Is gay adoption better than being an orphan?

Is gay adoption better than leaving a child an orphan? If so, shouldn’t it therefore be legal? And if not, why not?

:popcorn:

If the gay couple were good loving responsible and decent people then definetly yes.

1 Like

Except for parts of Africa (where AIDS may have taken both mom and dad’s lives) and a few Eastern Europe countries, children available for adoption are rarely ORPHANS, which implies both parents are dead. And no, it’s not better! Children need a Mom AND a Dad.

Why is it always just about gay couples adopting? The Church also doesn’t approve of the idea of unmarried couples adopting or someone not in a relationship at all adopting.

So let me see if I heard you correctly. (cleans out ears) You honestly believe it’s worse to have two parents of the same sex than to have NO PARENTS at all?

I don’t think there’s any way to answer this.

There are wonderful orphanages, and Dickensian orphanages. There are loving gay households, and libertine gay households. There are beautiful traditional families, and abusive traditional families.

:shrug:

Why it is “always about gay couples adopting” is a question I can’t answer, but why The RCC does not approve adopting, in general, to gay couples or not married ones are pretty easy, even I can answer that. Adoption is the same as having a baby, and even if the baby is baptized and it is valid, The Church does not recognize a “marriage” between same sex people as a valid marriage and as such not a good thing for the baby, who after all, is the one all should focus on, and the rest is very straight forward, a child need to see the role models from both a man and a woman. That is so important. And a unmarried couple may not bee bad parents, and I want to say that gay-couples does not equal bad parents, it is just not good for the child to live with a same-sex family, but unmarried people tend to split up easier then a married one. Simple.

adding to the fact that having two gay parents is more likely to mess a child up sexually, emotionally, and even psychologically, I would say that yes, it is better to have no parents at all than to potentially have the rest of your life messed up by two gay parents. of course I cannot speak for myself since I was not adopted nor do I have two gay parents, HOWEVER I don’t have a father as he left when I was around 12 and I have some friends raised by gay parents and they have told me how they don’t feel they fit in, how their sexuality has been messed up because they don’t know what to do, how they wish they had two heterosexual parents… it doesn’t sound as glamorous and loving as the gay community would have us think…

I agree. It’s a loaded question.

OP, I would say that it would actually be better for the child to remain an orphan than be adopted by a gay or lesbian couple, because the very fact that that couple is homosexual is a clear indication that they have a deeply flawed understanding of a basic and critical part of human life: sexuality. I would not consider it good or safe in any way for a child to be exposed to their flawed understanding.

1 Like

Even if we ignore the increased risk of abuse, we can’t ignore the danger that a homosexual couple poses to a child’s soul. Such a couple is in a state of open, persistent, and grave immorality. Placing a child in such an environment is practically a spiritual death sentence.
Remember our Lord’s warning that “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)

There are wonderful orphanages, and Dickensian orphanages. There are loving gay households, and libertine gay households. There are beautiful traditional families, and abusive traditional families.

The problem with this line of thought is that it fails to recognize what any given environment is typically like. It fails to account for statistical data, or plain old common sense. Would you say that we should let known meth dealers adopt kids, since some of them would be better parents than some normal parents? Of course not, because, on average, the meth dealer will provide a significantly worse environment for the child. It’s the same situation with homosexual couples. In studies done using random sampling (as opposed to the self-selected samples homosexuality advocates usually rely on), homosexual couples produced objectively inferior environments to raise children in.

Is murdering someone after half an hour of torture better than murdering someome by a gun shot to the brain? Is shooting one single person better than a mass shooting?

The answer that you give to the above questions is the same answer to the OP’s question.

1 Like

It is the lesser of two evils in a way but it would be better fort he child to have a mother and father. FYI being gay isn’t bad it when practice that it becomes bad.

1 Like

Well…I guess it depends on how bad the dealer is…:smiley: of course I wouldn’t want that. But there’s a big difference between a criminal engaged in criminal activity, whose daily existence revolves around dangerous criminality, and a law-abiding homosexual. Immorality, in this case, isn’t illegal. We don’t like it, but we don’t practice Sharia, either.

** I’m not advocating on behalf of gay adoption. Far from it. I don’t want there to be gay adoption. I’m against gay adoption. Gay adoption is an alternative I eschew. I abhor gay adoption.
**

Be that as it may, what I’m saying is that it’s hard for me to delineate a black&white line here.

Having worked with many kids who were shuttled from foster home to foster home, i can tell you, without reservation that those kids would choose to be adopted by a straight couple, gay couple, or a single sex person of either gender. Having one loving parent is far superior than not having any love at all. Those who are lucky enough to be adopted by loving humans, certainly are not worried that their immortal soul is being poisoned by their close proximity to possible gay parents or parent. How ludicris to even suggest such a notion - its almost insulting to the children who are in need of a home.:cool:

1 Like

No Catholic person should ever, ever act on the lesser of two evils. Doing as such is a sin; they are choosing evil, no matter how small.

We are bound to give these children what they need, not what they want. To put them in a dangerous, sinful, poisonous situation just because they want it is not to do a work of mercy, but to intentionally and willingly put these children in danger of their souls.

If a child who is starving to death in a slum was rescued, and brought to a shelter, and asked constantly for chocolate, nothing but chocolate, would the child’s caretakers give him chocolate? Of course not. They know that chocolate does not have the necessary nutrition to keep a starving child alive, and they will NOT give the child what he wants, but what he needs.

So also with this.

What if a child *is *starving to death, and the people who save him are gay? Would it be better for that child to starve? Because in some of these circumstances, the children are literally starving.

I don’t understand the chocolate. What part of the “Gay Menu” is chocolate? In other words, what part of being adopted by gay people equates to eating all chocolate all the time?

1 Like

Being in an orphanage is not starving. It is not life or death. There is time to find the right family, and putting a child into a homosexual “family” is to endanger the child for all the reasons I said above.

You misunderstood the analogy and what it was in response to. The poster to which I was responding was making the emotional argument that we should not stop gay couples from adopting because it is an “insult” to the children who “are in need of a home.”

The problem isn’t the children’s want to have a family, any family (which, by the way, may not be the case; for all we know children do not want to be adopted by homosexual couples), the problem is that we should put these children in the best possible place when they are adopted.

Why not broaden the question to ask why are there any moral standards at all with adopting a kid out? Why not just give them to whomever comes along with no questions asked? I’m not for doing this, I’m just making a point.

“Placing a child in the care of two men or two women may be well-intentioned, but ultimately deprives the child of that which best serves his or her interests – a mother and a father.”
–USCCB document

Source. usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm

Actually, I would call it a form of child abuse.

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