It has been my lifelong belief, that with VERY FEW exceptions, adoption should be reserved for married couples who cannot have children on their own. All of these other groups are fully capable of having children through normal means, yet they are selfishly denying those who cannot do so.
Ping.
Homosexual agenda ping.
Let me know if you need me to keep pinging.
Well, it's pretty safe to say that the leftists will not permit such a thing and they'll probably get their panties into a wad for the Cardinal daring to imply that favoring normal families is an act of conscience.
There is another solution, of course, just stop placing children in any nation where they'll be forced to place them in the hands of sexual degenerates. Ship them all to foreign counties and to God-loving parents.
Why should a married couple who can have children be denied the priviledge of of adopting a child? Can't they do both?
Can we just cut the crap. Be precise, it's lesbian couples. Most homosexual men are too busy in bath houses. The misandrist lesbians want to assert control over the rearing of children. They want total control.
So, what's new about this? U.S. pubic schools have been experimenting for decades.
H.E. Keith Michael Patrick Card. O'BRIEN
I think that H.E. stands for His Eminence, but a Catholic Freeper would have to confirm that.
Now, seriously, when was the last time any of these PC types ever had a conversation on-the-level about this subject with the principle of the child's welfare uppermost in mind?
IMHO I agree with you and would add the codicil that children who can't find married couples willing to parent them really are wards of the government, or of the philanthropic society.
Do you recall how, just about the time this subject came up, that someone ran a press campaign (articles, book, movie rights, etc.) about the horrors of church-run social agencies in Ireland in the 1940's? Remember that one? That wouldn't have been a gay attack on the RCC and its homes for wayward girls, would it? And on the whole idea of pastoral social care in general?
Comments, please.
I imagine there'd be many who would oppose an exemption for Catholic agencies and would be glad to see them get out of the adoption business.
At some point, the Church is going to have to stop taking money, getting tax breaks and funding social welfare activities. Sad but true. The true meaning of the separation of church and state is the recognition that money and politics corrupts the religious. It is not to keep religious speech out of the public square. Take your kids out of public schools. sigh.
Much rather they would be forced to break the illegitimate law by NOT placing children with homosexuals playing house.
- Third World Meeting of Families: Conclusions of the Pastoral Theological Congress
Mention should also be made of recent attempts to legalize adoptions by homosexual persons, and this must be strongly rejected. It is obvious that this is not the situation for authentic up-bringing and personalizing growth. “The bond between two men or two women cannot constitute a real family, nor much less can the right be attributed to a union of this kind to adopt children without a family”. With regard to foster care and adoption, the great principle to be applied is always the child’s higher interests which much prevail over other considerations.
- Fourth World Meeting of Families: Conclusions of the Pastoral Theological Congress
We reaffirm the rights and dignity of all children. They should never be neglected and abandoned on the streets. They should be protected, especially when threatened by exploitation through prostitution, pornography, child-labor, drug trafficking, homosexual adoption and immoral "sex education". A new threat to children is posed by the misuse of the Internet, when this intrudes into family life and undermines the rights and duties of parents.Children are the "crown of marriage", the real wealth of humanity. The natural place for their education is the family. It is here, in the community of life and love, that they are formed as members of Christ's Church. It is here that, honoring and loving their parents, they can enrich the lives of all members of the wider family.
- Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons
4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
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.
Homosexual agenda ping.
Also, more unwed mother's who cannot properly care for their children, should considering giving them up for adoption. But in the current moral climate, they won't.
Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children
Review of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?
Where Children Have No Voice: The 'Right' of Adoption by Homosexual Partners
Dangers of Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children (Part 1)
Dangers of Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children (Part 2)
Children and homosexual adoption
Homosexual adoption
Trophy children
What about married couples who want to lovingly open their homes and hearts to these children? I have been seriously considering adopting an older child (there is no shortage of people looking to adopt infants). I won't do this until I am married (to a likeminded person), but I don't understand what is selfish or immoral about a couple bringing children into their home who would otherwise languish in foster care.
I've always regarded it as beautiful and special, and I don't really think infertile couples should have a monopoly on loving these children. It certainly doesn't hurt the children, unlike homosexual and to a certain extent, single parent adoptions.
How sad.
Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.