Posted on 06/24/2002 7:24:13 AM PDT by Artist
They can do that partially, but not completely, since they obviously reject Catholic teaching on sexual matters.
I would venture to guess that not a single catholic family in America does so "completely".
Putting aside the question of whether homosexuals should be raising children, even if that is presumed in the affirmative, it is absurd for these guys to be claiming to be "devout" Catholics.
There are about 30,000 other Christian demoninations available to them, many of which embrace homosexuality. But, as long as they claim to be Catholics, they have certain responsibilities to at least try, which is all any of us can do, to live according to our Faith.
One can be either a practicing homosexual, or you are Catholic, but not both. Celibacy is the prescribed Catholic state for those with a homosexual inclination.
Well, that's what I was saying they were confused about, so apparently we agree. :-)
The same thing that's been said about children of interracial parents for decades now... and just as empty. If your kid picks on these kids because of their parents, there's a problem with your kid.
I have three interracial friends. All three have always been very well adjusted, well accepted by peers, and have done very well in life. I'll let that speak for itself. I'm sure the anti-gay prognosticating is equally invalid.
They're homosexuals for one. They used a surrogate mother for two. They want to adopt a child into a disordered relationship for three. All of these actions are disordered and intrinsically evil.
Basically, their lives are a mess. And their children's lives will be a mess.
I don't know whether they're sinners or not, since their guilt depends upon their understanding of the nature of their actions. Nevertheless, it is the resposibility of the rest of society to prevent such adoptions.
Normally, the biological mother should get custody. Since she doesn't want her child, the child would normally go to the father. But since the father wants to raise the children with his homosexual friend, the government should take the children away from the father and give them to a normal family.
Maybe they should have bought a pair of gerbils. They're cuddly, playful, and just fun to have around.
I rather think that brother Aquinas would prefer the maxim of doing nothing, if such confusion exists. That is the first principle when considering the typical abortion. If you do nothing, what is the result? The result is a baby. A human being.
Primun non nocere. First, do no harm.
These guys are selfish. They could have adopted any number of disabled, unfortunate, unwanted children, but no, they have to be showboats for the gay cause, no matter what they say about not wanting publicity. You don't give high-profile interviews with newspapers if you're not after publicity.
It's all about them, don't doubt it...
Flames will be ignored.
That's the Church's position. Granted, it's very doubtful that these guys don't know what the Church teaches regarding homosexuality and surrogate motherhood, but we can't know their thoughts with certainty.
I'd come to the same conclusion if I saw a dog humping the leg of a chair. The dog and the chair can not have sex, even if the dog gets some pleasure from humping the leg of the chair. The dog and the chair can not have children but I am sure some activist will come along and say that there is nothing wrong with a dog and chair wanting to raise puppies.
A homosexual or lesbian who thinks that they are going to get what their humanity needs, body and soul, from sex with someone of the same sex is fooling themselves. They can no more get what they need from a homosexual relationship than they could get nourishment by shoving beans in their ear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.