Why the fuss?

[SteveGC]

Better for children? Heterosexuals are where children come from. It takes male and female, and the fact that some of us are comfortable with making a child’s parent into a throw-away “surrogate” or that some of us consider children a “choice” rather than an intrinsic part of the full context of human sexuality doesn’t change that.

We contend that marriage is by its nature for heterosexual couples because human bodies were made for heterosexual sex, which finds its moral expression when the partners bind not just for transitory mutual enjoyment and support, but for the sake of the children which usually (but not always) are the natural result, so that those children might be reared securely within their own families among their own brothers and sisters, eventually becoming an extended family, and so on.

It is a sign of the absolute disentegration of marriage and sexual mores that these things are not immediately clear and that the exception to this does not prove the rule. It has gotten to the point that we think certain members of a family are entirely dispensible, that any member of the family need only be there as the expression of a preference. It is not that we realize that a family might have to soldier on in the absence of this member of the family or that one, due to circumstances beyond anyone’s control. No! These days, we think that doing without this one or that one in order to suit the preferences of the adults in the family can be a fully positive choice!

That is indescribably sad.

And this is why I think it is an exercise in futility to defend heterosexual marriage using singular psycho-social arguments. There is always a valid refutation and/or a loophole to be found when using these arguments without well substantiated, commonly accepted data. The only solid defense of heterosexual marriage that stands on its own is the one prescribed in this post above, but unfortunately it cannot be used with much success on its own with the unbeliever, the moral relativist, and/or the lapsed Christian. So, if we’re making arguments against homosexual marriage without appeals to divine morality, we have to be careful not to hone in on just one argument, at the expense of omitting the plenitude of other rational arguments. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in endless tangential debates over singular issues which can be won by the clever secularist using sound logic.

 

[copperblade]

And this is why I think it is an exercise in futility to defend heterosexual marriage using singular psycho-social arguments. There is always a valid refutation and/or a loophole to be found when using these arguments without well substantiated, commonly accepted data. The only solid defense of heterosexual marriage that stands on its own is the one prescribed in this post above, but unfortunately it cannot be used with much success on its own with the unbeliever, the moral relativist, and/or the lapsed Christian. So, if we’re making arguments against homosexual marriage without appeals to divine morality, we have to be careful not to hone in on just one argument, at the expense of omitting the plenitude of other rational arguments. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in endless tangential debates over singular issues which can be won by the clever secularist using sound logic.

Yes, that is the point. Thanks for saying that, because if I had said it would have been taken as an argument in favor of gay marriage.

 

[Nate13]

@copperblade
That’s the whole point though. I don’t believe we allow known alcoholics, people with eating disorder’s, or known rage-aholics to adopt kids do we? In our eyes homosexuality is a disorder that fits in with these ideas. I believe it’s really hard for an overly obese couple to adopt kids, because of their lifestyle choice. All in all I don’t feel we are picking on homosexual couples at all in terms of adoption. They chose a lifestyle choice that they wanted, which is fine and dandy for them, but I don’t feel we should celebrate that choice anymore than I would someone who chooses to be a prostitute.

 

[LaSainte]

No, you are the one rushing into judgment and being defensive. I asked, and did not say what you are attributing to me about gay couples who adopt handicapped children. There are Christian heterosexual couples who quietly do the same with no group like the LGBT seeking the headlines to further its cause, nor a left leaning media that puts the spotlight on their stories. The question is how many homosexual couples adopt handicapped kids in the total adoption picture.

If you had sources (studies, not anecdotes) to provide, please do so. When one makes statements like you have in this forum, you should not be surprised if you are asked for your basis.
,

This article states that 32 percent of all foster children with disabilities in the US reside with gay couples. Considering that gays make up such a small percentage of the population, that’s pretty overwhelming.

huntalternatives.org/download/1420_11_25_08_fla_judge_strikes_down_gay_adoption_ban.pdf

 

[Oblic]

Man this place s a treat… I was a bit depressed until I started reading some of the posts on here.

Anyway, on topic: I haven’t read this entire thread (sorry, I like to skim and get the gist of the matter), but for all the religious folk out there that have a problems with gay people, have you ever met someone that was gay? Or better yet, met them before they came out of the closet, not knowing they were gay? Generally speaking, they’re not terribly different from anyone else. Granted, they may be a bit more whiny (sorry, had to say it), but other than that, there isn’t much to distinguish them from anyone else.

To be perfectly honest, I think that some gay people are nicer than straight people. On several occasions, I have been helped out by gay couples, completely out of the kindness of there hearts. They never asked for anything in return, nor did they accept compensation when I tried to give it. Didn’t mean to get on a soap box. All I am trying to say is that genuinely good people should have every right to be together and support children. Better them than irresponsible teenagers or alcoholics and the such mentioned before.

Bottom line, a person shouldn’t be judged by sexual orientation.

Also, hasn’t the church (whatever that means to you) made compromises in the past? You know, for the sake of SCIENCE and the like? Can’t you do the same for a good group of people?

 

[Elizabeth502]

for all the religious folk out there that have a problems with gay people, have you ever met someone that was gay? Or better yet, met them before they came out of the closet, not knowing they were gay?

Asked and answered, a trillion times on this very forum, by contributors to this very thread. (Generally, it’s a good idea when joining a form that’s 8 or so years old, to do a search on such things before posting a provocative question that has had multiple affirmative answers. ) Many of us have close loved ones who have been in that lifestyle. Some such loved ones have even become disillusioned/unsatisfied by the limitations of same-sex so-called intimacy, and are now in more psychologically satisfying heterosexual relationships.

Have a nice day.

 

[trmyjs]

Man this place s a treat… I was a bit depressed until I started reading some of the posts on here.

Anyway, on topic: I haven’t read this entire thread (sorry, I like to skim and get the gist of the matter), but for all the religious folk out there that have a problems with gay people, have you ever met someone that was gay? Or better yet, met them before they came out of the closet, not knowing they were gay? Generally speaking, they’re not terribly different from anyone else. Granted, they may be a bit more whiny (sorry, had to say it), but other than that, there isn’t much to distinguish them from anyone else.

To be perfectly honest, I think that some gay people are nicer than straight people. On several occasions, I have been helped out by gay couples, completely out of the kindness of there hearts. They never asked for anything in return, nor did they accept compensation when I tried to give it. Didn’t mean to get on a soap box. All I am trying to say is that genuinely good people should have every right to be together and support children. Better them than irresponsible teenagers or alcoholics and the such mentioned before.

Bottom line, a person shouldn’t be judged by sexual orientation.

Also, hasn’t the church (whatever that means to you) made compromises in the past? You know, for the sake of SCIENCE and the like? Can’t you do the same for a good group of people?

I get the feeling that you sense that religious people hate and judge gays. We hate the sin, not the sinner; and we don’t judge people, we let God take care of that. Of course not every Christian behaves this way, but that’s how Jesus taught us to behave.

By the way, sorry if I misinterpreted your message and you don’t feel this way at all. My bad.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

This article states that 32 percent of all foster children with disabilities in the US reside with gay couples. Considering that gays make up such a small percentage of the population, that’s pretty overwhelming.

huntalternatives.org/download/1420_11_25_08_fla_judge_strikes_down_gay_adoption_ban.pdf

Thanks for that linked article, which I read. You probably know that Edge provides Gay News and Entertainment, mainly based in Boston. It is part of Edge Gay Media Network. Further, the article talked about the study as reported by Family Equality Council.

If you look at the Family Equality Council site, the organization’s stated mission is:

Family Equality Council works to ensure equality for LGBT families by building community, changing hearts and minds, and advancing social justice for all families.

Their stated strategy:

Provide support, skills and community needed for LGBT-headed families at all stages of life.

Leverage the power of our families—telling our stories and driving change in communities, states and across the nation.

Focus public and media attention on the love, strength and contributions of our families.

Educate members of government, schools, faith-based communities, health care institutions and other social systems about how they can promote family equality for all.

Promote a proactive policy agenda that sets the standard of support for LGBT-headed families in schools, faith institutions, health care and family creation and protection.

Defeat or change laws at the local, state and federal level that compromise family equality for all.

Partner with other LGBT and broader social justice organizations to provide the greatest positive impact and to maximize resources.

Build and sustain a strong, effective Family Equality Council to leverage greater resources to achieve this mission and vision.

The executive director, Jennifer Chrisler, is a seasoned advocate for LGBT rights.

I was hoping you would provide a study directly from the numbers by the adoption agencies, or by an independent research group that is not associated with LGBT organizations, one that can withstand scrutiny of presentation bias and that contains a transparent discussion of funding, sampling method, size, etc.
,

 

[SteveGC]

for all the religious folk out there that have a problems with gay people, have you ever met someone that was gay? Or better yet, met them before they came out of the closet, not knowing they were gay? Generally speaking, they’re not terribly different from anyone else. Granted, they may be a bit more whiny (sorry, had to say it), but other than that, there isn’t much to distinguish them from anyone else.

To be perfectly honest, I think that some gay people are nicer than straight people. On several occasions, I have been helped out by gay couples, completely out of the kindness of there hearts. They never asked for anything in return, nor did they accept compensation when I tried to give it. Didn’t mean to get on a soap box. All I am trying to say is that genuinely good people should have every right to be together and support children. Better them than irresponsible teenagers or alcoholics and the such mentioned before.

Well, yes, homosexual people are some of the nicest people you’d ever meet. And if that were the sole basis for morality, being outwardly nice, then we would look to the homosexual community as our living saints. But, as it turns out, Catholics are aware that an active homosexual lifestyle puts a person in grave danger, eternally speaking. So, these extremely nice people deserve our every effort to protect them from that danger.

Bottom line, a person shouldn’t be judged by sexual orientation.

What exactly do you mean here? People throw around this word “judged” all the time when it comes to groups of people whose activities are scrutinized by others. In what way are you discerning that homosexuals are “judged”? And would you attempt to classify Catholic behaviors toward homosexuals as falling within your definition of judged?

To further clarify however, we’re not talking about sexual “orientation” here. Nor are we even talking about homosexual persons. We’re talking about sexual acts among same sex persons, and how the normalization of the homosexual lifestyle in society presents not only a tolerance for the acts, but an environment wherein it is encouraged.

Also, hasn’t the church (whatever that means to you) made compromises in the past? You know, for the sake of SCIENCE and the like?

Compromises is probably not the best word, but yes, sure.

Can’t you do the same for a good group of people?

No. Apples and oranges. Science has no bearing on our eternal salvation. Faith and morals do. We’re talking about the latter here.

 

[copperblade]

@copperblade
That’s the whole point though. I don’t believe we allow known alcoholics, people with eating disorder’s, or known rage-aholics to adopt kids do we? In our eyes homosexuality is a disorder that fits in with these ideas. I believe it’s really hard for an overly obese couple to adopt kids, because of their lifestyle choice. All in all I don’t feel we are picking on homosexual couples at all in terms of adoption. They chose a lifestyle choice that they wanted, which is fine and dandy for them, but I don’t feel we should celebrate that choice anymore than I would someone who chooses to be a prostitute.

So I guess the question on that point is, will being married give gay couples a better chance at adopting kids? Sorry if I don’t know, I really haven’t looked into that.

 

[LaSainte]

Thanks for that linked article, which I read. You probably know that Edge provides Gay News and Entertainment, mainly based in Boston. It is part of Edge Gay Media Network. Further, the article talked about the study as reported by Family Equality Council.

If you look at the Family Equality Council site, the organization’s stated mission is:

Family Equality Council works to ensure equality for LGBT families by building community, changing hearts and minds, and advancing social justice for all families.

Their stated strategy:

Provide support, skills and community needed for LGBT-headed families at all stages of life.

Leverage the power of our families—telling our stories and driving change in communities, states and across the nation.

Focus public and media attention on the love, strength and contributions of our families.

Educate members of government, schools, faith-based communities, health care institutions and other social systems about how they can promote family equality for all.

Promote a proactive policy agenda that sets the standard of support for LGBT-headed families in schools, faith institutions, health care and family creation and protection.

Defeat or change laws at the local, state and federal level that compromise family equality for all.

Partner with other LGBT and broader social justice organizations to provide the greatest positive impact and to maximize resources.

Build and sustain a strong, effective Family Equality Council to leverage greater resources to achieve this mission and vision.

The executive director, Jennifer Chrisler, is a seasoned advocate for LGBT rights.

I was hoping you would provide a study directly from the numbers by the adoption agencies, or by an independent research group that is not associated with LGBT organizations, one that can withstand scrutiny of presentation bias and that contains a transparent discussion of funding, sampling method, size, etc.
,

Other sources stating that gays care for/adopt/foster more children with disabilities than the general population (the first one contains data from the US census):

hrc.org/costkids.pdf.

scribd.com/doc/52778857/Faith-and-Family-Equality

education.com/reference/article/Ref_LGBT_Parenting/

 

[Elizabeth502]

Other sources stating that gays care for/adopt/foster more children with disabilities than the general population (the first one contains data from the US census):

hrc.org/costkids.pdf.

scribd.com/doc/52778857/Faith-and-Family-Equality

education.com/reference/article/Ref_LGBT_Parenting/

These so-called reports are biased position papers by groups directly in opposition to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t understand why seemingly every post of yours, on every topic on CAF, is one which vigorously challenges mainstream Catholic teaching: (homosexuality, contraception, drug use, etc.). What’s your point? I’ve tried to be patient with debate, because I do like debate, and I like to be engaged in intellectual argument, but it seems (to me, anyway) that there’s not much that you support in your Church.

The fundamental (not peripheral, not optional) teachings of your Catholic church proclaim that:

~same-sex “marriage,” same-sex “unions,” and same-sex “parenting” are not to be supported by Catholics. This is why the Church has sought to avoid any situation in which she would have to approve, even passively, the adoption of children by homosexual couples. Several posters (including I) have linked to articles from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on this matter, for years here, and recently, on many CAF threads. The Church does not hold that it is harmless for a homosexual couple to adopt a child with disabilities. Family, in Catholic teaching, is not separate from marriage, which in turn is not separate from differentiated genders. Most importantly, children are at the center of that family: their needs for a mother and a father are the absolute needs in the teaching on sexuality, marriage, and family. The greatest need of the child is to be with a (female) mother + a (male) father, not ersatz versions of either. A child with disabilities, a child without disabilities. What is it about that that you don’t understand? It’s not a teaching that’s subject to exceptions or to defiance.

It has nothing to do with whether every single homosexual couple adopts all the disabled children in the universe, and none are adopted by heterosexual couples. (Which of course is not true, because many heterosexual couples adopt disabled children; others give birth to, and raise, disabled childre.) It has to do with the very role-modeling and affirmation of a morally unhealthy lifestyle which no Catholic should be promoting, even by exception or excuse.

Again, the end in Catholic moral theology never justifies the means, if the means itself is/are evil.

 

[LaSainte]

These so-called reports are biased position papers by groups directly in opposition to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t understand why seemingly every post of yours, on every topic on CAF, is one which vigorously challenges mainstream Catholic teaching: (homosexuality, contraception, drug use, etc.). What’s your point? I’ve tried to be patient with debate, because I do like debate, and I like to be engaged in intellectual argument, but it seems (to me, anyway) that there’s not much that you support in your Church.

The fundamental (not peripheral, not optional) teachings of your Catholic church proclaim that:

~same-sex “marriage,” same-sex “unions,” and same-sex “parenting” are not to be supported by Catholics. This is why the Church has sought to avoid any situation in which she would have to approve, even passively, the adoption of children by homosexual couples. Several posters (including I) have linked to articles from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on this matter, for years here, and recently, on many CAF threads. The Church does not hold that it is harmless for a homosexual couple to adopt a child with disabilities. Family, in Catholic teaching, is not separate from marriage, which in turn is not separate from differentiated genders. Most importantly, children are at the center of that family: their needs for a mother and a father are the absolute needs in the teaching on sexuality, marriage, and family. The greatest need of the child is to be with a (female) mother + a (male) father, not ersatz versions of either. A child with disabilities, a child without disabilities. What is it about that that you don’t understand? It’s not a teaching that’s subject to exceptions or to defiance.

It has nothing to do with whether every single homosexual couple adopts all the disabled children in the universe, and none are adopted by heterosexual couples. (Which of course is not true, because many heterosexual couples adopt disabled children; others give birth to, and raise, disabled childre.) It has to do with the very role-modeling and affirmation of a morally unhealthy lifestyle which no Catholic should be promoting, even by exception or excuse.

Again, the end in Catholic moral theology never justifies the means, if the means itself is/are evil.

I am not endorsing the ideas brought about in the sources themselves, but the statistics contained therein. The first source I gave provided data from the US census that homosexual couples raise more disabled children than heterosexual couples. That was my point.

Whatever the Catholic Church says regarding homosexual adoption in general, I honestly cannot believe that it is better for ANY child (let alone a disabled one) to be raised in an orphanage or an institution than by a loving and caring couple, regardless of sexual orientation. In fact, ALL research points to the fact that these children fare just as well psychologically as other children and that it does not increase their chances of being gay.

I too have read some of your posts, and you clearly have an anti-gay agenda. I have a question: if we are going to prevent all homosexuals from adopting, regardless of the need and of overpopulation in orphanages and lack of foster care, then why not prohibit adoption to everyone who does not follow the tenets of the Catholic Church? Why not prohibit atheists from adopting, or Mormons, or Muslims? Surely being raised with these beliefs must be equally spiritually damaging to a child as being raised by a couple who happens to be homosexual, no?

I cannot believe that people are so myopic as to think that God might be providing these couples with the grace and compassion to raise these cast-off children and to give them a better life in a stable home, regardless of their imperfections. Remember, it is quite often Catholics trying to do the right thing who give birth to these poor children and then throw them over to the State, and now Catholics are going to turn around and tell some of the only people willing to take these poor children in that their lifestyle is prohibitive of being able to care for the children they didn’t want. Nice. I’m sure the irony is not lost on God.

 

[LaSainte]

And regarding the ends not justifying “evil” means In Catholic moral theology, I am reminded of the parable of the man whose sheep fell into a hole on the Sabbath. Jesus was really good at getting to the heart of these matters. The Pharisees of course wanted to follow the letter of the law and wait until the Sabbath was over before rescuing the sheep, but Jesus, understanding that we live in a real world with often unpredictable problems, was quick to point out that while these men are sitting around observing the Sabbath according to the Law, there is a sheep dying in a hole that needs help.

Maybe in an ideal world, the sheep would have waited until the next day to fall into that hole, and maybe in an ideal world, there would be Catholic, heterosexual couples lining up around the block to take care of these kids, or better yet, people would just never have children they do not want/cannot care for. But the fact is that there are many, many children out there who NEED people to love them and care for them NOW and we cannot sit around on our moral platitudes waiting for the “perfect” situation or couple. Sometimes you just need to get the sheep out of the hole.

 

[ahs]

…Whatever the Catholic Church says regarding homosexual adoption in general, I honestly cannot believe that it is better for ANY child…

The Catholic Church recognizes that a homosexual couple cannot provide the natural mother/father relationship that a mother and father can. We’ve dicussed complimentarity of the sexes in here already, so I’ll skip that.

I think what it comes to is a compounded problem. First, the homosexual lifestyle (again, not the persons with the SSA, but the lifestyle/intercourse itself) is gravely disordered to nature and God’s Natural Law. To expose children to that disorder is disordered in itself.

But, the problem gets compounded by the fact that the contraception mentality has spread so much that children are actually seen as a burden to many coulpes/single parents. So, you see an abundance of children being offered to States and for adoption.

Then, again related to the contraception mentality, marital sex has lost its value/meaning to so many couple because contraception has become a part of their act, and sex is now only seen for its ‘pleasure’ factor. The unitive and procreative aspects have been shadowed out to those couples because contraception has prevented them from experiencing the totality of sex and they only experience the physical pleasure.

As a result of that, the majority of Americans now see sex as only something for pleasure. Homosexuals then push the argument that America is forbidding them their rights to pleasure. The mentality gradually starts to change (on the large scale) and homosexual sex becomes equated to heterosexual sex, homosexuality to heterosexual reliationships. And finally, it comes to a point where homosexuals now need legal union rights because without them, they feel like they can’t obtain true freedom to express their “love” and right to happiness/pleasure as the heterosexuals can express it.

Now the homosexual “couples” are seen no different than a husband/wife and the original definition of a family (as God established it) is lost totally everywhere (except in the institution that is unchanging…the Church established by Christ).

So you end up with this: children seen as a burden, and homosexual “couples”, unable to procreate naturally, are more than willing to adopt those children. But the fact still remains that homosexual sex is gravely disordered to nature as God established it. So, despite their good intentions to save children from an orphanage, the truth of the matter is that the child is still an “object” to the homosexual couple and the homosexual couple is still living a life contrary to God’s Law…and God’s Law is ultimately the only one that matters when we die.

In my opinion, this all boils down to the contraception mentality. Contraception has degraded the marital/sexual union of husband/wife to a point that it has all but lost its meaning for all but the most God-fearing of couples. Start looking past the pleasure factor of sex and focus on its true meaning/value…then you’ll start to understand the Church’s position.

 

[LaSainte]

The Catholic Church recognizes that a homosexual couple cannot provide the natural mother/father relationship that a mother and father can. We’ve dicussed complimentarity of the sexes in here already, so I’ll skip that.

I think what it comes to is a compounded problem. First, the homosexual lifestyle (again, not the persons with the SSA, but the lifestyle/intercourse itself) is gravely disordered to nature and God’s Natural Law. To expose children to that disorder is disordered in itself.

But, the problem gets compounded by the fact that the contraception mentality has spread so much that children are actually seen as a burden to many coulpes/single parents. So, you see an abundance of children being offered to States and for adoption.

Then, again related to the contraception mentality, marital sex has lost its value/meaning to so many couple because contraception has become a part of their act, and sex is now only seen for its ‘pleasure’ factor. The unitive and procreative aspects have been shadowed out to those couples because contraception has prevented them from experiencing the totality of sex and they only experience the physical pleasure.

As a result of that, the majority of Americans now see sex as only something for pleasure. Homosexuals then push the argument that America is forbidding them their rights to pleasure. The mentality gradually starts to change (on the large scale) and homosexual sex becomes equated to heterosexual sex, homosexuality to heterosexual reliationships. And finally, it comes to a point where homosexuals now need legal union rights because without them, they feel like they can’t obtain true freedom to express their “love” and right to happiness/pleasure as the heterosexuals can express it.

Now the homosexual “couples” are seen no different than a husband/wife and the original definition of a family (as God established it) is lost totally everywhere (except in the institution that is unchanging…the Church established by Christ).

So you end up with this: children seen as a burden, and homosexual “couples”, unable to procreate naturally, are more than willing to adopt those children. But the fact still remains that homosexual sex is gravely disordered to nature as God established it. So, despite their good intentions to save children from an orphanage, the truth of the matter is that the child is still an “object” to the homosexual couple and the homosexual couple is still living a life contrary to God’s Law…and God’s Law is ultimately the only one that matters when we die.

In my opinion, this all boils down to the contraception mentality. Contraception has degraded the marital/sexual union of husband/wife to a point that it has all but lost its meaning for all but the most God-fearing of couples. Start looking past the pleasure factor of sex and focus on its true meaning/value…then you’ll start to understand the Church’s position.

I understand the Church’s position, and I think that ALL children should be raised by the best possible parents, which usually means a nice, God-fearing husband and wife with the love and resources to take care of that child. However, with overcrowded orphanages and abusive foster homes, we can’t just sit around and let these children be raised in the system; institutionalized, abused, and ripe and ready for prison by the time they turn 14! It is better for a child to be raised in a loving home with gay parents than to be brought up in the system, and ANY study will confirm that. We can’t just make a sacrIfice of these kids because we are trying to make a point about homosexuality! Kids need homes and sometimes the BEST home for them might be one with 2 moms or 2 dads. That’s just the way it is.

 

[Debora123]

I understand the Church’s position, and I think that ALL children should be raised by the best possible parents, which usually means a nice, God-fearing husband and wife with the love and resources to take care of that child. However, with overcrowded orphanages and abusive foster homes, we can’t just sit around and let these children be raised in the system; institutionalized, abused, and ripe and ready for prison by the time they turn 14! It is better for a child to be raised in a loving home with gay parents than to be brought up in the system, and ANY study will confirm that. We can’t just make a sacrIfice of these kids because we are trying to make a point about homosexuality! Kids need homes and sometimes the BEST home for them might be one with 2 moms or 2 dads. That’s just the way it is.

I have always been against “gay adoption” and cringe at the thought of it. But LaSainte brings up a good point here that should make us all step back and think logically for a sec.

Is it better to keep children in orphanages and floating around foster homes without a real place and family? Or is it better to let them be adopted by 2 woman or 2 men who will at least give them a home, a family, and loving care?

So which is the lesser of two evils??

It’s definitely a toughie.

 

[Nate13]

I understand the Church’s position, and I think that ALL children should be raised by the best possible parents, which usually means a nice, God-fearing husband and wife with the love and resources to take care of that child. However, with overcrowded orphanages and abusive foster homes, we can’t just sit around and let these children be raised in the system; institutionalized, abused, and ripe and ready for prison by the time they turn 14! It is better for a child to be raised in a loving home with gay parents than to be brought up in the system, and ANY study will confirm that. We can’t just make a sacrIfice of these kids because we are trying to make a point about homosexuality! Kids need homes and sometimes the BEST home for them might be one with 2 moms or 2 dads. That’s just the way it is.

I understand your concern and you should believe that we feel it also. We however don’t believe letting homosexual couples adopt is the answer. Not only is that comparable to putting a band-aid on the problem that won’t actually fix anything, but it buys into the idea that the ends justifies the means. Why not advocate for better places for these misplaced kids or push for people to garner a better appreciation for life so there are less kids up for adoption in the first place? Why don’t we make sure kids know premarital sex isn’t worth it, instead of giving them condoms/pill and assume they can’t control themselves? Buying into this mentality of ends justifies means has severe consequences all across the board on a variety of moral issues. My first question to you would be that if the ends can justify the means “sometimes” what authority determines when this is allowable?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I Is it better to keep children in orphanages and floating around foster homes without a real place and family? Or is it better to let them be adopted by 2 woman or 2 men who will at least give them a home, a family, and loving care?

Answer: An actively homosexual household (an intrinsic evil) is never “better” than a passive evil. Again, that’s not the way Catholic moral theology works. You cannot justify relieving someone’s misfortune by introducing a grave evil into their lives. To believe that it’s “better” or harmless or justified to make exceptions for the homosexual lifestyle (if “they’re nice people because they’re adopting kids”) is to believe deep down that active homosexuality is not always, intrinsically evil. You can’t have it both ways. It’s not intrinsically disordered in some homosexual couples, less disordered in others, not disordered or even forgiven or sanctified in others.

What is it about the word “absolute” that some people have difficulty understanding or accepting? It means no exceptions. What about the word “intrinsic” is difficult to understand? It means essential, not cosmetic.

See my responses on this previous thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=526517

…particularly the part about a single inactive homosexual parent. That is not modeling the lifestyle.

Even heterosexual parents are evaluated for the health (functionality) of their lifestyle. The poster ahs has it correct. A disordered lifestyle introduces dysfunction in an essential way to the child’s life. I don’t care how well, externally, the couple claims to get along. Something is deeply wrong with this picture. I don’t understand why practicing Catholics have difficulty grasping these definitive differences between a heterosexual household, a homosexual household, and a single, celibate person who may have dormant SSA, whose lifestyle is mainstream, whose social circle is exclusively heterosexual (such as the case I brought up on the thread I cited).

To continue to question how essential these differences are is to not really understand (or possibly accept) the Church’s overall, threaded theology on sexuality, marriage, the family and the moral position of a minor child as a product and reflection of all that.

 

[Debora123]

I understand your concern and you should believe that we feel it also. We however don’t believe letting homosexual couples adopt is the answer. Not only is that comparable to putting a band-aid on the problem that won’t actually fix anything, but it buys into the idea that the ends justifies the means. Why not advocate for better places for these misplaced kids or push for people to garner a better appreciation for life so there are less kids up for adoption in the first place? Why don’t we make sure kids know premarital sex isn’t worth it, instead of giving them condoms/pill and assume they can’t control themselves? Buying into this mentality of ends justifies means has severe consequences all across the board on a variety of moral issues. My first question to you would be that if the ends can justify the means “sometimes” what authority determines when this is allowable?

I think in this case (due to the circumstances the child would be in otherwise) LaSainte doesn’t think the “means” themselves are wrong.