Why are gays adopting a bad thing?

[Ph0enix]

I have seen many posts(before registration) saying gay adoption is wrong but what is the parents(abstaining from sex) taught how traditional marriage worked(and explained that homosexual sex is bad) What if the adoption agency was abusive and the gay parents would make good parents.

IMO if they make good parents they should be able to adopt, regardless of sexuality.

 

[nodito]

Just so I understand, you’re asking what we’d think of a homosexual couple being allowed to adopt, provided that they teach their adopted child that homosexual sex is wrong? If they really believe that, why are they a couple? Can parents effectively teach against something that it appears they are themselves practicing?

 

[Ph0enix]

Just so I understand, you’re asking what we’d think of a homosexual couple being allowed to adopt, provided that they teach their adopted child that homosexual sex is wrong? If they really believe that, why are they a couple? Can parents effectively teach against something that it appears they are themselves practicing?

I did say ones that are not having sex.

 

[nodito]

I did say ones that are not having sex.

So, they’re roommates? Two men (or two women), not having sex but living together. What do we think of two roommates adopting? I think it’s a bad idea. Kids need a mom and a dad that are in a loving relationship with each other and committed for life.

I’d argue that if the two men or two women consider themselves as married, they’re still modeling for their child a disordered relationship and that whatever words they use to discourage homosexual sex would be ineffective and confusing in the face of their lived reality.

 

[JimG]

It is not right to deliberately deprive a child of either a mother or a father. It may happen through death or divorce, but to deliberately inflict this privation on a child is wrong. In fact, Catholic adoption agencies have had to close their doors rather than be forced to place children with same sex couples. It is considered to be placing them in a disordered living situation and cannot be allowed.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

I have seen many posts(before registration) saying gay adoption is wrong but what is the parents(abstaining from sex) taught how traditional marriage worked(and explained that homosexual sex is bad) What if the adoption agency was abusive and the gay parents would make good parents.

IMO if they make good parents they should be able to adopt, regardless of sexuality.

1. They don’t make good parents as in a mother and father.
2. Why are these questions always posed in hypothetical, worst case scenarios? As in, if the adoption agency is abusive, wouldn’t a gay adoption be a better option? For one thing, if gay adoption is holy and pure, it need not be used as a last resort when all other options are untenable. It should be able to stand on its own merits. Secondly, questions like these are akin to asking “what is wrong with drinking of bowl full of sludge if the only other option is a bowl full of bleach?” Sure, I guess technically, the sludge won’t kill you, but it doesn’t increase its intrinsic qualities. It is still just sludge, and is not meant for consumption.
3. Since the Church has been clear on the issue, why not spend time pondering things where our opinion actually matters? How best to protect the environment, how best to care for the poor, what to do about decreasing Mass attendance, and the like. No amount of William Jennings Bryant-esque arguments you get on here are going to change Church teaching one iota. We take those cue from the Holy Spirit, not a thoughtful analysis of secular logic.

 

[Ph0enix]

It is not right to deliberately deprive a child of either a mother or a father. It may happen through death or divorce, but to deliberately inflict this privation on a child is wrong. In fact, Catholic adoption agencies have had to close their doors rather than be forced to place children with same sex couples. It is considered to be placing them in a disordered living situation and cannot be allowed.

so makng bunch of kids homless is better than giving them to a gay couple?

Smh that makes no sense

 

[Ph0enix]

1. They don’t make good parents as in a mother and father.
2. Why are these questions always posed in hypothetical, worst case scenarios? As in, if the adoption agency is abusive, wouldn’t a gay adoption be a better option? For one thing, if gay adoption is holy and pure, it need not be used as a last resort when all other options are untenable. It should be able to stand on its own merits. Secondly, questions like these are akin to asking “what is wrong with drinking of bowl full of sludge if the only other option is a bowl full of bleach?” Sure, I guess technically, the sludge won’t kill you, but it doesn’t increase its intrinsic qualities. It is still just sludge, and is not meant for consumption.
3. Since the Church has been clear on the issue, why not spend time pondering things where our opinion actually matters? How best to protect the environment, how best to care for the poor, what to do about decreasing Mass attendance, and the like. No amount of William Jennings Bryant-esque arguments you get on here are going to change Church teaching one iota. We take those cue from the Holy Spirit, not a thoughtful analysis of secular logic.

yes but there wll be a time when these hypotheticals will happen

 

[styrgwillidar]

so makng bunch of kids homless is better than giving them to a gay couple?

Smh that makes no sense

Why pose it as the choice is only between homelessness and a gay couple?

Is there a shortage of married couples willing to adopt? When my sister was trying to adopt, there were more couples than kids available.

 

[estesbob]

As always it is best to turn to the Church:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[pianistclare]

so makng bunch of kids homless is better than giving them to a gay couple?

Smh that makes no sense

Lots of couples want to adopt. This argument is moot.my colleague just adopted a family of 5. That no one, not even gay “couples” wanted.

 

[phil19034]

I have seen many posts(before registration) saying gay adoption is wrong but what is the parents(abstaining from sex) taught how traditional marriage worked(and explained that homosexual sex is bad) What if the adoption agency was abusive and the gay parents would make good parents.

IMO if they make good parents they should be able to adopt, regardless of sexuality.

Same reason why it’s wrong for a woman to purposely get pregnant without someone to be the child’s father… A child should have BOTH a mother and a father.

In today’s society, we WORSHIP the single mother. That’s a shame, we should be worshiping the single mother, but rather contemning the deadbeat dad. But feminists preach that a woman doesn’t need a man to raise a child. Our society also promotes the “nuclear family” as the new norm. It shouldn’t be the norm, it should be the exception. All this stuff is hogwash.

Children learn different things from their Mother and from their Father. The ideal is to have BOTH.

Children lacking a mother or father, should be the unfortunate EXCEPTION not a planed norm.

Furthermore, a brother & sister, living together should not be allowed to adopt either.

Our families are supposed to represent the Holy Trinity. The love The Father has for The Son and The Son for The Father creates a third person: The Holy Spirit. God is love, and our families should mirror that love.

A brother and sister cannot create a third person, just like two men or two women cannot create a third person.

Only a man & woman coming together can create life. And that bond should be out of sacramental love. Sex is sacred. The family is sacred. Changing the definition of marriage is an attack on the sacredness of the family.

The norm for all families should be ordered to resemble the natural law and The Holy Trinity. Therefore, adoption agencies should only give children to married heterosexual couples to create a traditional family.

There are PLENTY of male/female couples who want to adopt. And there would be even more, if society would eliminate that sinful IVF.

God Bless

 

[jediliz]

Because children need a MOTHER and a FATHER.

 

[1990Domer]

The Holy Family is our spiritual inspiration. Enough said.

 

[1990Domer]

so makng bunch of kids homless is better than giving them to a gay couple?

Smh that makes no sense

From my understanding, SSA couples aren’t interested in adopting. They fuel fertility clinics so the one of the them can have a connection to their child.

 

[Evania]

yes but there wll be a time when these hypotheticals will happen

Are you anticipating a shortage of married couples wanting to adopt? I would love to see the studies that would support this claim.

 

[pianistclare]

Are you anticipating a shortage of married couples wanting to adopt? I would love to see the studies that would support this claim.

Right. We all know that heterosexual couples are desperate to adopt, even going to great lengths, great cost, and great distances to do so.
My friends tried unsuccessfully three times (mom changed her mind at the last minute all three times before they were able to get adopt a beautiful little boy.

 

[MarcoPolo]

so makng bunch of kids homless is better than giving them to a gay couple?

You’ve changed the question (not too mention posed a false dichotomy). You originally asked why gay adoption was bad. You got that answer. Now you are trying to argue it’s better than homelessness. So what is your question? Is gay adoption bad? Or are you asking if it’s better than homelessness?

 

[Anglewannabe]

1. Why are these questions always posed in hypothetical, worst case scenarios? As in, if the adoption agency is abusive, wouldn’t a gay adoption be a better option? For one thing, if gay adoption is holy and pure, it need not be used as a last resort when all other options are untenable. It should be able to stand on its own merits. Secondly, questions like these are akin to asking “what is wrong with drinking of bowl full of sludge if the only other option is a bowl full of bleach?” Sure, I guess technically, the sludge won’t kill you, but it doesn’t increase its intrinsic qualities. It is still just sludge, and is not meant for consumption.

 

[Anglewannabe]

IMO if they make good parents they should be able to adopt, regardless of sexuality.

Sexuality has EVERYTHING to do with being good parents. It takes a man and a woman to create a child because that is where the whole process starts ! Then the it takes the same man and same woman to raise that child.

Yes there will be instance where one of the biological parents will die and not be able to raise that child. But that is the unfortunate case and the child needs something as close as possible to the original family

Honestly, it REALLY kills me that people who disregard church teaching would come on a Catholic website and expect support for sin