Children of same sex couples

Gael23

I know the church is wholeheartedly opposed to same sex marriage but has it taken a position on children children raised by a same sex couple? Will they be given sacraments the same as any other child?

ted1

Gael23 wrote: »

I know the church is wholeheartedly opposed to same sex marriage but has it taken a position on children children raised by a same sex couple? Will they be given sacraments the same as any other child?

It wouldn’t be very Christian to exclude them.

Gael23

ted1 wrote: »

It wouldn’t be very Christian to exclude them.

That’s true I suppose. But then their families haven’t been upholding Christian values

Mancomb Seepgood

Gael23 wrote: »

That’s true I suppose. But then their families haven’t been upholding Christian values

It varies from church to church.Much depends on how the church in question views same-sex marriage/unions,but more important is the theology of baptism that the church holds.There was a lot of unhappiness within the Presbyterian Church of Ireland when they barred the children of parents in same-sex relationships from baptism.If a church holds the view that baptism of an infant in itself is important for salvation,then it would be a real injustice to refuse it.

Timberrrrrrrr

Gael23 wrote: »

That’s true I suppose. But then their families haven’t been upholding Christian values

No offence but most christian families do not uphold "christian values" these days.

Terrlock

Isn't part of the baptism where you promise to bring the Child up by church principles and morals.

This isn't just for same sex couples but for everyone.

What is the point of going along with church sacraments if you don't yourself follow or believe in them.

Is it just to fit in with neighbors or to get that place in schools.

if you don't want to follow the practices of a particular church why are you subjecting your child to it?

Gael23

Terrlock wrote: »

Isn't part of the baptism where you promise to bring the Child up by church principles and morals.

This isn't just for same sex couples but for everyone.

What is the point of going along with church sacraments if you don't yourself follow or believe in them.

Is it just to fit in with neighbors or to get that place in schools.

if you don't want to follow the practices of a particular church why are you subjecting your child to it?

Avoiding conflict with grandparents in many cases.

I suppose my question is similar to the way children born to unmarried mothers were treated in the past.

Terrlock

Gael23 wrote: »

Avoiding conflict with grandparents in many cases.

I suppose my question is similar to the way children born to unmarried mothers were treated in the past.

Children that want to participate should never be treated as outcasts no matter their circumstances.

Children should be treated with nothing but pure love.

homer911

Terrlock wrote: »

Children that want to participate should never be treated as outcasts no matter their circumstances.

Children should be treated with nothing but pure love.

I honestly doubt there will be many children or babies moaning of not being allowed to be baptized
At the same time, many children just want to go through some of these rituals because their friends are and they don't want to be the odd one out - that's hardly the right motivation though

Apiarist

homer911 wrote: »

...children just want to go through some of these rituals because their friends are and they don't want to be the odd one out - that's hardly the right motivation though

Seems like the best motivation. Religion first of all is about a community, and secondly some magic mumbo jumbo thrown in for fun.

Back to topic -- children born out of wedlock are baptized in Catholicism.

Pope Francis wrote:

The child has absolutely no responsibility for the state of the parents’ marriage. And often a baptism can be a new start for the parents as well.

So here you go. The Pope speaketh.

branie2

I'm sure they won't exclude them

.......

Seraphimx wrote: »

To be strictly accurate, same sex couples don't have children.

Rubbish, many same sex couples have children.

Same sex couples may not be able to conceive children together - but neither can many heterosexual couples - so alternative methods are used.

Also, the same as many heterosexual couples, one member of a same sex couple may have a child or children from a previous relationship.

Your post above is either naive or ignorant.

Sardonicat

Do adopting heterosexual couples also 'aquire ' a child?

MintyMagnum

Terrlock wrote: »

Isn't part of the baptism where you promise to bring the Child up by church principles and morals.

This isn't just for same sex couples but for everyone.

What is the point of going along with church sacraments if you don't yourself follow or believe in them.

Is it just to fit in with neighbors or to get that place in schools.

if you don't want to follow the practices of a particular church why are you subjecting your child to it?

Hmm, what about the straight couples who want to baptise their child who use contraception in planning their family or who haven't married, or who weren't virgins when they married, or who 'lived in sin' before they got married or who don't go to confession or mass regularly or who covet their neighbours goods etc

s7ryf3925pivug

The righteous shall pry the meek from the home of the sinful. Many churches have domestic missions to achieve this. They are undercover missionaries but it is a poorly kept secret by now.

antodeco

Seraphimx wrote: »

If they use methods that obscures the fact that there is another party involved, such as a donor or surrogate, then that's another story but they are not having a child, they are acquiring a child through the use of another person of the opposite sex.

Does not define Jesus as being "acquired" as his conception was through "another party"?

.......

Seraphimx wrote: »

Biologically same sex couples cannot conceive children without a member of the opposite sex being involved. This is a fact and not up for debate.

You were the one who wanted to be accurate while making an inaccurate statement.

Seraphimx wrote: »

If they use methods that obscures the fact that there is another party involved, such as a donor or surrogate, then that's another story but they are not having a child, they are acquiring a child through the use of another person of the opposite sex.

Obscure? Can you explain what you mean by this?

Do you consider heterosexual couples to have "acquired" children that both partners did not donate biological material to?

.......

Seraphimx wrote: »

No I won't because the meaning is obvious and you're just looking for an argument. I meant no offence in my statement that same sex couples cannot have (By which I mean conceive) a child, it was simply a true statement. If you so wish to be offended then work away, I won't stop you.

Ah but you didnt say conceive - you said they couldnt have children.

Then went on a strange path talking about referring to the non biological parent as being referred to as "acquiring" a child - which I have never heard used in common vernacular in my life. I wondered if English was not your first language, as its such an odd way to refer to someone having a child.

We do not say "Mary had a baby but John acquired one". We say "Mary and John had a baby".

We do not "Mary and John both acquired a child" we say "Mary and John adopted a child".

This "acquired" terminology that you have come out with is simply some kind of makey uppey term that you are using to try to back your silly original statement that same sex couples cannot have children.

.......

Seraphimx wrote: »

English is my first and only language. I said what I meant and meant what I said, if you wish to create a strawman out of that, be my guest. Fare well stranger.

Ok - so you said you wanted to be strictly accurate and then made a wildly inaccurate statement.

Thats cool.

.......

Seraphimx wrote: »

If same sex couples can conceive without a third party from the opposite sex being involved, please tell me how? (Without a divine intervention/miracle). Otherwise I stand by my statement.

You didnt say conceive, you said that same sex couples cannot have children.

Which is simply - incorrect.

Later you said you meant conceive. But thats not what you said originally - its there in black and white in the post.

However, allowing that you are now making a different statement to the one you made originally, and given that you want to be strictly accurate....

Same sex couples can indeed conceive children - just not with each other. But no one ever uses any terminology to suggest that one member of the couple is not "having" a child. And no one I have ever met has suggested that a person using donated biological material is "obscuring" how they became pregnant. Im still baffled as to what you could mean by that.

southstar

Seraphimx wrote: »

Yes, Joseph was not Christs biological father, so yes he did acquire/receive/obtain or however you want to put it, a Child. Mary is Christs biological Mother, she 'had' a Child.

How can a virgin woman conceive a child.. that's not biologically possible

DavyD_83

I can't understand why any gays would want themselves or their children to be active members of an organisation which rejected their entire lives as wrong.

Hopefully baptism barrier removal will get rid of the baptise for school culture, but if wanted, most businesses won't turn away new subscribers, especially at a point where their consumption of the product can only increase.

I've come to the realisation that all organisations are businesses, countries, religions and charities included. I have yet to confirm which levels of management view them as businesses and which are still concerned with the ideals of the organisation.
Ie. Is the pope a true believer guided by business men, or a CEO who just wants to sell more mass cards and communion wafers and says what he thinks helps this goal (Michael O'leary style) .
But all the power seems to lie with the business people eithee way.

Sardonicat

Seraphimx wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

Do adopting heterosexual couples also 'aquire ' a child?

Don't you think your question is a little silly? It's self evident that adopting parents acquire a child. That's the whole point of adoption.

No I don't think it's silly. You don't hear grown children of adoptive parents referring to their biological parents and their acquiring parents. Adopt infers more then simply to gain. It implies absorption into a family unit.

My late sister adopted her husband's children from his first marriage. She didn't 'aquire ' them'. And when ask how many children she had, would answer 'three', not 'I have one and two are 'aquired'. Because she had 3 children.

smacl

Seraphimx wrote: »

If they use methods that obscures the fact that there is another party involved, such as a donor or surrogate, then that's another story but they are not having a child, they are acquiring a child through the use of another person of the opposite sex.

Rather bizarre logic you've got going on there. By that line of reasoning single parents don't actually have children either, they merely acquire them?

Sardonicat

What made you think you caused offense? More bemusement really. I hope that doesn't cause too much dissapointment.

Defunkd

Gael23 wrote: »

I know the church is wholeheartedly opposed to same sex marriage but has it taken a position on children children raised by a same sex couple? Will they be given sacraments the same as any other child?

The child won't be refused the sacraments on account of a parent being gay.
The only issue could be a gay couple trying to baptise a child. The Church cannot accept a man as being biological/step mother of the child or woman as father.
The child could be refused if it was assumed the gayos were only getting the kid christened as an endorsement of their relationship or as an attempt to make some sort of statement that has nothing to do with the spiritual welfare of the child.

Sardonicat

The gayos?