned in the corner.

The baby was adopted by 2 (white) gay men and is now raised in a loving family.

I mention the races, because many gays adopt the kids no one else wants. There are a lot of “John & Jane Whitebread”-types who will not adopt a non-white baby, let alone a nonwhite 4 year old.

So although every case varies, I’d have to say that if a loving gay couple wants to adopt, that would be preferable. The minute we start disqualifying parents because we think they are sinners…we all get disqualified.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ It has nothing to do with “sin,” and everything to do with the irreplaceable influence of different genders.

 

[kbwall]

There’s also the fact that, while we are all sinners, we repent (or at least, we’re expected to repent). If one enters a lifelong homosexual relationship, they are not repentant of their homosexual sin.

Also, a child raised around a homosexual couple is more likely to not see anything sinful with homosexuality, and thus contribute to the liberal view that homosexuality is just fine.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yeah, IMO when I first read your post my thought was that you were over the top and personally attacking the poster.

I respond precisely to how debaters communicate (frame their responses). There was absolutely nothing that I read in the debater’s post which indicated sarcasm. (That was the excuse he later used.) A wink does not indicate sarcasm to most people. What does indicate sarcasm, to vrtually everyone on and off CAF is this icon:

Just because a gay couple could provide for and raise a child does not legitimize homosexuality. Yet, if they have the means they should not be disqualified.

I’m not sure if you realize that this is not the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. Your profile to the right of your name does not indicate that you are Catholic. You’re entitled of course to whatever personal morality you believe in, if you are not Catholic. [And that is a genuine icon – not indicating sarcasm.]

(What I mean is, just because Christianity (and naturally Catholicism) requires us, yes, to love the sinner but not the sin, the state of heterosexual marriage, being a union in the image & likeness of God (unlike a homosexual union) is not interchangeable with homosexual relationships as a model for parenting. It has nothing do with “if they have the means.” Catholic morality is not contingent upon finances. Never has been.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There’s also the fact that, while we are all sinners, we repent (or at least, we’re expected to repent). If one enters a lifelong homosexual relationship, they are not repentant of their homosexual sin.

Also, a child raised around a homosexual couple is more likely to not see anything sinful with homosexuality, and thus contribute to the liberal view that homosexuality is just fine.

Correct on both counts, kbwall: (1) in terms of Catholic morality, poor role modeling because the “parents” are merely confirming each other in their sin; and (2) morally disorienting for the child – presenting the child with a “marriage” model that is contrary to Catholic morality. We are to model for our children not just healthy relationships of any old kind, but specifically a healthy heterosexual relationship.

 

[gtrenewed]

I respond precisely to how debaters communicate (frame their responses).

I would suggest charity. Do not render an evil for an evil is the scriptural lesson. We should strive for this realizing that we don’t always reach it but still try. You offended someone and yet have not apologized but defend the offense. This is not about who is right or wrong but how we dialogue.

I’m not sure if you realize that this is not the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. Your profile to the right of your name does not indicate that you are Catholic. You’re entitled of course to whatever personal morality you believe in, if you are not Catholic. [And that is a genuine icon – not indicating sarcasm.]

Are you saying that a homosexual couple cannot adopt is moral teaching or simply that homosexuality is sin is the moral teaching?

Doesn’t teaching say that a celibate homosexual is not grave? My “personal morality” aligns with scripture. However, to say you are against sin is not the end of the discussion. There are real people to deal with who, like you and I, are on a journey. I will speak against homosexuality but should I deny them rights if they are good citizens? Obviously some sin like murder must be dealt with since they are not good citizens.

(What I mean is, just because Christianity (and naturally Catholicism) requires us, yes, to love the sinner but not the sin, the state of heterosexual marriage, being a union in the image & likeness of God (unlike a homosexual union) is not interchangeable with homosexual relationships as a model for parenting. It has nothing do with “if they have the means.” Catholic morality is not contingent upon finances. Never has been.

“Means” is not only finances. The original post poses a question that pits two environments: one that traditionally is portrayed as less than desireable, foster care (assumed that the foster care are not adopting); and the other being a gay couple who presumeably are good citizens if not good religious examples.

Since gay people today are the product of heterosexual families, I don’t think “modeling” is the correct criteria. The main question for a pluralistic society is the safety and care of the child. Abuse has happened in heterosexual families and in all kinds of religious communities.

At what point do you reject the sinning people? Would a gay couple be allowed to attend mass at your church? Would they be allowed to be a lecter or distribute communion? How about parish council or school board? At what point do you reject them as a people welcomed in your community?

You are nieve if you think the practicing morality (versus “official” morality) has never been based on finances but that is another thread. To have an official declaration of sin is one thing, but what about the people? God provides for the just and the unjust until the time of judgement and He says not to judge to soon. Again not talking about all sin like murder.

 

[vz71]

At what point do you reject the sinning people? Would a gay couple be allowed to attend mass at your church? Would they be allowed to be a lecter or distribute communion? How about parish council or school board? At what point do you reject them as a people welcomed in your community?

Inherent in the fact of the OP question is that these homosexuals are simulating marriage.
This is gravely wrong. It is misguided, and it is an example of a morality that children should not be exposed to.

Would these people be allowed to attend Mass? IMO yes. But they cannot receive communion as long as they are in the relationship.

Would they be a lecture or distribute? IMO no. They must not be in the state of sin the relationship puts them in to serve these functions.

Parish council? No. The simulation of marriage prevents their execution of this office.
School council? No. Same reason.

At what point do I reject them? I do not. I reject the sin. It is the sin that prevents much of what you propose. Renounce the sin, reconcile, and give up this simulated marriage…then they can function in each of those tasks…including being a foster parent (foster SINGLE parent) for children.
Although as a single person they may better serve children in a big brother/sister capacity then in a foster parent relationship.

 

[manualman]

You don’t craft policies based on exceptions and “yeah, but what if” scenarios. Policies need to be broad and easily interpreted by agency staff. IIRC alcoholism is a disqualifier for adoption. “Yeah, but what about if only ONE parent struggles with alcoholism and the other is nearly a saint…” BZZZZZZT. Sorry, we don’t adopt to couples where alcoholism is present.

Same goes for homosexual couples. Might there be some out there who would and could do a better job than the “dregs” (a horrible word to apply to a saintly volunteer duty) of the foster home system? Sure! Same goes for alcoholic wannabe adopters. But you don’t set policy based on exceptions and hard cases. Policy is made to create the best systemic outcome. The brutal fact is that homosexual unions statistically have an off the charts higher rates of abuse, drug use and a stratospheric eventual breakup rate. Parenting is NOT a human right. You set policies based on the best systemic outcome for the KIDS.

(IMO this means celebrities ought to be ineligible too, but that’s another debate!)

 

[gtrenewed]

You don’t craft policies based on exceptions and “yeah, but what if” scenarios. Policies need to be broad and easily interpreted by agency staff. IIRC alcoholism is a disqualifier for adoption. “Yeah, but what about if only ONE parent struggles with alcoholism and the other is nearly a saint…” BZZZZZZT. Sorry, we don’t adopt to couples where alcoholism is present.

Same goes for homosexual couples. Might there be some out there who would and could do a better job than the “dregs” (a horrible word to apply to a saintly volunteer duty) of the foster home system? Sure! Same goes for alcoholic wannabe adopters. But you don’t set policy based on exceptions and hard cases. Policy is made to create the best systemic outcome. The brutal fact is that homosexual unions statistically have an off the charts higher rates of abuse, drug use and a stratospheric eventual breakup rate. Parenting is NOT a human right. You set policies based on the best systemic outcome for the KIDS.

(IMO this means celebrities ought to be ineligible too, but that’s another debate!)

Thank you for pointing out the deficiency of controlling the masses. It has produced such blazing successes such as our school systems and health care system, check the world rankings. The sucesses we see are the exception and not the rule.

You have bought into the “kool-aid” that studies and statistics are the be-all and end-all of solving complex problems. The truth is it should only be a starting point, a part of the solution and a guide for intelligent and motivated civil servants to use, with a path for accountable oversight, in making the best choices and spurring innovation.

Getting lost in the system has always brought angst to many people. We just assume this is the best way. Studies always contain biases and policy makers can choose one to fit their bias. To automatically lop off huge segments of population to make someones job easier does not serve anyone well.

Accountability in the systems has always been a downfall. How do you measure performance when the yardstick is rigged? That is the dilemma in the school system and health care system and adoption system, how to aspire to best while trying to satisfy the system.

 

[gtrenewed]

Inherent in the fact of the OP question is that these homosexuals are simulating marriage.
This is gravely wrong. It is misguided, and it is an example of a morality that children should not be exposed to.

The Church needs to say it is wrong; however, we do not live in a country that is a religious monarchy. So what do we do practically? The Church has practically yielded to local culture and society before such as the birth date and celebration of Christs birth. Could religious views be brought into the process?

I see the Church as evangelistic but not everyone comes to faith at the same time. The Church needs to reflect God’s revealed standards but we folks on the practical level, how do we keep our hearts soft and inviting to our fellow man while reflecting God’s standards?

Jesus was so inviting that the worst sinners of the day wanted to be around Him; yet, we know He never sinned but in the eyes of the religious hierarchy He was sinning by associating with sinners. Could it be to say that while we do not condone the idea of homosexual marriage, on a practical level a qualified homosexual couple should not be disqualified?

Would these people be allowed to attend Mass? IMO yes. But they cannot receive communion as long as they are in the relationship.

That would be ok except that powerful public figures who support free choice are not denied communion. Discipline is very arbitrary so it loses its significance.

Would they be a lecture or distribute? IMO no. They must not be in the state of sin the relationship puts them in to serve these functions.

Parish council? No. The simulation of marriage prevents their execution of this office.
School council? No. Same reason.

At what point do I reject them? I do not. I reject the sin. It is the sin that prevents much of what you propose. Renounce the sin, reconcile, and give up this simulated marriage…then they can function in each of those tasks…including being a foster parent (foster SINGLE parent) for children.
Although as a single person they may better serve children in a big brother/sister capacity then in a foster parent relationship.

To not allow someone to read scripture or hand out communion is rejecting them. They would not be doing that as a couple and they are in a prescribed environment. Let scripture and Christ’s body convert them or drive them away in shame. We should not judge before the time, but, let the Holy Spirit convict of sin.

Would cleaning the church be disallowed by you? Shoveling the walks? Maybe cleaning the bathrooms is ok to show how dirty they are? They are people who have a sinful point of view; yet, they are people with feelings and other views. If they want to be around and serve the parish it can be used to convert them to Christs view. Parish and school councils are groups of people, what better way to directly show the gospel. Of course this does not apply if they or anyone would bring physical harm.

 

[Sister_Angel]

The better is right in your bible and it is very plain that God is not in favor with kids growing up in foster homes or with gays.

Jude

---

Jude.1
[1] Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
[2] Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
[3] Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
[4] For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
[5] I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
[6] And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
[7] Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
[8] Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
[9] Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
[10] But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
[11] Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
[12] These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
[13] Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
[14] And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
[15] To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
[16] These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
[17] But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
[18] How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
[19] These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
[20] But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
[21] Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
[22] And of some have compassion, making a difference:
[23] And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
[24] Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
[25] To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Happy New Year!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Jesus was so inviting that the worst sinners of the day wanted to be around Him;

And he welcomed them, but he also told them to “Sin No More.”
And he was particularly rigorous in the area of sexual morality, equating mental adultery with physical adultery.

Could it be to say that while we do not condone the idea of homosexual marriage, on a practical level a qualified homosexual couple should not be disqualified?

No. Estesbob’s last post said it best. And it’s not only play-acting, it’s the specific exclusion of one gender from the primary raising of the child. Not healthy and loving for the child. Parenting is about sacrifice (which is genuine love), not about “my personal pleasure,” let alone “my rights.” The person with the greatest civil and human rights in the arrangement is the defenseless, powerless, voiceless child. Depriving that child of one primary gender is a form of cruelty, not to mention selfishness.

That would be ok except that powerful public figures who support free choice are not denied communion. Discipline is very arbitrary so it loses its significance.

No, the discipline (enforcement) varies by diocese, because it’s up to the policy of the particular bishop. Furthermore, often it’s a matter of a bishop not knowing that openly practicing homosexual couples are in fact approaching communion. For example, one diocese near me is like that. If the parish priest is too weak-willed to take the “couples” aside and remind them privately that their overt, public lack of compliance causes scandal and is sacrilegious, and no one in the parish has the courage to inform the bishop, he may never know. If he does, he may give direction to the priest.

Ditto for the subject of pro-choice politicians. Sometimes they have been directly spoken to: I can think of at least two politiicians in that category. And sometimes such politicians comply with a bishop’s request, and that becomes a matter of public record. In some locations bishops will not be as rigorous, or, they will be, but the politician will refuse to cooperate. IOW, you and I don’t know whether or not the priest and/or the bishop has corrected such politicians. Their “not being denied communion” is not the sign of that, because rarely is a “scene” made at the communion rail. It is not considered good pastoral practice to have a confrontation during the actual liturgy, if for nothing else – for the sake of the unified theme/tone of the liturgy, especially for all the others present.

To not allow someone to read scripture or hand out communion is rejecting them.

At a couple of parishes near me, a heterosexual couple who is openly cohabitating would be denied the privilege of lectoring or distributing communion.

Let scripture and Christ’s body convert them or drive them away in shame.

That’s why they’re encouraged to attend Mass. There they can hear God’s word, be present to Christ’s Mystical body (His people) and transubstantiated body (the Eucharist), and not partaking will be a potent reminder to them of what they’re missing. This is no different from any of us, when we have commited mortal sin, abstaining from communion. People do it all the time, at every Sunday Mass. Either they’re non-practicing but just attending, they have committed serious sin & not been to confession, or they have not fasted an hour before, etc.

We should not judge before the time, but, let the Holy Spirit convict of sin.

It’s the Church’s responsibility, assigned by Jesus Himself in the Gospels, to construct the boundaries of compliance, and to communicate those boundaries, because she is guided by the Holy Spirit.

If they want to be around and serve the parish it can be used to convert them to Christs view.

When I gave the example above (of the two parishes near me), I mentioned that liturgical ministry would be denied to those who have openly disclosed a prohibited lifestyle. I don’t know that other kinds of volunteer assistance would be denied, such as housecleaning outside of liturgical time, etc. And in other parishes – the ones where actively gay ‘couples’ are participating in communion – they are also being allowed to participate in every possible lay ministry they desire. But let me tell you that those who were previously in that lifestyle, in those churches, have not undergone a transformation (“to convert them”). They are merely, in those very permissive parishes, being confirmed in their sin.

In a very lax parish near me (by contrast), since a new bishop has come in, who is more clear about prohibitions (but not any less charitable), the reluctant message has been conveyed that active homosexuality is incompatible with communion. And those ‘couples’ don’t want to change, and they are not showing up at all at Mass. That’s their choice. I certainly respect it much more than the ones openly defiant, at other parishes.

 

[manualman]

Thank you for pointing out the deficiency of controlling the masses. It has produced such blazing successes such as our school systems and health care system, check the world rankings. The sucesses we see are the exception and not the rule.

You have bought into the “kool-aid” that studies and statistics are the be-all and end-all of solving complex problems. The truth is it should only be a starting point, a part of the solution and a guide for intelligent and motivated civil servants to use, with a path for accountable oversight, in making the best choices and spurring innovation.

Getting lost in the system has always brought angst to many people. We just assume this is the best way. Studies always contain biases and policy makers can choose one to fit their bias. To automatically lop off huge segments of population to make someones job easier does not serve anyone well.

Accountability in the systems has always been a downfall. How do you measure performance when the yardstick is rigged? That is the dilemma in the school system and health care system and adoption system, how to aspire to best while trying to satisfy the system.

So I take it you are opposed to ANY blanket disqualifications as regards those wishing to be adoptive parents? History of drug abuse? Sex abuse? Prior neglect? Chronic inability to hold a job? History of unstable relationships?

I do not think it is “kool-aid” to assert that a history of self destructive behavior is and ought to remain a disqualifier for adoption. In catholicism, sin is not arbitrary. Sins are sins precisely because they damage the ability of one to give and receive love. It is inherently destructive to self and others. Secular society can’t accept this reasoning at face value, so you need to demonstrate it directly. This is not hard in the case of homosexuality (check statistics for them on all sorts of self destructive behaviors I listed above). Statistics, as you note, do not precisely predict outcome at the individual level. But I suggest that at this level they probably do better than simply leaving the decision to the pure whim and subjective judgement of a state agency worker - who even knows what criteria such a person will apply. DCFS horror stories everwhere demonstrate that you simply cannot rely on the sainthood of individual social workers for the protection of children. You need standards.

 

[vz71]

Would cleaning the church be disallowed by you? Shoveling the walks? Maybe cleaning the bathrooms is ok to show how dirty they are? They are people who have a sinful point of view; yet, they are people with feelings and other views. If they want to be around and serve the parish it can be used to convert them to Christs view. Parish and school councils are groups of people, what better way to directly show the gospel. Of course this does not apply if they or anyone would bring physical harm.

Pish Posh.
The fact of the sin and the non-repentence involved in it disqualifies the person from specific tasks. Like it or not, there are certain jobs that require a certain morality to be qualified to do.

One job specificly is the parenting of a child.

 

[vz71]

Of course this does not apply if they or anyone would bring physical harm.

That is the state’s laws.

We should be concerned with emotional and spiritual harm as well.
A homosexual couple simulating marriage can be nothing but harmful to the spiritual well being of the child.
A homosexual couple simulting marriage likewise excludes the father or mother figure for the child or worse, distorts the meaning behind this position…and cause emotional harm.
A homosexual couple simulating marriage is simply not qualified to take care of a child.

I would take it a step further…a homosexual couple that is simulating marriage should have their own children removed on the basis of the spiritual and emotional harm to the child that these people are causing.

 

[Newbie2]

The problem with this kind of question is that it gives a very blanket assumption that it is the same for every situation.

Based on what the Holy Spirit has revealed to us so far, I think this is all you can honestly say: Because homosexual “sex” is a GRAVE evil and because there is nothing inherently sinful in a foster home, it is better for a child to be raised in a foster home, holding everything else constant.

Those last four words of that statement say a lot. That means that if you were to take any one child, and ALL factors would be EXACTLY the same between the two houses EXCEPT that one is a foster home and the other a gay couple, I would say that the foster home would be better.

But that’s completely theoretical and there are so many “what if” scenarios that it’s impossible to say that in any given situation which one is better than the other without knowing specific details. If you came across this situation in real life, get all the details and make the best judgment you can. Hopefully, you can find a better alternative for the child than either of those scenarios.

Exactomundo. There are a couple faulty generalized assumptions on the part of the OP.

Or change it this way, “Heterosexual parents who beat the stuffing out of them on a daily basis never feed them, constantally extinguish cigarettes out on them and insult them all the time…or two gay parents.”

In a specific instance and given those as the only two choices, then the choice is rather obvious…the gay couple, and only then the gay couple would be acting as a temporary foster situation. However, that is not a generalized hypothetical, rather a unique, highly unlikely scenario where a gay couple would be the only refuge for an abused child.

 

[Rascalking]

In a specific instance and given those as the only two choices, then the choice is rather obvious…the gay couple, and only then the gay couple would be acting as a temporary foster situation. However, that is not a generalized hypothetical, rather a unique, highly unlikely scenario where a gay couple would be the only refuge for an abused child.

Yes, it is a highly unlikely scenario. It’s clear to most people that I was trying to be humorous and sarcastic, not serious.

 

[gtrenewed]

So I take it you are opposed to ANY blanket disqualifications as regards those wishing to be adoptive parents? History of drug abuse? Sex abuse? Prior neglect? Chronic inability to hold a job? History of unstable relationships?

I never made such a statement. We were not debating those negative criteria. It is my assumption that the best foster care vs the best gay couple. To many variables to discuss anything else.

I do not think it is “kool-aid” to assert that a history of self destructive behavior is and ought to remain a disqualifier for adoption. In catholicism, sin is not arbitrary. Sins are sins precisely because they damage the ability of one to give and receive love. It is inherently destructive to self and others.

The kool aid I referred to was that “generalized systems” are the best way to solve complex issues relating to groups of people.

The discipline of sin has been very much arbitrary. We saw it in some cleric abuse cases, we see it in some annulment cases, etc.

He who is without sin may cast the first stone. We tend to see others sins worse than our own.

Secular society can’t accept this reasoning at face value, so you need to demonstrate it directly. This is not hard in the case of homosexuality (check statistics for them on all sorts of self destructive behaviors I listed above).

The reports I checked show that the general homosexual population exhibits the problems you suggest but that there are, even if statistically small, devoted gay partners. Granted, I did not do an in depth study but scanned some reports. So, a generalized policy doesn’t seem to apply to our discussion.

Statistics, as you note, do not precisely predict outcome at the individual level. But I suggest that at this level they probably do better than simply leaving the decision to the pure whim and subjective judgement of a state agency worker - who even knows what criteria such a person will apply. DCFS horror stories everwhere demonstrate that you simply cannot rely on the sainthood of individual social workers for the protection of children. You need standards.

The mantra of a true bureaucrat

Look, I am not pro-gay nor have a pro-gay agenda on this thread. I believe what God says about it; yet, on this thread I saw a leap to judgement and not just condemning sin but not even considering the person.

Some arguements seemed filled with self righteousness, the same kind displayed by the Pharisees against Jesus. Jesus healed on the Sabbath and they condemned Him. He ate with sinners and they condemned Him. Now Jesus was without sin and a gay person has sin; yet, Jesus looked at the person.

To dismiss the premise with a generalization misses an opportunity for healing in my opinion. When we say repent it must be with understanding.

How many Catholics like it when certain Protestants say that just because they are Catholic they are going to hell and must repent and use the bible to show it? It doesn’t take into account that you are an individual with feelings for God but lumps you into a group of people.

Wouldn’t you better like it if they would dialogue out of understanding? Consider you an individual person instead of the worst example of some group?

Ideally, all would be given due consideration in the proper court of jurisdiction.