Archbishop Gomez Says Marriage Debate Ignores Children's Needs

Archbishop José H. Gomez has said that the debate about marriage ignores both the needs of children and the “human ecology” of civilization, and instead wrongly focuses on the desires of adults.


“In fact, it is children who will be the subjects of “social experiments” and will bear the consequences of new definitions for marriage, parents and family, Archbishop Gomez noted.
But children have the right to grow up with a mother and a father and a right “to be born in a family founded on marriage,” he wrote, …”

Children have become the pawns of the sexual revolution and the “me” society, first with no-fault divorce, then with abortion, and now with homosexual marriage.

I know several lesbian couples who adopted abandoned children from China orphanges, so it’s hard for me to relate to the above comment. The children were rescued and grow up without any need in loving warm homes. They are all well mannered, well educated children. If they were still in China, they would have already been on the streets “working” as prostitutes. So, I find the above statement to be untrue. It also ignores the fact that parents don’t have to be gay for them to be selfish and narcistic. Straight couples can look out for their own needs, and ignore the needs of their children just as well. Again, as always, it depends on the parent.

Herein lies the problem with this sort of argument.

When the Church uses theology and Church teaching, based on the word of God and revelations of the Holy Spirit to defend its position, detractors ask for real-world, statistical examples to support that position.

When the Church looks to the real world to supports its teachings, detractors point to anecdotes or flaws in the examples to support their position, when at the end of the day, real world and societal examples are irrelevant to God’s will and the Church’s teachings, and lead us back to step 1.

Real life experiences actually mold our views. Again, it’s difficult to relate to the original post when real life experiences paint a completely different picture. A child is not better off on the streets. A child is better off in a loving home. It would be very difficult to convince me that the opposite is true. And I’m betting I’m not alone… it’s not rocket science: a child is better off in a home surrounded by those who love the child, not on the streets. A child has better chances when his/her needs are provided for, than a child living on the streets.

Hello, Rence. :slight_smile:

It is an altruistic gesture to adopt an endangered child from a Third World country. And you talk about “love” for the child, and on one level that is obviously true. However, the child is also being brought into a restricted household when it comes to gender, because children relate to primary figures in their lives, not secondary figures unless those are daily figures which loom large in their lives (a grandfather figure who lives with the child, etc.) Children form their essential self-concept from primary figures, so the act of adopting such a child is both an opportunity and a restriction, a restriction which would not be present in a dual-gender home.

And just be careful of idealizing same-sex couples. There’s plenty of selfishness (on the extreme hand) and mere absence of altruism (on the moderate end) in both dual-gender and single-gender couples. Both these categories prefer Designer Babies to adoption, when such couples of both categories cannot conceive naturally. That is the Default Choice nowadays. Homosexuals use utilitarian, detached intercourse with the opposite sex to create babies, as well as AID, IVF, sperm banks, surrogacy, yadayada. Heterosexuals use all of that, save (usually!) adulterous utilitarian intercourse.

Is it “better” to bring an endangered child into a SS household than “leave them” to their apparent fate? The question should be, rather, What other alternatives should the First World be seeking for such children?

Exactly. Everyone is getting caught up in the “rights” of same sex couples, presumably the right to adopt children. What happened to the right of a child to be raised in what should be a natural environment?

Michael Voris makes good points to support yours. :thumbsup:–Fo&feature=relmfu

I appreciate your difficulty. I met a lesbian couple in Disneyland years ago who were raising a brother and sister from a severely physically abusive home. Which is better? Severely abusive home or upscale, lesbian couple? Obviously, the latter. However, that argument is a false dilemma. The dilemma being considered is heterosexual parents versus homosexual parents.

I could make the same argument you made by changing lesbian parents for well-maintained mental institution (“If they were still in China, they would have already been on the streets ‘working’ as prostitutes”), but I don’t think you would then conclude that a well-maintained mental institution is just as good as a loving, mom and dad, would you?

Bottom line, the ends don’t justify the means. Society should encourage, support and sponsor the ideal, not the exception.

No, I wouldn’t, and that’s my point. The fact of the matter is, these same-sex couples are providing good loving homes to children.

Love in the human sense or love in the Godly sense. They cannot provide the appropriate kind of love that God demands of parents.

Can you give an example this?

The ends don’t justify the means, my friend. The Archbishop is correct in his assessment, and the exceptions you put up as a false dilemma don’t refute the Church’s position on Marriage and adoption.

I disagree with you.
For one thing, parents are NOT interchangeable. Mothers and fathers are different parents and thus have different parenting styles.

But 2 parents are preferable to one or zero parents, are they not?

Everything involved with this administration destroys the nuclear family, the very basis of Western civilization.

See the “Are You Mom Enough” Time cover.

The cover is the new American family: The mom is Obama’s “Julia”, the new woman who needs no parents of her own, or husband for support. She’s married to the government.

Her “child” in the Time cover is the offspring of the mom-married-to-government union: an infantilized, totally dependent male. Notice he’s wearing camoflage pants?

The message is pretty clear, and worrisome.

Please elaborate.

Hi :slight_smile:

But that’s true of any home, especially since the divorce rate is so high.

It’s not that I idealize same-sex couples, at all. A child growing up with same-sex parents isn’t all that much different than growing up with traditional parents who very likely will be separated, divorced or fighting like they were living in a warzone. Over half of marriages end in divorce. So to me, the environment is no more or less stable depending on the parent’s sexual orientation. As to the above mentioning of IVF, sperm banks, surrogacy…all that happens with hetero couples too.

The problem is, the solutions are not there for these children. They will either be adopted out, or when they reach a certain age, they will hit the streets. That’s the reality of it. Finding a solution to take care of all those children would take a unified effort that doesn’t exist at this time.

Not two same sex people acting as mother and father.

Ahh, the new same sex marriage raison d’être: “It’s for the childrens!!!”

As Archbishop Gomez points out:

Many modern debates, Archbishop Gomez observed, are “focused only on adults and their desires for relationships.”

The child-centered culture of the past has no been replaced with “a radical individualism that defines sexual freedom as the source of real happiness,” he said.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit