The state of Illois is at an impasse wh some fah-based agenci that provi adoptn and foster re servic wh public funds. Now that civil unns are legal Illois, one Catholic Chari agency has dropped s adoptn service altogether rather than place children wh gay upl.
Contents:
- USCCB DID NOT CHANGE POLICY ON GAY ADOPTION
- CHURCH’S POSN ON GAY ADOPTN REMAS FIRM, ASSERTS ARCHDCE
- SUPREME COURT BACKS CATHOLIC AGENCY CASE ON GAY RIGHTS AND FOSTER CARE
- GAY ADOPTION
- GAY ADOPTN IN ILLOIS: CATHOLIC CHARI THREATENS TO TURN AWAY GAY COUPL
- ILLOIS, CATHOLIC AGENCI AT ODDS OVER GAY ADOPTNS
USCCB DID NOT CHANGE POLICY ON GAY ADOPTION
However, to receive this gift, we mt reject s, cludg homosexual behavr—that is, acts tend to aroe or stimulate a sexual rponse regardg a person of the same sex.
People tempted by homosexual sir, like people tempted by improper heterosexual sir, are not sng until they act upon those sir some manner. Durg the night, the men of Sodom mand that Lot hand over his guts for homosexual terurse.
Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have regnized that one of the chief ss volved God’s stctn of Sodom was s people’s homosexual behavr. But today, certa homosexual activists promote the ia that the s of Sodom was merely a lack of hospaly. Although hospaly is a s, is clearly the homosexual behavr of the Sodom that is sgled out for special cricism the acunt of their cy’s stctn.
CHURCH’S POSN ON GAY ADOPTN REMAS FIRM, ASSERTS ARCHDCE
Lot even offered his two virg dghters place of his guts, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferrg homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. To disunt this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperativ om the Old Ttament n be dismissed sce there were certa ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eatg pork, or circumcisg male babi—that are no longer bdg.
SUPREME COURT BACKS CATHOLIC AGENCY CASE ON GAY RIGHTS AND FOSTER CARE
Confirmg this fact is the New Ttament’s forceful rejectn of homosexual behavr as well.
In Romans 1, Pl attribut the homosexual sir of some to a refal to acknowledge and worship God. Elsewhere Pl aga warns that homosexual behavr is one of the ss that will prive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not her the kgdom of God? Do not be ceived: Neher the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostut nor homosexual offenrs nor thiev nor the greedy nor dnkards nor slanrers nor swdlers will her the kgdom of God” (1 Cor.
Th, people have the rrpondg tun ncerng homosexualy that they do about btialy—that is wrong bee is unnatural. Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their ndn, but that they were born that way, makg homosexual behavr natural for them. Jt as one n acquire alholic sir (by repeatedly beg toxited) whout nscly choosg them, so one may acquire homosexual sir (by engagg homosexual fantasi or behavr) whout nscly choosg them.
GAY ADOPTION
Even if there is a geic predisposn toward homosexualy (and studi on this pot are nclive), the behavr remas unnatural bee homosexualy is still not part of the natural sign of humany. Homosexual activists often jtify homosexualy by claimg that ten percent of the populatn is homosexual, meang that is a mon and th acceptable behavr. But not all mon behavrs are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the populatn were born homosexual, this would prove nothg.
GAY ADOPTN IN ILLOIS: CATHOLIC CHARI THREATENS TO TURN AWAY GAY COUPL
If those sir manift themselv a homosexual fashn ten percent of the populatn, all that do is give rmatn about the mographics of origal s. Furthermore, the ten percent figure clus people who are not exclively homosexual but who only engaged some homosexual behavr for a perd of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual “phase” but who were not long-term homosexuals.
ILLOIS, CATHOLIC AGENCI AT ODDS OVER GAY ADOPTNS
Recent and more scientifilly accurate studi have shown that only around one to two percent of the populatn is homosexual.
Those opposed to homosexual behavr are often charged wh “homophobia”—that they hold the posn they do bee they are “aaid” of homosexuals. Sometim the charge is even ma that the same people are perhaps homosexuals themselv and are overpensatg to hi this fact, even om themselv, by nmng other homosexuals.
Like siar attempts to avoid ratnal discsn of an issue, the homophobia argument pletely miss the pot. Even if a person were aaid of homosexuals, that would not dimish his arguments agast their behavr. The vast majory of those who oppose homosexual behavr are no way “aaid” of homosexuals.