_bc Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 (edited) I am happy and glad that Hyper is raising a child. If one in a hundred parents in this world had the same morals and faith that inspire what he's written in this thread, it would be a better place by far. I'm also happy that so many children have loving and caring homes with same sex couples, instead of unloving or destructive institutions with people who need wages to look after them. Not that I have anything against the good people who work with these children, they are just not their parents. To seek not to be prevented from legally adopting children into your family because of your sexual orientation is not to seek 'special rights' for homosexuals. They are equal rights because nobody is seeking to make adoption exclusively for same sex couples. Same sex couples are seeking the same right to adopt as both sex couples, hence the term 'equal'. Adoption is not denied heterosexuals who have carry a heavy cross or have a propensity to sin. Even atheists, who reject God outright, can adopt and raise children. Yet, chaste same sex couples are not committing any sin by being same sex couples, as far as my knowledge reaches. This is why all those quotes to the Catechism miss the point. I'll try to stay away from this thread from now on, because it will probably not change anybodys mind on anything. Edited August 5, 2003 by _bc
cmotherofpirl Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 Hyper there is a big difference (in my mind at least) between being handed a ready-made family when you enter a relationship, and starting a relationship from scratch, then deciding to add children. I'm still sorting it out in my mind. My cousin, who decided she was a lesbian, has found a girlfriend and now wants to acquire children. She was raised in an environment that favored women and devalued men, so she follows this tradition. She has little use for the opposite sex. I can't imagine any child raised in this relationship will be psychologically normal.
cmotherofpirl Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 I'm also happy that so many children have loving and caring homes with same sex couples, instead of unloving or destructive institutions with people who need wages to look after them. Not that I have anything against the good people who work with these children, they are just not their parents. To seek not to be prevented from legally adopting children into your family because of your sexual orientation is not to seek 'special rights' for homosexuals. They are equal rights because nobody is seeking to make adoption exclusively for same sex couples. Same sex couples are seeking the same right to adopt as both sex couples, hence the term 'equal'. Adoption is not denied heterosexuals who have carry a heavy cross or have a propensity to sin. Even atheists, who reject God outright, can adopt and raise children. Yet, chaste same sex couples are not committing any sin by being same sex couples, as far as my knowledge reaches. This is why all those quotes to the Catechism miss the point. Children can be raised quite well by people who are not their biological parents. Ask my kids. Same sex couples are not equal to hetrosexual couples so they do not need equal rights to acquire children. Adoption is denied to many perfectly good parents.
mp15 Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 Hyper there is a big difference (in my mind at least) between being handed a ready-made family when you enter a relationship, and starting a relationship from scratch, then deciding to add children. I'm still sorting it out in my mind. My cousin, who decided she was a lesbian, has found a girlfriend and now wants to acquire children. She was raised in an environment that favored women and devalued men, so she follows this tradition. She has little use for the opposite sex. I can't imagine any child raised in this relationship will be psychologically normal. Amen to that cmom. It also stands to reason that a childs sexuality would probably be unduely influenced by being raised in a same sex household.
_bc Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 Children can be raised quite well by people who are not their biological parents. Ask my kids. Exactly. That's why we have adoption in the first place. Same sex couples are not equal to hetrosexual couples...This is where we disagree, but I'm not going to argue about it because that, like most of these homosexuality debates, will only serve to hurt people and make Catholics seem unloving and harsh, and ultimately serve the wrong ends. Adoption is denied to many perfectly good parents. And excluding some perfectly good parents because of their sexual orientation would only make that problem even worse.
cmotherofpirl Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 THat is where we disagree bc. Same sex parents are not perfectly good parents. They are not capable of providing role models for healthy development of children.
Jake Huether Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 This is where we disagree, but I'm not going to argue about it because that, like most of these homosexuality debates, will only serve to hurt people and make Catholics seem unloving and harsh, and ultimately serve the wrong ends. I would love to know how a guy and a GUY are the SAME as a guy and a GIRL. The most you can say is that HALF of a homosexual couple is equal to a half a heterosexual couple. A whole other touchy issue is men and women being "equal". Yes they are equal in integrety, etc, etc. But they are NOT equal. Women have cerain things to offer that men can NOT. And vice versa. When you start saying that a MAN can perform equally in a motherly role, then you are denying God's Divine plan! That is why it is wrong: A homosexual couple can NOT give a child what a heterosexual couple can. That is, again, all else being equal. Of course a heterosexual couple can be into drugs, etc. But the foundation is sound.
hyperdulia again Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 (edited) I would love to know how a guy and a GUY are the SAME as a guy and a GIRL. The most you can say is that HALF of a homosexual couple is equal to a half a heterosexual couple. A whole other touchy issue is men and women being "equal". Yes they are equal in integrety, etc, etc. But they are NOT equal. Women have cerain things to offer that men can NOT. And vice versa. When you start saying that a MAN can perform equally in a motherly role, then you are denying God's Divine plan! That is why it is wrong: A homosexual couple can NOT give a child what a heterosexual couple can. That is, again, all else being equal. Of course a heterosexual couple can be into drugs, etc. But the foundation is sound. There is a difference, between equal to and being the same as, this is not a series of conversations I will get into, at least not with you, but there is. Edited August 5, 2003 by hyperdulia again
cmotherofpirl Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 A=B is an equality You cannot say A and B are identical. If you put to B's together there are identical. AS a woman, I am equal to a man before God. However my duties are not identical to a mans and therefore not interchangable with his. They complement each other but cannot be the same.
jasJis Posted August 5, 2003 Author Posted August 5, 2003 Is there any scientific evidence that is not ancedotal that establishes a child raised by same sex couples is better off or worse off than children raised by oppisite sex couples? I don't think anyone can say a child being raised in an extremely abusive or neglectful environment is better off to remain there than to be raised by a homosexual or an actively homosexual couple. That situation is more ancedotal and not the majority. The exception shouldn't make the rule. All rules are general and imperfect in application and effectiveness because of the many variables.
hyperdulia again Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 jas, Gay and Lesbian couples haven't raising children fot long enough for any study on this subject to be a truly valid and objective one. I've seen wildly different results in the three or four studies I've read about, and none of them were by groups I would call objective.
cmotherofpirl Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 THere is also no such thing as an objective group. Everybody has an agenda, whether stated or not.
_bc Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 (edited) I think strawberry ice cream and chocolate ice cream are equally tasty, but they are not the same. Because equal does not always mean same, and in this context it obviously doesn't. In this case, equal means one group not being unneccessarily denied rights, obligations and opportunities afforded the other. In this case, the most important rights are those of the children involved, who must not be denied a loving, caring family when one is available for them. Edited August 5, 2003 by _bc
jasJis Posted August 6, 2003 Author Posted August 6, 2003 I think strawberry ice cream and chocolate ice cream are equally tasty, but they are not the same. Because equal does not always mean same, and in this context it obviously doesn't. In this case, equal means one group not being unneccessarily denied rights, obligations and opportunities afforded the other. In this case, the most important rights are those of the children involved, who must not be denied a loving, caring family when one is available for them. _bc, The three assumptions you've made are: 1.) that a homosexual relationship as heads of a family is equal to or just as valid in the social context (remember, society is meant by God to be a reflection of nautral law). This judgement has to be made through the lens of Christian morality. 2.) that harm is being done to the larger group of children by denying or legitimizing same sex couples to adopt. 3.) that same sex couples are the best way to help the kids needing homes. I'm godfather to an adopted child. I have a number of family members who have adopted as well as alot of childhood friends. Hyper has brought up a very valid point that is being ignored quite well. The need for adoptive parents is not the result of homosexual immorality. Kids are being created and tossed aside by heterosexual immorality. Is homosexual morality is the cure or the solution?
_bc Posted August 6, 2003 Posted August 6, 2003 (edited) The three assumptions you've made are: 1.) that a homosexual relationship as heads of a family is equal to or just as valid in the social context (remember, society is meant by God to be a reflection of nautral law). This judgement has to be made through the lens of Christian morality. 2.) that harm is being done to the larger group of children by denying or legitimizing same sex couples to adopt. 3.) that same sex couples are the best way to help the kids needing homes. Yes, and I believe them to be true, even though I think assumption no 1 doesn't need to be this strong. As far as I can see, it's a sufficiently strong assumption that a homosexual relationship is no greater cause for disqualification as a parent than a number of other possible causes that are not being considered. To make sure there is no misunderstanding: Of course I would never argue that only same sex couples should be allowed to adopt. I think that they should have to jump through the same hoops as heterosexuals, no more, no less. But are we really just talking about adoption here? It appears to me that this debate, as well as Cardinal Ratzingers recent publication, could just as well be about debating whether homosexuals are unclean children of God and should basically stay out of sight. Most arguments in that publication could just as well have been used to argue that point. Hyper has brought up a very valid point that is being ignored quite well. The need for adoptive parents is not the result of homosexual immorality. Kids are being created and tossed aside by heterosexual immorality. Is homosexual morality is the cure or the solution? Neither cure, cause nor solution. I'm not trying to ignore his point, I just don't have anything to add to it. Edited August 6, 2003 by _bc
jasJis Posted August 6, 2003 Author Posted August 6, 2003 Yes, and I believe them to be true, even though I think assumption no 1 doesn't need to be this strong. As far as I can see, it's a sufficiently strong assumption that a homosexual relationship is no greater cause for disqualification as a parent than a number of other possible causes that are not being considered. _bc, If I understand you correctly, you are saying that active homosexuality (it's assumed a given for the vast majoiryt of a "same-sex couple") is not desireable but is not a grave undesireable? What are the other possible causes for disqualification that are not being considered?
Jake Huether Posted August 6, 2003 Posted August 6, 2003 And if active homosexuality isn't grave - than what's the scoop on Sodom and Gamorrah.
cmotherofpirl Posted August 6, 2003 Posted August 6, 2003 If you agree with how Jas restated your premises: I disagree with the first one. What is your proof for the second and third one?
Recommended Posts