Quote# 115327

I feel like God wants us to have a big loving family, and my wife and I feel called to have many more children, so naturally we turned to adoption. Unfortunately, many of the Houston area Christian adoption agencies aren't accepting any new parents, or aren't having informationals( the first step) for a year or so. There is one great agency, who claims to be Christian, but they allow same sex couples and single parents to adopt children. They are able to get us started immediately, but I have been postponing as I think giving a child to a same-sex couple is morally evil, and the Adoption agency is the prime agent of the moral evil. Would I be materially cooperating with evil by adopting a child from here?

No! On the contrary; you would be rescuing a child who would otherwise be denied a family life with both a mother and a father. Get to it!

Flambeau,Fr. Vincent Serpa., catholic forums answer 21 Comments [12/16/2015 4:02:38 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: mary

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Mayasmom

It's great that you want to adopt kids but the sexes of the parents shouldn't matter as long as they're going to a loving, stable home. The needs of the kids trumps your preferences over what a family should look like.

12/16/2015 4:09:28 PM

Kanna

A kid with two parents, sex immaterial, is better off than a kid who has no one. I understand you want to adopt, but somehow think that you have been given the right to determine the suitability of other adoptions, based upon the sex relationship of the adoptive parents. I beg you, please, PLEASE don't adopt a child if you want to feed him the poison of hate. Homophobia is a terrible disease to transmit to a child.

12/16/2015 4:42:16 PM

Creativerealms

The longer you postpone the more children are adopted by same sex couples.

12/16/2015 7:43:09 PM

Anti-FSTDT

"The needs of the kids trumps your preferences over what a family should look like."

The NEEDS of the kid include a biological family with a mother and father figure, especially since girls and boys need to both have a role model of their own sex so they develop into women and men easier. The idea that genders are entirely interchangeable and superficial is foolish at best, a utopian expectation. Biological parents are also far more likely to actually care for their children and less likely to abuse them. If you don't believe me, you can watch the news of strangers dying all the time and tell me if you lost any sleep over it. You will probably be disturbed, but let's face it, unless it's your own flesh and blood dying, you won't lose sleep over it.

When that biological family becomes an impossibility due to deaths, prison sentences, abuse etc. it makes sense that the foster parents will mimic a functional biological family as much as possible, that includes 1 man, 1 woman, married.

It is not homophobic to prefer straight couples in adoptions cases over gay couples, just as it is not "singlephobic" to prefer straight couples to single people trying to adopt. (And I'm a single person saying that, but I guess I just hate myself or something, what foolishness.) That's not to say single people and gay couples should be entirely excluded, but their whims are not necessarily what's best for the child. If you want to claim an unalienable right to be a parent, make your own children. You are not however automatically entitled to other people's children. The state is the temporary guardian until a suitable home is found.

12/16/2015 8:23:27 PM

Phil O'Macedon

It's morally evil to give an orphan to a couple of mutually committed adults who want to raise a child? I had an upbringing with a mother and father. The last years of their marriage was a slow motion train wreck. Judge not lest ye be judged.

12/16/2015 8:24:28 PM

Mayasmom

@Anti-FSTDT

My comment was for adopted kids in particular.
Unfortunately not all biological parents are better. My older brothers' dad cheated on my mom, leading to a divorce. He didn't pay child support as well, leading my mom to raise my brother for 11 years before she met dad. My dad drank a lot till I was 13 when he got put in jail for domestic violence. He got better, I'm glad to say but there are some who don't. Some adults who were on drugs or drank too much too often and abused their own kids. Some even killed their own kids.
If your assertion that people are better to their biological children is true then it's definitely better to try and get foster kids adopted. American foster kids as they get older are less likely to be adopted, especially as they grew into their teens. Being cared for by a family then sent to another home is not going to produce a well rounded and productive adult. So the more people willing to adopt, the better as long as they are a loving and stable home.
If the only problem is they're a gay couple, then yes, it is homophobic.

12/16/2015 9:40:15 PM

Thinking Allowed

I see the resident troll now has help in the guise of Anti-FSTDT

Anti-FSTDT

"The needs of the kids trumps your preferences over what a family should look like."

The NEEDS of the kid include a biological family with a mother and father figure, especially since girls and boys need to both have a role model of their own sex so they develop into women and men easier.


There is no research to back up your claim. Please try again.

The idea that genders are entirely interchangeable and superficial is foolish at best, a utopian expectation.

That's not how gender or same sex attraction works.

Biological parents are also far more likely to actually care for their children and less likely to abuse them.

If that was the case with all biological parents, there wouldn't be a need for adoption agencies, foster care, or child protective services.

If you don't believe me, you can watch the news of strangers dying all the time and tell me if you lost any sleep over it.

What?

You will probably be disturbed, but let's face it, unless it's your own flesh and blood dying, you won't lose sleep over it.

I can see that easily being applies to you troll, but not to the entirety of humanity

When that biological family becomes an impossibility due to deaths, prison sentences, abuse etc. it makes sense that the foster parents will mimic a functional biological family as much as possible, that includes 1 man, 1 woman, married.

Again, there is no research that you are correct. In fact, the research out there says the opposite.

It is not homophobic to prefer straight couples in adoptions cases over gay couples, just as it is not "singlephobic" to prefer straight couples to single people trying to adopt. (And I'm a single person saying that, but I guess I just hate myself or something, what foolishness.)

I say you're foolish, but not in the way you think.

That's not to say single people and gay couples should be entirely excluded, but their whims are not necessarily what's best for the child.

But you're single and have no clue what is best for a child. You even said that yourself.

If you want to claim an unalienable right to be a parent, make your own children. You are not however automatically entitled to other people's children.

Ok Jerry Jr., I have news for you. I was never able to have children. Does that mean I deserve not to adopt? Does that also limit infertile couples to adopt children because they can't make their own. If you say no, then you sir are a complete and utter doucheknocker and a hypocrite.

The state is the temporary guardian until a suitable home is found.

Which can easily be found not only among heterosexual married couples, but same sex couples and single people.


12/16/2015 9:41:56 PM

Anon-e-moose

@Aunty-FSTDT

Josh Buggar. How he - and a right-wing fundamentalist Christain, at that - went critical mass.

The so-called 'Nuclear' Family is now as toxic as Chernobyl, it has to be replaced by the Fusion Family, or even the Antimatter Family.

Sir Elton John, David Furnish, and their two sons. Q.E. and D.

12/16/2015 11:51:42 PM

Doubting Thomas

one great agency, who claims to be Christian, but they allow same sex couples and single parents to adopt children.

I don't see anything in the bible against it. One of these days you people are going to have to learn that "Christian" doesn't mean "judgmental assholes like me."

12/17/2015 7:20:11 AM



So, you are not adopting a child, just in case other people you don't agree with get one? I don't get it

12/17/2015 8:08:16 AM

Swede

It's evil to give a child parents?
A loving family is morally evil?
Rape, incest, child molestations are morally evil in my book..

Children in contact with adoptive agencies have already been denied a family life with both a mother and a father, and most live in orphanages. A family life with two mothers or two fathers beats living in an orphanage.

12/17/2015 8:19:43 AM

Oxymoron's Razor

@Anti-FSTDT

<The NEEDS of the kid include a biological family with a mother and father figure,>

Biological family is *preferable* and only if it serves the best interests of the child. It is not a need, as evidenced by families with single parents or non-biological parents where the child turns out perfectly fine.

<The idea that genders are entirely interchangeable and superficial is foolish at best,>

You've never met someone who identifies as gender-fluid, have you?

<Biological parents are also far more likely to actually care for their children and less likely to abuse them. If you don't believe me, you can watch the news of strangers dying all the time and tell me if you lost any sleep over it. You will probably be disturbed, but let's face it, unless it's your own flesh and blood dying, you won't lose sleep over it.>

Fun fact: The majority of homicides are committed by someone familiar to the victim, as opposed to complete strangers. Most of the perpetrators are, in fact, family members.

<It is not homophobic to prefer straight couples in adoptions cases over gay couples, just as it is not "singlephobic" to prefer straight couples to single people trying to adopt.>

That one really depends on you reason for preferring straight couples. If they're better able to provide and care for the child, the no, it is not homophobic or "singlephobic", whatever that means. If your sole reason for choosing straight over gay couples is because they're gay, then yes, it *is* homophobic. AFAIK, singles are less likely to be chosen, specifically because it's more difficult for one person alone to both provide financially and be there to care for the child, so it's purely about capability there.

The rest of this has already been discussed by others here, so I'll leave it there.

12/17/2015 8:57:52 AM

Dizzy Dripping

Anti-FSTDT

"The NEEDS of the kid include a biological family with a mother and father figure, especially since girls and boys need to both have a role model of their own sex so they develop into women and men easier."

Nobody told my paternal uncle, who was raised by a single mother. Nobody told by brother, who spent a good portion of his childhood only being raised by his mother. Said uncle has a wife, kids and grandkids. Said brother has a girlfriend, a decent paying job and has a lot of popularity- despite not having a good male role model in the form of his biological father.

"Biological parents are also far more likely to actually care for their children and less likely to abuse them"

You need to look at the news a lot more if you believe this.

"When that biological family becomes an impossibility due to deaths, prison sentences, abuse etc. it makes sense that the foster parents will mimic a functional biological family as much as possible, that includes 1 man, 1 woman, married."

Kids are not that stupid. They can easily tell the difference between their biological parents and their foster parents, even if it is a husband/wife team.
In the case of abuse- why would they want to be with someone like their parents? Their parents abus
In the case of one parent dying or being put in prison, the other will actually maintain custody of their children unless the family has severe problems.

Being a man does not make you more of a disciplinarian or a better breadwinner.

Being a woman does not make you more nurturing or a better housekeeper.

12/17/2015 9:19:28 AM

Some Christian Anon

While I find the reason for you encouraging the adoption vile, at least you are trying to give them homes. Better than some other individuals, and for that, I'll give you some credit.

12/17/2015 10:15:14 AM

Da Rat Bastid

(Anon-e-moose)
"The so-called 'Nuclear' Family is now as toxic as Chernobyl, it has to be replaced..."


Not quite. While trolls like "anti-FSTDT" are, of course, talking out of their respective rectal cavities when they proclaim that "husband + wife + their (and only their) child(ren)" is the sole valid family model, it still is a valid family model, no less so than same-sex parents and unmarried opposite-sex parents.

12/17/2015 10:38:16 AM

nazani14

Don't you think the adoption agency is aware of your homophobia and your "claims to be Christian" slam? I hope you're on their NO list.

12/17/2015 10:50:53 AM

John

So what are you saying? You're not going to adopt a child because the agency allows same-sex couples to adopt? If you don't want same-sex couples adopting a child, adopt it yourself. How hard is that? If everybody used your ridiculous logic, the only people available to adopt children would be same-sex couples. Is that what you want?

12/17/2015 11:10:56 AM

Alencon

And I think allowing fundamentalist Christians to adapt a child is morally evil.

12/17/2015 11:34:42 AM

Elie

@Anti-FSTDT

That's a gross and unsupported generalization. If a child's biological family was always the best choice for them, the foster system would only ever take in orphans. However we know that a huge number of children in government care right now were taken from irredeemably broken homes, and that all of them were born to a union of two heterosexual people who couldn't or wouldn't take care of them.

The only criteria that should matter are: is that person/couple able and willing to provide the child with a stable and nurturing environment? While the standard nuclear family is a valid model, some single parents may be able to raise their adopted child better than the majority of heterosexual couples, and the same goes for homosexual couples.
Hell, heterosexual couples looking to adopt should by default be better able to raise a child than a huge number of other heterosexual couples, simply because they go through a vetting process for adoptions, whereas nobody checks your parenting credentials before allowing you to blow your wad into your wife.

12/17/2015 11:49:38 AM

Old Viking

Anti-FSTDT's rule is, always make foolish assertions in a confident tone.

12/17/2015 4:43:32 PM

Anon-e-moose

@Da Rat Bastid

Merely using the analogy of Obsolescence when it comes to unjustifiable attitudes. Josh Buggar said the same thing as the OP. Buggargate. Buggargate II: Electric Buggarloo. Buggargate III: Revenge of the Sin.

What those at the Joint European Torus are doing. And mayhaps in the future we'll see experiments culminating in what powers the likes of the USS Enterprise, and what is the basis of that power system.

Because if the likes of Josh Buggar represents what the fundies say should be 'Normal', then the likes of Sir Elton John & David Furnish represent the future, and the fundies' thinking should be consigned to the Dark Ages.

I always have an LED torch on my keyring, just in case of a power cut. Do people still use oil lamps in modern 21st Century society, o fundies? Because if your answer is the only one possible, then why are you using computers? [/Quantum Mechanic]

Oil was made obsolete by Coal. Coal was made obsolete by Fission. Fission will be replaced by Fusion.

Times change. Technologies change. Attitudes must change. Otherwise, go and live like the Amish, o fundies.

12/17/2015 8:37:27 PM

1 | top: comments page