Homosexuals Adopting Children

[hyperdulia again]

so now i'm being violent?

[cmotherofpirl]

Divorce is way too easy in this country. Fathers walk out everyday on their kids.

Abortion is way too easy in this country. A man can see his child killed and have no recourse.

VanHooty :Homosexuality is gravely disordered, a homosexual couple is not the normal state of affairs and they have no right to adopt children.

Being raised in a foster home or orphanage is not the end of the world.

Hyper I don't think they mean pyhsical violance, but violance to standards of normality.

[Guest *StarryEyedAngel*]

Hyper I don't think they mean pyhsical violance, but violance to standards of normality.

Exactly. :o

[hyperdulia again]

i'm not an idiot, i knew exactly what she meant, i still found it offensive.

[ironmonk]

i'm not an idiot, i knew exactly what she meant, i still found it offensive.

Bro,

I think you are the exception to the general rule...

Please try to understand that we don't want to offend you.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary,

ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

Hyper dear you know you are sensitive on this issue. Therefore you got to learn not to take offense at things that are not generally offensive. We all have triggers and sore spots in our life. We all have to see what the other person to trying to get across, and not necessarily the exact words that they use.

I always know WHAT I want to say, its just getting the words out that are a problem. Internet speech is a hybrid of sorts. If you write an actual letter, you go over it and over it. If you have a verbal conversation you just rattle out words, usually without editing. Internet speech is the rattling without the editing with the disadvantage of being permanent.

Do you have any clue to what I just said, cause I don't think I do. :blink:

[hyperdulia again]

i know what you and monk mean, but this is the sorest spot in my life, i'd die for that little girl...i'd die for anyone else i become responsible for and i have a bad habit of seeing the word homosexual and replacing it with michael and jon...theses are not issues i am dispassionate about, removed from, or intelectual in my approach towards.

[VanHooty]

VanHooty :Homosexuality is gravely disordered, a homosexual couple is not the normal state of affairs and they have no right to adopt children.

I already know as much. However, I see much point in the idea of me telling a homosexual couple that their relationship is wrong because, in their eyes, some ancient and archaric institution with a neo-conservative leadership seeking to assert a dying culture says so.

I am of the opinion that people have a right, of sorts, to believe whatever they want to believe and life however they want to live. Granted, this means I think people have a sort of "right" to believe in wrong and erroneous ideas and live in a fashion that is harmful towards themselves. The line, I suggest, must be drawn when it comes to hurting other individuals.

Now, the question that must me asked is, how is it harmful for a child to be raised by a SSC? Which also begs the question, how is homosexuality harmful to society?

I am torn on the issue because I don't have answers to those questions other than your typical and canned "its in the Bible," "God wills it," and "because it is against the natural state of things." If anyone would care to enlighten me, please do so. Hence the phrase in the sig. :)

[jasJis]

Now, the question that must me asked is, how is it harmful for a child to be raised by a SSC?  Which also begs the question, how is homosexuality harmful to society?

Exactly. That is the question, and the answers need to be discerned as best you can. Are you sure you're a kid?

I sincerely believe that in forming a moral conscience, that's the question that needs to be asked. But that does not mean we can easily go against what the Church teaches. Any benefit of doubt goes to the Church for two reasons. One is the belief the Holy Spirit is actively working in the clergy, and two, a lot more learned persons applied more knowledge and study to the question than my single brain did. That doesn't make them right in all cases, but it makes them least likely wrong.

I think the answer lies in the perspective of 'Greater Good' when viewed in the context of society. On an individual basis, instances can easily be found where a homosexual couple might be better than an even worse situation. There are many moral evils that are practiced that are much worse than homosexuality. Just because a broken leg is less harmful than two broken legs, doesn't make a broken leg desirable to a broken finger. I have actively praciting homosexaul friends and family that I would rather have take care of my kids then other family members who aren't actively homosexual, and it doesn't take a moral theologian to acknolwedge a SSC is better than some of the alternatives.

But to seriously consider the entier question one has to consider:

A) How is a SSC harmful to a child?

B) How is Society harmed by SSC's?

C) How is a child harmed in other "care" situations, and what are they?

D) What is the BEST situation for a child, and how can that be encouraged?

The answer to A, lies in the answer to B. If society is harmed by same sex couples, then a child would be harmed by a SSC because it would be raised to accept and approve of a SSC as good and desireable.

So how is Society harmed by SSC or active homosexuality. Please note, I'm trying to draw a distinction between active homosexuals which are considered to embrace a same sex attraction lifestyle, and those with same sex attraction who do not actively embrace or are struggling to chastely deal with it.

The Catholic Church teaches that society is built on human nature, or natural law, that we are endowed with by God as a fact of our creation. It is one of our Natures we share with God. This is also reflected in the basic social organism, the Family. Even the Trinity is seen as a Family. Though as purely Divine beings, sexuality is moot, but as Divine and Human, sexuality is important, hence the reason God chose to enter the world through Woman. This is an important point to misogynists and femi-nazi's. Though different, both sexes are created as equally important. God could have chosen any number of "a-sexual" ways to enter the world, but He purposely chose to enter through Woman, who is the opposite sex of how we see God the Father when viewed in human terms. Two sexes are important to God as Genisis tells us: He created male and female. The societal nature of humans is also taught in Genesis. Adam (male) is incomplete without Eve (female). 'It is not good for man to be alone' is almost literally understood as humans are created as social creatures. God created us to be of opposite sexes and to be incomplete unless we join. I could go on with other examples, but I'm sure we've got the picture.

Clearly, the ideal for human society is the creation of families, male and female parents having and raising children. Legal recognition of SSC elevates that social organism as equally ideal in the construct of our society. By it's nature, we know it is disordered and not ideal, but society is now defineing it as not disorded and equally ideal. It is not a different, but equal state, like being male or female.

This post is long enough, I won't discuss C and D yet.

[cmotherofpirl]

Van would it ever occur to you that the "typical" answers are the correct ones?

That for thousands of years families had been a male and female team, for a reason?

[Guest SemJoe]

I'm against homosexuals adopting children for two reasons. One, the church strongly teaches agaisnt it, along with homosexuality itself. Two, it encourages a lifestyle to the children that is disordered and gravely sinful. To choose to live a homosexual lifestyle is to choose an evil and no child deserves that.

[Jake Huether]

Ah. I'm so happy to see the poll the way it is.

I had a huge argument over this issue with my best friend (I posted about it on another thread). In short, he's mad at the Church (the Pope in particular) for not tayloring to homosexual "needs".

There are a few reasons, if not already mentioned, that I believe homosexuals should not be able to adopt. The main one being that Children need to have both a motherfigure and a fatherfigure.

Argue all you want about how an orphan would get more love in a homosexual family. The fact remains that one sin does not do a child better than another.

It's just plain logical: If it takes a man and a woman to bring a child IN to the world, then it requires a man and a woman to bring a child UP in the world. If two men could in fact raise a child correctly, then logically God should have made it so that two men could bring a child INto the world. But He didn't.

Yes, yes, even heterosexual couples can raise a child wrong. But by placing that child into a situation that is the same or worse does no good! At least heterosexual couples have the POTENTIAL to become what God had intended! But a gay couple has NO potential to EVER become what God intended, unless they live chaste, and as friends (they could never raise a childe right together).

And when I say "raise a child right or correct" I mean to say that the Child is raised the way God would like him/her to be raised. That isn't to say a homosexual couple could raise a child, and by the Grace of God the child comes to know the truth. A homosexual couple *could* raise a child, and they have. But they (unintentionally in most instances) impart a bias toward the gay lifestyle, severe sexual dissorder, and mental confusion. These are in no way "normal".

As we are the Catholic Church, we seak to restore humanity to where it was in the beggining, before Adam and Eve fell.

By allowing homosexuals to 1) marry, and 2) adopt we are setting our selves up to move further from that reality.

[Dave]

The fact remains that one sin does not do a child better than another.

That's right, Jake. Besides, in ANY kind of family, the more sin there is (of ANY kind), the less peace there is. So why let families whose relationship is based on mortal sin (whether homosexual couples, cohabitating couples, etc.) adopt a child, when such children need a measure of peace in their lives?

[Jake Huether]

Hyp,

Clearly you ARE the exception. Reason being, you did not "choose" per se to "adopt" the child you are caring for. It is a family member in need. Therefore, we know that you are caring for this child with all your heart out of Charity and kindness, through no intention of your own, and for no "need" of your own but to help your family.

We are talking about two homoesual men or women who are actively homoesexual and wish to "pretend" like they can actually have a family. There are of course exceptions, but if you base descisions on exceptions, you leave the door wide open for the typical. The typical is this: Two men or women who selfishley wish to "create" a family. While in your situation the care of the child is made out of love and compassion, the typical reason homosexuals will adopt will be for quite the opposte; selfishness. They seak not the good of the child, rather, the skewed idea that they (a homosexual couple) might have a normal family. Homosexual adoption fosters the idea that homosexuality is normal, that a family isn't necessarily mother, father, children; but worst of all it fosters the "experimental" idea that children do not NEED one gender or the other while they grow up. This is purely against logic - because if a child didn't need both genders to grow up, then it makes no sense that a child would require both genders to be born!

In the extreme of things - if we ONLY had homosexual marriage, and ONLY homosexual couples - life would cease to reproduce and humanity itself would fall. That of course is the extreme, which hopefully will never be reached. But to say that even a small mixutre of this is "okay" is to put a stumbling block before LIFE, which is to side with the culture of death, which is to bed with murder (aka abortion), and to deny God's plan that we "be fruitfull and multiply".

[jasJis]

In the extreme of things - if we ONLY had homosexual marriage, and ONLY homosexual couples - life would cease to reproduce and humanity itself would fall.  That of course is the extreme, which hopefully will never be reached.  But to say that even a small mixutre of this is "okay" is to put a stumbling block before LIFE, which is to side with the culture of death, which is to bed with murder (aka abortion), and to deny God's plan that we "be fruitfull and multiply".

Jake,

It's not extreme for today's society and we wouldn't die out. That's why cloning, artifical insemination, in vitro fertilization, and 'test tube' babies are also an attack on the social order.

They all devalue the male and female as necessary to each other in a complimentary and other completeing way. It turns so much of human nature that we are given by God to meaningless "traits" that can be overcome with science and human will.

That's the bigger danger and the greater damage. The continued destruction of societal order for the selfishness of individuals. It's society self-destructing by sacrificing the Good for the Greater Number for the Happiness of the Few.

[Jake Huether]

Like always you are totally right, JasJis.

I got a bit of tunnle vission. I forgot about all the ways humans are trying to re-invent the wheele. Only, we're trying to make it square! LOL.

We're trying to perfect what God has already made perfect!

It still is an attack on Life nonetheless.

And as such, it will cause our extinction (physically, maybe not - morally, yes).

[jasJis]

Like always you are totally right, JasJis.

That's just a nasty rumour and really not true. :lol:

[Guest *StarryEyedAngel*]

i'm not an idiot, i knew exactly what she meant, i still found it offensive.

I was just quoting what the Holy Father said, I don't want to offend anyone, but the church teaches that Homosexuality is wrong, and against our beliefs.

[hyperdulia again]

logjam before mote

[hyperdulia again]

thhe church teaches homosexual acts are wrong, not homosexuality.