Homosexual Marriage

[philothea]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1826769' date='Apr 6 2009, 08:41 PM']Politically incorrect as it is to say so, a couple indulging in a perverted "lifestyle" does not constitute a "good home."
As long as there are heterosexual married couples willing to adopt (and there are plenty), there is absolutely no reason to support "gay" adoption.
You're right; your answer was not sufficiently Catholic, but reflects modern political correctness. Principles of morality are no different in the "modern world" than in any other time.[/quote]
Didn't reflect political correctness at all. Why would you assume that was the cause? I've never given a hint of that.

I remember the home I grew up in, which was very unstable, and had I been raised by any of the homosexual couples whom I am acquainted with, who have adopted children or want to adopt, I would have been a thousand times better off, I assure you. And this is no way an endorsement of their lifestyle. Just noting that there are worse things.

In any case, I have little idea of the numbers of people willing to adopt vs. children available. What I said was:

"I think [b]any person or people or group[/b] who can provide a good home for [b]an otherwise unwanted or homeless child,[/b] ought to be allowed to do so."

A child with other people willing to take care of them is not unwanted or homeless, no?

[Apotheoun]

What is a good home?

Does a home where sexual perversion is seen as normal and good qualify as a "good home"?

[Deb]

Marriage is and has always been a union between a man and a woman. Acknowledged by all forever. It is natural and moral law. End of Story.

Our entire society seems to think that because they have an "opinion" on something, that makes it true and therefore everyone should have to adhere to it.

No. No and No.

[Socrates]

[quote name='philothea' post='1827406' date='Apr 7 2009, 01:42 AM']Didn't reflect political correctness at all. Why would you assume that was the cause? I've never given a hint of that.

I remember the home I grew up in, which was very unstable, and had I been raised by any of the homosexual couples whom I am acquainted with, who have adopted children or want to adopt, I would have been a thousand times better off, I assure you. And this is no way an endorsement of their lifestyle. Just noting that there are worse things.

In any case, I have little idea of the numbers of people willing to adopt vs. children available. What I said was:

"I think [b]any person or people or group[/b] who can provide a good home for [b]an otherwise unwanted or homeless child,[/b] ought to be allowed to do so."

A child with other people willing to take care of them is not unwanted or homeless, no?[/quote]
I'm not claiming that being raised by homosexuals is the absolute worst thing that could happen to a child, but I certainly don't see a homosexual shack-up as constituting a truly "good home."

A thousand times better off? Somehow, I doubt that.

And, while unfortunately, I don't have the sources with me, I've read some interesting first-hand testimony that being raised in a homosexual household is in reality far from the healthy, happy experience liberals tout it as.

From what I've heard there are usually long waiting lists for orphans or unwanted children. The idea that kids will be without homes unless homosexuals adopt is completely bogus propaganda.

I'm afraid in reality the push for homosexual adoption is less truly about the welfare of the children than it is about the "rights" of homosexuals, and trying to push the view that they are "just the same as any other family." One thing that makes me madder than the homosexualist movement itself is using children as pawns in their agenda.

Today, children are seen as a "right" owed to everybody, rather than a gift from God. Thus such things as homosexuals either adopting children or having them in vitro, and IVF in general, and such abominations as "Octo-mom." It's the flip-side of the contraceptive mentality.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Socrates

[friendofJPII]

A homosexual couple cannot marry. It's a contradiction in terms. You need a complementary conjugal realtionship to make a marriage in the same way you need flour and eggs to bake a cake.

What bothers me most is that if the state recognizes gay marriage, I'll be forced to refer to such a couple as married, when they are not. I cannot in good conscience refer to a male person's partner as "his husband" or female person's partner "wife." In my mind, that is lying.

We do not live in a theocracy but our country was founded on natural law principles. Defending marriage as the union between a man and a woman is as natural as defending eating or sleeping. Speaking of which, imagine if we what ppl would say if we could travel back in time 100 years and tell them in the year 2009 we would be defending life and marriage. Wow, we've made progress, by golly!

And what would they think of treadmills?

Edited April 11, 2009 by friendofJPII

[Dr_Asik]

What most worries me about this is that many children will be created, with the techniques available to medicine today, [b]in order to be adopted[/b] by those homosexual couples. No one would want to be adopted. It's always better to live with one's biological parents, unless they are complete morons or otherwise can't assume that responsability. This is shown in studies linking mental disorders with being adopted. Being "produced" in order to be adopted would be a grave, horrifying injustice. It makes me want to throw up.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Dr_Asik