No more than I think shacking up is an “alternative family environment”, or I think having a string of irresponsible boyfriends is an “alternative family environment”.
My answer would be that, legally, I would have no problem – so long as there was a careful vetting process, like for any other adoptive parent. However, I 100% support the right of any organization to refuse to process such adoptions, and I would probably refuse myself to be process one.
When the State steps in and demands Catholic adoption agencies to include gay couples the result is those agencies close.
No one allows a couple to cohabitate or to have sex. The Church and the State do not decide when anyone has sex, ONLY they do. Regardless of the circumstances, if the mother, and hopefully, the father, allows the child to be born is the issue. Private sexual activity is private regardless of it was a one-night stand followed by pregnancy, visits from a boyfriend or girlfriend, a cohabitating couple, and so on. No one except the parties involved are there and allowing them to engage in sexual activity. Society - meaning parents - did everything they could in the late 1960s and early 1970s when so-called “alternative lifestyles” were heavily marketed along with The Pill, to tell their kids: “If you love the girl, why don’t you get married?” The response was: “We got freedom, dad. We’ll live how we want.” The birth control pill was presented as a false freedom. It planted the idea that babies were to be feared, The Pill gave you “Freedom from Fear.” And self-control? That no longer mattered? Self-discipline was no longer taught? “We’re free, man. Have lotsa sex! Porn is good.” Oh yeah, that sent lives going downhill fast.
No one asks me for my permission to do anything. I don’t tell strangers they’re allowed to do anything.
Child Protective Services can and does take children away from unfit parents and situations where the child is clearly being abused. “Society,” meaning the average person, relies on these services, including the police, to handle these situations. Everything is handled on a case by case basis. No blanket statements can be made. The Catholic Church teaches that being raised by same-sex parents does harm to the child. Sure, laws can be passed but Catholic adoption agencies have closed due to State efforts.
It follows logically that because society holds that SSM is marriage and an equally good means of family formation, vetting of couples can place no preference on parents being mother+father vs say father+father. Now, I find that madness, but no more mad than the decisions about marriage and family formation that gave rise to it.
quote… “but no more mad than the decisions about marriage and family formation that gave rise to it.” end quote
Please explain how one thing gave rise to another.
I agree that that is madness. But I’m not sure what you think it follows from, in my statements.
Ignoring the parental mix does not follow (a society reasons it) from your statements, but from society’s conclusion that 2 men (say) can marry, and that such is an equally valid means of family formation.
Two men cannot marry the same as one man and one woman. It is a legal fiction that is followed by ‘my family is a family just like yours.’ It can’t be. To grow up with two fathers who are, by legal fiat, married is not helpful for the child who later may, or may not, realize that the couple who raised him is not the equivalent of heterosexual parents, since these men are the product of male and female complementary.
But law-making bodies in various countries are falling to a “we want all the rights and benefits of marriage including a legal recognition that we are married as much as a man and woman are married.” That is illogical. Period. Just because something is made legal does not mean it’s right. And, as such, society, which is not a monolith, will protest such laws.
And society, especially those who disagree, will continue to be the subjects of a propaganda campaign that will continue and continue, and for those not paying attention, convince a few more members of society that something redefined is somehow the same as the actual article. God always leaves a faithful remnant in the midst of any social change caused by special interest groups working in concert on a global scale. So, in this case, I dissent.
As well it becomes a demonic ritual and Satan presides, as it is a mockery of God’s Sacrament, and the names “registered” in that unholy place for eternity. The vincible ignorant parties present are also noted for the influence their presence provides to the weak.
Shouldn’t we give heterosexual couples priority? so that as a far as possible that child has as close to what they unfortunately lost? Did you have a mum and dad?
God Bless You
Thank you for reading.
This seems like a very good position, and I hope that it can get more traction in secular circles.
Sure seems like you are doing your darndest to impose your atheist beliefs on others.
By suggesting that you shouldn’t be imposing your religious beliefs on others? Because that’s what “freedom of religion” seems to be around here; a bunch of angry conservative Christians that believe if society doesn’t toe their particular line, then somehow their religious freedom has been compromised.
I’ve already made it clear I think that cake bakers and sign makers and similar people should be protected from having to produce works that violate their religious consciences. But the idea that some shrinking minority of people should somehow retain the right to impose their view of what constitutes a civil marriage on everyone else, well, that’s too far for me.
Well, if they are “shrinking” as you say, then their power to vote their own conscience (and not yours) should not be much of a threat. Freedom of religion is the freedom to form your own conscience and vote accordingly. You get to vote your conscience, and I get to vote mine. If they conflict then, well, that is call democracy in action. Why is this a threat to you other than an inability to use overused cliches?
And what is it exactly you want to vote on? To remove the civil marital status from same sex partners that have been existence for a few years now? And would you really accept it if that failed?
But honestly, the idea of civil liberties being decided by a vote is pretty frightening. Catholics in the English-speaking world should be mindful of this, considering there was a time when English Catholics were penalized in England, all by votes in Parliament.
All civil liberties are decided by vote, otherwise they would be called Constitutional rights. Marriage being a civil right, is therefore, very much subject to vote. We get to vote for other behaviors we deem deviant and we do not give them a free pass. The whole criminal code is about behaviors that the people have voted on that they find unacceptable.
As for your example of Catholics in England, well, that is precisely why we have a Constitutional right to free exercise of religion and not merely a civil right subject to popular will. When there is a threat that 2/3 of the states will agree to amend the Constitution to eliminate the 1st Amendment, then I will start to get concerned.
The idea of them being decided by judicial fiat is worse. I can absolutely understand the claim that same-sex marriage should be legal. But I cannot understand a court of nine judges declaring that same-sex marriage has ALWAYS BEEN legal in America, according to the Constitution. Whatever your view on same-sex marriage, doesn’t the PROCEDURE there strike you as suspect?
Then review the US Constitution if you’re confused.
Can you show me where, in the US Constitution, it says that I have a right to marry a man?