Why are Catholics are against Gay couples adopting?

[St_Francis]

I re-arranged your post so as to better address the issues you brought up.

…We’ve already established that kids can grow up fine without a male and female role model,

This has actually *not *been established, in fact, just the opposite has been established. Children who grow up in “broken” homes are more likely to exhibit all sorts of bad outcomes unrelated to other aspects of their lives. they are more likely to get in trouble in school, they are more likely to engage in pre-marital sex, they are more likely to attempt or commit suicide.

Children raised in “never married” families have worse outcomes than children of divorce.

While children from divorced or never-married families *can *turn out “fine,” it takes a lot more work on the part of the parent to “fill the gap” left by the absence of the other parent.

Why is it better to have a single mother or father than it is to have two?

So, what is best for children is to be born to parents married to each other, who end up staying with each other.

Now, it is bad for children to live in families where one parent is absent. Why would someone propose that the addition of another adult of the same sex solve the problem? The difference in outcomes for children living with only one parent related to gender (of the children, of the parent) would show that part of the problem is the very lack of the parent of the opposite sex.

so why is the addition of a second person of the same gender so detrimental?

This is the problem with, say, a stable homosexual couple raising a child: the problem is in the make-up of the couple itself. There is an inherent problem.

Look at it this way: the most ideal homosexual couple is sometimes said to be better than a really rotten crummy heterosexual couple for raising children.

But if the heterosexual couple decides to get its act together, they will then become ideal, right? If they quit drinking or doing drugs or committing adultery or whatever it is that makes them un-ideal, then they will be ideal.

But if the homosexual couple decides to fix the aspect which makes them unideal, the couple will cease to exist as such. Thus, they cannot become an ideal couple. The very nature of the problem for the child is unfixable.

 

[St_Francis]

I actually understand the objection about adoption better than the objection to civil marriages for gay couples.

But the point of even civil marriages is that marriage is *the establishment of a family. *True, not all heterosexual marriages result in children, but that is not due to the fact that the two are due to their nature unable to conceive; it is the result of a personal impediment.

Two people of the same sex *can *not establish a family as the result of their nature. Thus marriage *cannot *exist for them, and why people say that if SS"M" were to come about, it would change the nature of marriage within society.

If marriage stops being the establishment of a family and merely the recognition that two people want to have sex together, what’s the point?

 

[Poseidon]

But an additional consequence they are not dealing with is the absence of the opposite gender parent, which has signficant impact on a person’s development and ability to relate healthily to both sexes.

Everyone keeps saying this, but no one offers any data to back it up. Claims like this require support! You can’t just state them as fact!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Everyone keeps saying this, but no one offers any data to back it up. Claims like this require support! You can’t just state them as fact!

Several of us have posted facts: testimony from those raised by same-sex “parents.” I’m not going to keep directing posters to those citations. You can find them on the various threads with this as a topic.

 

[St_Francis]

Everyone keeps saying this, but no one offers any data to back it up. Claims like this require support! You can’t just state them as fact!

childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm

Lots of studies listed at the end of the article

 

[fix]

Biological parents are male and female.

Indeed. How else could it be?

That is certainly an undeniable fact. But I would submit to you that one’s real parents are the ones who raise them, not necessarily the ones who submitted genetic material.

Non biologic parents would still be male and female. When have two same sex persons ever been considered mother and father?

So while a biological mother and father must be male and female, I see no reason that the people raising a child must be so.

How can you not see what is obvious? Do you think parenting is simply some plastic social construct?

If by your definition any “rational, sane person” knows that you’re right then I’m obviously not rational and sane. In fact, a huge part of the world’s population is then not rational and sane.

By not being rational and sane I refer to those who cannot see reality and have some type of psychological occlusion that does not allow them to see what is plain and obvious and self evident.

 

[fix]

Everyone keeps saying this, but no one offers any data to back it up. Claims like this require support! You can’t just state them as fact!

Dueling studies are not needed to prove what is right or wrong. Every study can be picked apart for or against. It depends on what parameters are chosen among other variables.

This is not an issue exclsuively about some utilitarain notion where the only significant issue refers to not living in a drug house and having food. There is this reductionist idea that children should be placed anywhere as long as the term love is used. The problem with that is that anything goes.

 

[Seeker1961]

But the point of even civil marriages is that marriage is *the establishment of a family. *True, not all heterosexual marriages result in children, but that is not due to the fact that the two are due to their nature unable to conceive; it is the result of a personal impediment.

Two people of the same sex *can *not establish a family as the result of their nature. Thus marriage *cannot *exist for them, and why people say that if SS"M" were to come about, it would change the nature of marriage within society.

If marriage stops being the establishment of a family and merely the recognition that two people want to have sex together, what’s the point?

I’m not disputing that CATHOLIC marriage is the establishment of family. However, everyone who gets married or wants to get married is not doing it for that reason. They’re doing it because they want to live together as a couple. There are straight couples who marry with no intention of having a family. They feel they are a complete unit as a couple. This is why I have less problem with civil unions or civil marriage for gay couples then I do with adoption. They’re not intending to start a family-they want to formalize their union as two people and receive the benefits that gives them.

The nature of marriage has been changing for generations, so I’m simply not buying the argument that we have never and can never allow it to change. It has changed in an organic way since Biblical times-sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst. I’ve heard the argument made that the real “war for traditional marriage” should have started when no-fault divorce was introduced-yet that milestone passed with near silence. Once marriage became a legal contract between two consenting adults-which was what happened when civil divorce entered into it-the idea of it being more than that really went out the window.

I don’t want to derail the thread any further because we’re talking about adoption here-the gay marriage argument goes on enough on this site. We can take that elsewhere.

 

[Joe_5859]

I came across an interesting article today written by a man who was raised by lesbian parents. It’s one guy’s story – not a conclusive study – but I think it illustrates rather well what the dangers are and why the Church opposes it:

Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View

 

[Seeker1961]

I came across an interesting article today written by a man who was raised by lesbian parents. It’s one guy’s story – not a conclusive study – but I think it illustrates rather well what the dangers are and why the Church opposes it:

Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View

And there are you tube videos and other testimonies that say the exact opposite-neither really prove anything.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I came across an interesting article today written by a man who was raised by lesbian parents. It’s one guy’s story – not a conclusive study – but I think it illustrates rather well what the dangers are and why the Church opposes it:

Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View

Why did he spend so much time talking about how bisexuals are so hard done by?

 

[St_Francis]

I’m not disputing that CATHOLIC marriage is the establishment of family.

I am not and have not been talking about sacramental marriage. I am talking about the way that almost every society has arranged for its future.*

*However, everyone who gets married or wants to get married is not doing it for that reason. *They’re doing it because they want to live together as a couple. *There are straight couples who marry with no intention of having a family. *

However, this is an unnatural state. They are blocking the natural healthy functioning of their bodies so they can have sex without results.

They feel they are a complete unit as a couple.

Oh, are we starting to base our culture, our society, our laws on feeeeeelings? Does that make sense?*

This is why I have less problem with civil unions or civil marriage for gay couples then I do with adoption. *They’re not intending to start a family-they want to formalize their union as two people and **receive the benefits that gives them. **

The reason the benefits were instituted was **not **because the people were in looove. The reason the benefits were instituted was that married couples provide an essential service to society: its future, their children, who need to be raised in the best environment so as to be good members of the society.

The nature of marriage has been changing for generations, so I’m simply not buying the argument that we have never and can never allow it to change. It has changed in an organic way since Biblical times-sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst. *

Yes, the effects of original sin are felt everywhere at all times. The fact that things change does not in any way justify making a change. The change needs to be justified in itself.

I’ve heard the argument made that the real “war for traditional marriage” should have started when no-fault divorce was introduced-yet that milestone passed with near silence.

Hmmm, the fact that people did not protest a change which they did not foresee the results of at the time it was made means they cannot point out the deficiencies of the change, nor can they protest a further change in what is now clearly the wrong direction? Again, does this make sense?

*Once marriage became a legal contract between two consenting adults-which was what happened when civil divorce entered into it-the idea of it being more than that really went out the window. *

I’m sorry, I’m not understanding your point here.

I don’t want to derail the thread any further because we’re talking about adoption here-the gay marriage argument goes on enough on this site. *We can take that elsewhere.

In actuality, the two are entwined. Homosexuals say they want to have a party and the tax breaks and shared health insurance just like married heterosexual couples; people say heterosexual couples raise children for the future of society;*so homosexuals say they can raise children too, and so much better than the very worst of heterosexual parents; but they are told they can’t adopt because they are not married, so they say they want to be married so they can raise children…

 

[Seeker1961]

Divorce is a dissolution of a contract. That’s really all it is-it’s not much different than the breaking up of a corporation. Assets are divided, estimations of income with and without the corporation are taken into account in respect to alimony…it all boils down to a contract between two consenting adults.

Once we let that happen-we gave up the high ground. We acquiesced that marriage was little more than a business deal. There was no outcry about the family then, we simply let it happen. The barn door is closed and the horse is out.

Marriage without children is not the Catholic way, but it is the way for people outside the Church. It is a choice people make in many societies.

Even Catholics marry for love, so I don’t understand the disdain I keep seeing here for it.

 

[Joe_5859]

Divorce is a dissolution of a contract. That’s really all it is-it’s not much different than the breaking up of a corporation. Assets are divided, estimations of income with and without the corporation are taken into account in respect to alimony…it all boils down to a contract between two consenting adults.

Once we let that happen-we gave up the high ground. We acquiesced that marriage was little more than a business deal. There was no outcry about the family then, we simply let it happen. The barn door is closed and the horse is out.

Marriage without children is not the Catholic way, but it is the way for people outside the Church. It is a choice people make in many societies.

Even Catholics marry for love, so I don’t understand the disdain I keep seeing here for it.

I hope you’re just echoing the cultural sentiment and that you don’t really believe marriage is just a contract. That is not at all the Catholic view.

I think it’s incorrect to say that we “gave up the high ground.” Even if it’s true that “we” (whoever “we” is) made no outrcry (a point I would very much dispute), it would be a fallacy to say that simply because we failed in our responsibility to defend marriage at one point in time, we may never defend marriage again. That’s just a ploy to silence the Christian voice rather than actually engage in discussion.

 

[fix]

I hope you’re just echoing the cultural sentiment and that you don’t really believe marriage is just a contract. That is not at all the Catholic view.

I think it’s incorrect to say that we “gave up the high ground.” Even if it’s true that “we” (whoever “we” is) made no outrcry (a point I would very much dispute), it would be a fallacy to say that simply because we failed in our responsibility to defend marriage at one point in time, we may never defend marriage again. That’s just a ploy to silence the Christian voice rather than actually engage in discussion.

It is the phoney equality argument that always is used. For some reason people think that unless every single moral evil is discussed in every circumstance then one cannot point out any sin. IOW, if you point out the wrongness of same sex adoption without mentioning heterosexuals also may be poor parents at times then you have no right to mention anything.

Of course, this is not any Catholic tradition. It is some type of Americanist notion that the only high crime is perceived inequality.

 

[St_Francis]

Divorce is a dissolution of a contract. That’s really all it is-it’s not much different than the breaking up of a corporation. Assets are divided, estimations of income with and without the corporation are taken into account in respect to alimony…it all boils down to a contract between two consenting adults.

Once we let that happen-we gave up the high ground. We acquiesced that marriage was little more than a business deal. There was no outcry about the family then, we simply let it happen. The barn door is closed and the horse is out.

The fact that people did not protest a change which they did not foresee the results of at the time it was made means they cannot point out the deficiencies of the change, nor can they protest a further change in what is now clearly the wrong direction?

We actually have horses. they have “gotten out.” Did we kick back and say, Ah, he horses have gotten out, oh, well?

No, we went out, corralled those horses, and brought them back in.

Duh!

Marriage without children is not the Catholic way, but it is the way for people outside the Church. It is a choice people make in many societies.

It is a choice that is very much encouraged these days, both by cultural conditioning and by high rates of taxation. Cui bono?

Even Catholics marry for love, so I don’t understand the disdain I keep seeing here for it.

It is one thing to marry someone whom you love, it is another to “marry” just to get the benefits which were set up for people raising children and having sex.

 

[Poseidon]

Dueling studies are not needed to prove what is right or wrong. Every study can be picked apart for or against. It depends on what parameters are chosen among other variables.

This is not an issue exclsuively about some utilitarain notion where the only significant issue refers to not living in a drug house and having food. There is this reductionist idea that children should be placed anywhere as long as the term love is used. The problem with that is that anything goes.

No. Gay couples would still have to go through the rigorous background checks and such that straight couples go through, thus eliminating the “anything goes” mentality. Certainly love should not be the only factor - things like financial stability, criminal records, mental health and all that need to be checked before allowing someone to adopt.

 

[fix]

No. Gay couples would still have to go through the rigorous background checks and such that straight couples go through, thus eliminating the “anything goes” mentality. Certainly love should not be the only factor - things like financial stability, criminal records, mental health and all that need to be checked before allowing someone to adopt.

All those parameters mean nothing if one subjects children to this unnatural living condition.

 

[Poseidon]

All those parameters mean nothing if one subjects children to this unnatural living condition.

Oh, I forgot, because we always reject things that are unnatural, especially living conditions. That’s why I never see Christians using air conditioning, driving cars, using ipods, wearing polyester, getting plastic surgery, using medicine, eating GM foods, wearing clothes at all, using electricity, hunting with rifles, using computers, or any of those unnatural things.

Anticipating the counterargument, I think that people are going to argue that these things are somehow different than the "unnatural’ of homosexuality. Therefore I ask the question: how is it any different, and where do you draw the line?

 

[Poseidon]

I re-arranged your post so as to better address the issues you brought up.

This has actually *not *been established, in fact, just the opposite has been established. Children who grow up in “broken” homes are more likely to exhibit all sorts of bad outcomes unrelated to other aspects of their lives. they are more likely to get in trouble in school, they are more likely to engage in pre-marital sex, they are more likely to attempt or commit suicide.

Should we then not allow single parents to keep their children? Single people are allowed to adopt, so should we ban that too?

Children raised in “never married” families have worse outcomes than children of divorce.

While children from divorced or never-married families *can *turn out “fine,” it takes a lot more work on the part of the parent to “fill the gap” left by the absence of the other parent.

You are taking a correlation and implying that it is causation. That is not true. While it is true that a stable mother/father home is known to be better than single or divorced parenting, I don’t think it’s been established (not in this thread at least) that it’s the fact that it’s a single parent that causes the trouble. Isn’t it just as likely that it’s the relative emotional immaturity or damage of the single parent that causes it, instead of the lack of a father/mother? It could be the greater stress placed on the parent because they have to both be the breadwinner and the homekeeper, and single mothers are more likely to have lower-paying jobs because they lack opportunity to further their education. It’s not the fact that there’s a father/mother missing, it’s the fact that many single parents are stressed out, had their kids too young, have no opportunity to get better jobs, and just overall aren’t properly equipped to taking care of kids.

So, what is best for children is to be born to parents married to each other, who end up staying with each other.

But that’s not an option here, because we’re talking about adoption. We’re talking about kids whose biological parents gave them up, or died. So the ideal situation (by your account) is not available to them.

Now, it is bad for children to live in families where one parent is absent. Why would someone propose that the addition of another adult of the same sex solve the problem? The difference in outcomes for children living with only one parent related to gender (of the children, of the parent) would show that part of the problem is the very lack of the parent of the opposite sex.

This is the crux of the problem. That has not been established as a fact. We don’t know for sure that it is the lack of a parent of a particular sex that causes the problem, or if it is the issues I listed above. If that could be solved then our debate would be nearly over.

This is the problem with, say, a stable homosexual couple raising a child: the problem is in the make-up of the couple itself. There is an inherent problem.

If that can be established as a definite fact then I’ll agree with you, but I don’t think it has been yet.

Look at it this way: the most ideal homosexual couple is sometimes said to be better than a really rotten crummy heterosexual couple for raising children.

But if the heterosexual couple decides to get its act together, they will then become ideal, right? If they quit drinking or doing drugs or committing adultery or whatever it is that makes them un-ideal, then they will be ideal.

Well, I’d say that particular couple has a long way to go before they become ideal. But I’d say that they are one of the ideals. We haven’t established that they are better than the homosexual couple. However, for a moment, let’s assume that a straight couple *is * in fact the ideal: so what? There are loads of children in foster care that need to be adopted, and not enough people to adopt them. Wouldn’t it be better to have the second or third best situation (a gay couple) than one of the worst (moving from foster home to foster home, never developing a real relationship with any parent figure)? Wouldn’t it be better to have two fathers and no mother than no parents at all? We know that a mother can raise a son and a father can raise a daughter, even if it’s more difficult for them. But isn’t that situation better than endless fostering?

But if the homosexual couple decides to fix the aspect which makes them unideal, the couple will cease to exist as such. Thus, they cannot become an ideal couple. The very nature of the problem for the child is unfixable.

This is a logical fallacy: You’re basically saying that gay couples are bad because they are gay. I forget which fallacy that is (begging the question maybe?). Correct me if I’m wrong though.