Why are Catholics are against Gay couples adopting?

[gntlmnr]

Originally Posted by St Francis

This is the deal: homosexuals have, on average, much shorter relationships than do heterosexuals, and they are much less likely to be monogamous, even if they have gone through a marriage ceremony.

I would have to agree with you that homosexual relationships are less stable on average than heterosexual relationships. That certainly has obvious reasons and causes, because society as a whole, doesn't embrace homosexual relationships. On the contrary, society as a whole is very hostile to homosexuals and homosexual relationships. Society as a whole does not offer benefits to homosexual relationships that it offers to heterosexual relationships, there are no rules set in place for homosexual relationships as it is with heterosexual relationships. I can go on and on... But in a nutshell the stresses that exist on homosexual relationships are far greater that the stresses that that exist on heterosexual relationships. That factor alone is definitely not a reason to grant adoption to gay couples. On the contrary, if this is the only factor considered, it is a reason not to grant adoption to gay couples; however, when adoption is granted to a heterosexual couple, it is not granted simply because they are heterosexual. That heterosexual couple's life has to be closely examined to prove that they are fit to adopt a child. The same principals must be applied to a homosexual couple. Their life must be closely examined to see if they are fit to adopt a child.

[cradlecatholic5]

So tired of this topic

[fix]

Originally Posted by Mum5

I don't see them posing as anything other than two people trying to raise a family. Im positive they would do a much better job than most of the "normal" families out there.
I would have no problem with a Grandchild of mine being raised in a loving,happy,healthy home with two parents who love them.

I see, so if a father and son "married" they would
be acceptable parents. The response to absurdity is absurdity.

[fix]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

Please cite a study, a news article, an expert opinion, or something to support this claim. Because it's ridiculous. Why is it better to have a single mother or father than it is to have two? We've already established that kids can grow up fine without a male and female role model, so why is the addition of a second person of the same gender so detrimental?

Parents, by definition, are mother and father.

That is always understood as male and female.

This is known from right reason, experience, history,
and is simply self evident.

Suddenly substituting two same sex persons
is arbitrary, a form of moral violence, indecent, abusive,
and no "study" is needed to probe what any rational,
sane person knows.

[Armor of Light]

Originally Posted by Buck Crosswhite

You raise crops, dogs, etc. You rear children. Look in a dictionary.

Attempt at a little joke to lighten the mood, friend. Not a comment on your verbiage.

[Poseidon]

Originally Posted by fix

Parents, by definition, are mother and father.

That is always understood as male and female.

This is known from right reason, experience, history,
and is simply self evident.

Suddenly substituting two same sex persons
is arbitrary, a form of moral violence, indecent, abusive,
and no "study" is needed to probe what any rational,
sane person knows.

Biological parents are male and female. That is certainly an undeniable fact. But I would submit to you that one's real parents are the ones who raise them, not necessarily the ones who submitted genetic material. So while a biological mother and father must be male and female, I see no reason that the people raising a child must be so.

If by your definition any "rational, sane person" knows that you're right then I'm obviously not rational and sane. In fact, a huge part of the world's population is then not rational and sane.

[Charlemagne II]

Poseidon

If by your definition any "rational, sane person" knows that you're right then I'm obviously not rational and sane. In fact, a huge part of the world's population is then not rational and sane.

It happens from time to time that a huge part of the world's population is not rational or sane. For examples, during the French Revolution, or the madness and mayhem of Nazi Germany, or the bloodbaths of the unborn since Roe v Wade. Insanity can be individual or collective. It has to be individual before it can become collective.

[Joe 5859]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Excerpt from “Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons”

“As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.”

Full document here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...unions_en.html

I just want to repost this quote as it pretty succinctly answers the OP's original question.

Where the misunderstanding comes in is because many people today don't recognize the distinction or value in both motherhood and fatherhood and the role that plays in a child's development. When we force-fit "equality" to basically mean "uniformity", then we are left with a more abstract notion of "parenthood" where two parents are preferential to one only because it lightens the workload. If we're just thinking in terms of "parenthood", then we're not going to understand why it matters whether a child has a mother and a father or two mothers or two fathers.

[gntlmnr]

Originally Posted by cradlecatholic5

So tired of this topic

I honestly don't blame you. It is a very complex subject to digest.

[Poseidon]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

Poseidon

If by your definition any "rational, sane person" knows that you're right then I'm obviously not rational and sane. In fact, a huge part of the world's population is then not rational and sane.

It happens from time to time that a huge part of the world's population is not rational or sane. For examples, during the French Revolution, or the madness and mayhem of Nazi Germany, or the bloodbaths of the unborn since Roe v Wade. Insanity can be individual or collective. It has to be individual before it can become collective.

While I agree that mass insanity has certainly happened, I don't agree that the current support for gay marriage is an example of it. All of the examples you put forth were wars, slaughters, and atrocities of that nature - not comparable at all to the current gay adoption debate.

Anyway, I assure you that I am both sane and rational.

[Poseidon]

I've been seeing the word "violence" thrown around a lot here in the context that somehow adoption by gay couples "does violence" to children.

According to dictionary.com, violence is defined as:
1.swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2.rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3.an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4.a violent act or proceeding.
5.rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

I fail to see how any of these definitions relate at all to the hypothetical damage the anti-gay adoption crowd says would happen to children.

[Seeker1961]

I actually understand the objection about adoption better than the objection to civil marriages for gay couples. A gay couple living together really only affects them and they have chosen it. when you add a child to the equation there is someone who has not chosen to be in that situation yet must deal with any consequences.

[Poseidon]

Originally Posted by Seeker1961

I actually understand the objection about adoption better than the objection to civil marriages for gay couples. A gay couple living together really only affects them and they have chosen it. when you add a child to the equation there is someone who has not chosen to be in that situation yet must deal with any consequences.

But you can say the exact same thing about a heterosexual family. I never asked to be born to the parents I have, but I have to deal with the consequences of their actions. Fortunately I was lucky enough to get good parents, but I know others who weren't so fortunate. They are now dealing with the consequences of their parents' actions. It doesn't matter that they are heterosexual, it matters that they have made bad decisions that affect their children. Gay or straight has no impact here.

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

But you can say the exact same thing about a heterosexual family. I never asked to be born to the parents I have, but I have to deal with the consequences of their actions. Fortunately I was lucky enough to get good parents, but I know others who weren't so fortunate. They are now dealing with the consequences of their parents' actions. It doesn't matter that they are heterosexual, it matters that they have made bad decisions that affect their children. Gay or straight has no impact here.

But an additional consequence they are not dealing with is the absence of the opposite gender parent, which has signficant impact on a person's development and ability to relate healthily to both sexes.

[Joe 5859]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

I've been seeing the word "violence" thrown around a lot here in the context that somehow adoption by gay couples "does violence" to children.

According to dictionary.com, violence is defined as:
1.swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2.rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3.an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4.a violent act or proceeding.
5.rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

I fail to see how any of these definitions relate at all to the hypothetical damage the anti-gay adoption crowd says would happen to children.

I don't know that I'd say that dictionary.com presents an exhaustive list of what can be meant by the word "violence". I've heard people use the phrase that an interpretation (of Scripture, for example) "does violence to the text." I don't know that any of those definitions would apply to that phrase either.

I would say #3 would be closest to the sense in which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith meant it. It is unjust and it violates the rights of the child to be formed in a stable family environment.