Plan would bar GOP adoption

[thessalonian]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 1 2006, 05:27 PM']The facts back me up. When the number of adoptions goes up, the number of abortions go down.
[right][snapback]901068[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The facts don't back you up. The waiting lists are long for parents who want to adopt children. There are plenty of adoptive parents. And yes, I've seen your question. A child would be better off in an orphanage than with a homosexual couple.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 1 2006, 09:56 PM']A female ass is called a jennie.
[right][snapback]901143[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 1 2006, 07:55 PM']Mind answering my question?
[right][snapback]901142[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Obviously, the murder of a child would be the worse evil.

But your question poses the fallacy of a false dillemna. It presents two evils and pits them against one another, when in fact neither is necessary. In essence:
"Either homosexuals must be allowed to adopt, or babies must be aborted."

This is nonsense. The life of a baby does not depend on homosexual adoption, and homosexuals not being allowed to adopt does not necessitate that babies be aborted.
There are plenty of "straight" married couples willing to adopt.
If you want more adoption, encourage it among married couples.

And again, why would any woman choose to abort her baby because of adoption being limited to "straight" couples? Who (except a fanatical "gay-rights" activist) would let her baby live only on the condition that homosexuals be allowed to adopt? That is an absurd premise!

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 2 2006, 09:11 PM']Obviously, the murder of a child would be the worse evil.

But your question poses the fallacy of a false dillemna.  It presents two evils and pits them against one another, when in fact neither is necessary.  In essence:
"Either homosexuals must be allowed to adopt, or babies must be aborted."

This is nonsense.  The life of a baby does not depend on homosexual adoption, and homosexuals not being allowed to adopt does not necessitate that babies be aborted.
There are plenty of "straight" married couples willing to adopt.
If you want more adoption, encourage it among married couples.

And again, why would any woman choose to abort her baby because of adoption being limited to "straight" couples?  Who (except a fanatical "gay-rights" activist) would let her baby live only on the condition that homosexuals be allowed to adopt?  That is an absurd premise!
[right][snapback]901959[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It's very hypocritial on your part to say "abortion is wrong." When you also say "Adoption is better then abortion, but only the majorty can adopt."

Catholics aren't the majority in this nation, want your right adopt taken away?

Edited March 3, 2006 by catholicinsd

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' date='Mar 2 2006, 12:56 AM']In the same vein, but about marriage rather than adoption, I always liked this argument:

In light of the recent passing of Issue 1 in Michigan (and Ohio, etc.), we wish to propose a new amendment: Fat people cannot get married nor enter into civil unions. Reasoning: The Bible says that gluttony is a sin, so it is wrong. The thought of fat people having sex is revolting. If fat people have kids, the kids will be fat and grow up and spread the fat agenda. Fat people are more likely to suffer from asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, and numerous other "fat diseases" which can make health insurance more expensive. They chose to be fat, it is a choice and a sinful one. Join us now in banning fat people from having the right to be married.
[right][snapback]901346[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This lame and un-funny "parody" fails on all levels.

If you really think that not recognizing "gay marriage" is as absurd as barring fat people from marrying, it shows your knowledge of Catholic moral teaching is woefully lacking.

This "joke" works on the premise that barring "gay marriage" is merely disallowing marriage for a group of people (in this case, fat people).

The fact is that a "gay marriage" is no marriage at all and never can be a marriage. A marriage is the procreative union between a man and a woman. Two people of the same sex sodomizing one another is something else entirely. It can not bring forth life and family. It is simply not the same thing, and cannot be called a marriage.

This fact is not based simply on aesthetic considerations. ("The thought of fat people having sex is revolting") nor merely on health concerns.
The analogy about having fat kids doesn't even work, since homosexual sodomy can produce no children, "gay" or otherwise!

And even assuming that fat people are all gluttonous (many are not), this is a non-sequitor. Their gluttony would have nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of the marital act.
However, two "gay" people of the same sex, would in fact be incapable of the procreative marital act, and their "union" would be based on the intrinsically evil act of same-sex sodomy.
Thus, what they do by its very defintion would not constitute a marriage.
The parody acts as if not recognizing "gay marriage" was simply withholding privileges from someone on account of their sinfullness - such as denying "gays" drivers licenses.

If you find that parody humorous or clever, it shows you understand neither the nature of marriage nor of morality.

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 2 2006, 08:18 PM']It's very hypocritial on your part to say "abortion is wrong." When you also say "Adoption is better then abortion,  but only the majorty can adopt."

Catholics aren't the majority in this nation, want your right adopt taken away?
[right][snapback]901965[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am not being hypocritical.
Your statement is totally illogical and doesn't make one ounce of sense.

This isn't about who's in the majority and minority - it's about right and wrong. Children being raised in homosexual households is wrong. Children should be raised by a mother and a father.
A man, woman, and children form a family. Two people of the same sex sodomizing each other do not.

As myself and others have pointed out, there are plenty of other options for "unwanted" children besides being raised by homosexuals.
Abortion will in no way be ended by supporting the evil of homosexual "unions."
As Christians we must not attempt to fight evil with evil.
We must support that which is good.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 3 2006, 07:07 PM']I am not being hypocritical.
Your statement is totally illogical and doesn't make one ounce of sense.

This isn't about who's in the majority and minority - it's about right and wrong.  Children being raised in homosexual households is wrong.  Children should be raised by a mother and a father.
A man, woman, and children form a family.  Two people of the same sex sodomizing each other do not.

As myself and others have pointed out, there are plenty of other options for "unwanted" children besides being raised by homosexuals.
Abortion will in no way be ended by supporting the evil of homosexual "unions."
As Christians we must not attempt to fight evil with evil.
[right][snapback]902599[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Meanwhile the anti-abortion activists are so quick to praise single parents, who raise their children with an opposite sex spouse. I see no difference here.

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 3 2006, 06:16 PM']Meanwhile the anti-abortion activists are so quick to praise single parents, who raise their children with an opposite sex spouse. I see no difference here.
[right][snapback]902603[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There is a HUGE difference.

These women are being praised because they chose to keep their children, and they got married to a man who can be a foster-father for her children.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing, blessed by God.

Homosexual activity is a perverted sin, and is condemned by God and His Church.
Sodomy does not produce children, and there is no reason for sodomites to adopt other's children. That is wrong.

If you cannot see the difference, you need to get educated in Catholic moral teaching. Talk to a good priest or one of the Church Scholars here about this.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 3 2006, 07:25 PM']There is a HUGE difference.

These women are being praised because they chose to keep their children, and they got married to a man who can be a foster-father for her children.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing, blessed by God.

Homosexual activity is a perverted sin, and is condemned by God and his Church.
Sodomy does not produce children, and there is no reason for sodomites to adopt other's children.  That is wrong.

If you cannot see the difference, you need to get educated in Catholic moral teaching.  Talk to a good priest or one of the Church Scholars here about this.
[right][snapback]902606[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Barring someone from adopting a child, (and in so doing helping end abortion) just because they happen to be tempted, which isn't a sin, is a sin.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 3 2006, 07:25 PM']
These women are being praised because they chose to keep their children, and [b]they got married to a man who can be a foster-father for her children.[/b][right][snapback]902606[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This rarely happens.

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 3 2006, 06:29 PM']Barring someone from adopting a child, (and in so doing helping end abortion) just because they happen to be tempted, which isn't a sin, is a sin.
[right][snapback]902607[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That is nonsense.

Show me [b]one single quote [/b]from a reliable Church source saying that barring homosexual "couples" from adopting children is a sin!

Plenty of people are barred from adopting children.

Should a convicted violent felon be allowed to adopt children?
A convicted pedophile?
A Satanic cult?
A thirteen-year-old boy?

It would seem, according to your logic, that barring any of these people from adopting children would be a sin!

The idea that absolutely everybody has an absolute right to adopt children is absurd.

And you have still given no proof that allowing homosexuals to adopt would help end abortion. Would most pregnant women be less likely to abort if they knew homosexuals, rather than "straight" married couples, could adopt their kid??

And nobody's talking about people who just "happen to be tempted" -we're talking about homosexual couples.

It looks to me like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing - but if you're genuinely confused by this, ask a good, solid, priest about this.

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 3 2006, 06:32 PM']This rarely happens.
[right][snapback]902609[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
And what is your point? Are you saying this shouldn't happen?
I fail to see how this makes a case for "gay adoption."

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 3 2006, 07:57 PM']And what is your point?  Are you saying this shouldn't happen?
I fail to see how this makes a case for "gay adoption."
[right][snapback]902619[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I fail to see how you're a Church Faithful.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 3 2006, 07:05 PM']I fail to see how you're a Church Faithful.
[right][snapback]902625[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ummm . . . well . . . he has good stuff to say in general. Yes, he's a little bit hot under the collar sometimes, but he's usually right on the money, and if he's not, he'll admit it.

Now, you ignored a post from someone else that completely flattens your argument: There are waiting lists for adoptive parents. Why do we need to add gays to an already huge waiting list?

My parents were turned down for adopting because my siblings are all extremely intelligent, and a child who is adopted might not achieve my parents expectations. These are the types of restrictions that already exist on adoption, in light of that, restrictions on gays and singles adopting is *very* reasonable.

Pax Christi,
Joe

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Mar 4 2006, 10:36 AM']Ummm . . . well . . . he has good stuff to say in general.  Yes, he's a little bit hot under the collar sometimes, but he's usually right on the money, and if he's not, he'll admit it.

Now, you ignored a post from someone else that completely flattens your argument:  There are waiting lists for adoptive parents.  Why do we need to add gays to an already huge waiting list?

My parents were turned down for adopting because my siblings are all extremely intelligent, and a child who is adopted might not achieve my parents expectations.  These are the types of restrictions that already exist on adoption, in light of that, restrictions on gays and singles adopting is *very* reasonable.

Pax Christi,
Joe
[right][snapback]902798[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

A person can see the bigger mountain than the big one.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 4 2006, 09:24 PM']A person can see the bigger mountain than the big one.
[right][snapback]903187[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
?

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Mar 5 2006, 08:08 PM']?
[right][snapback]903740[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


A person can see the bigger mountain better than the big one.

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 6 2006, 11:33 AM']A person can see the bigger mountain better than the big one.
[right][snapback]904152[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
???

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 6 2006, 06:53 PM']???
[right][snapback]904628[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Then greater the need, the more product.

Need is adoption & product is babies.

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 6 2006, 06:58 PM']Then greater the need, the more product.

Need is adoption & product is babies.
[right][snapback]904728[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, first of all, I find thinking of human children as "product" rather degrading - as if babies are manufactured items churned off the assembly line for the purpose of meeting consumer demand!

Secondly, this seems to imply that women will be willing to have babies for the sole purpose of providing homosexuals with human "products" to adopt. (Why would they do this, for money??)
Degrading (to all involved). . . and sick!

Thirdly, as several people have pointed out, there are more than enough married couples willing to adopt, so your whole argument that "gay" adoption is necessary to prevent abortion is bogus.
The "demand" is already there. Women are not going to suddenly start keeping their babies more based on a demand by homosexuals to adopt children!

If you want to look at the really big mountain, abortion, homosexuality, and the separation of sex and child-bearing from family are all parts of the same Culture of Death which Catholics should oppose.
Supporting the "homosexual lifestyle" does not promote the sanctity of sex and the Culture of Life.