unwed homosexuals adopting?

[dirtydevil]

I was curious if the church has taken a stance on this. Say, a single gay man or lesbian women wanted to adopt a baby? Or a gay couple who want to adopt, while limiting their intimacy to within the bounds that the church has set for unwed persons? Would the church look approvingly on this? Or should it be something that mormons should advocate against to make it illegal, like with same sex marriage?

[skippy740]

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation

I would say that they have made a statement on this.

[Just_A_Guy]

There's not a formal, specific Church policy (in the sense of an extract from the Church Handbook of Instructions) that addresses of this, of which I am aware. I think, per LDS teaching (and especially the POTF, which Skippy links to), the ideal is that there be both a mother and a father in the home; though I don't think the Church makes a practice of penalizing those who pursue single-parent adoptions.

I think most people in the Church would view the protestations of celibacy by an openly gay, same-sex couple who were living together and raising a child together; essentially the same as they would tend to view protestations of celibacy by an unmarried heterosexual couple who were living together and raising a child together--to wit: Bull-loney.

From a legal standpoint: I think the law should prefer (not mandate, because of the lack of adoptive parents--but prefer) that adoptions be granted to heterosexual, married couples. But we let the cat out of the bag with that one back when we allowed single unmarried adoptors the same legal status as married adoptors; and I'm not sure tweaking the existing code to ban adoptions by gay couples while continuing to permit adoptions by single individuals is either desirable or possible in the modern political climate. I don't think anything's going to be done, really, until society has a conversation about "marriage" that's much deeper (and the implications of which are far more troubling) than anything that the mainstream is willing to entertain today.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[dirtydevil]

the unmarried LDS same sex couple doesnt neccesarily have to be living together, just as most unmarried LDS opposite sex couples dont live together. What if they decide they want to adopt? A straight man's girlfriend could decide to adopt. An unwed gay LDS couple adopting makes sense as a likely scenario because the homosexual couple cant get married for legal and religious reasons.

Also, should straight LDS singles not adopt if marriage is not an option for them for whatever reason?

Edited March 17, 2014 by Scotch

[Lakumi]

the unmarried LDS same sex couple doesnt neccesarily have to be living together, just as most unmarried LDS opposite sex couples dont live together. What if they decide they want to adopt? A straight man's girlfriend could decide to adopt. An unwed gay LDS couple adopting makes sense as a likely scenario because the homosexual couple cant get married for legal and religious reasons.

Also, should straight LDS singles not adopt if marriage is not an option for them for whatever reason?

in Canada they can legally marry...

[dirtydevil]

And, if a single straight LDS woman should not adopt because marriage is not an option for her (say because of disfigurement, or some other reason) because she would be less affective at raising a child (being single), then, should we advocate that it should be illegal for her to adopt as well because she is single

Edited March 17, 2014 by Scotch

[dirtydevil]

and yet, if we we conclude that it is logical that a single women should still be able to legally adopt (even though a father figure wil not be provided) , then why should it be logical for lesbian women who may even already have children to not be legally with wed (with associated family legal protections) because there would not be a father figure for present or future children?

Maybe we should then advocate for illegalizing adoption for all single adults, gay or straight (sarcasm)

Edited March 17, 2014 by Scotch

[dirtydevil]

"in Canada they can legally marry..."

most of the population of the US lives in states where gays can legally marry, as well. What is your point? People are free to advocate for ssm wherever they live here, where their lived ones are. Are you saying that a same sex couple should leave their beloved family and friends and move to Canada for marriage instead of vexing you with their advocacy and logical arguments? Apparently you want freedom of speech, you just dont want people to take advantage of it where you live, if you disagree with their views.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Scotch

[Just_A_Guy]

Scotch, exactly who are you arguing against? No one here has said gays--or singles--should be legally banned from adopting. No one has said the Church will penalize a single person who chooses to adopt. The only thing that has happened is that I have implicitly (and now explicitly) suggested the unlikelihood of a scenario where two non-cohabiting individuals would want to adopt a child, or that an unmarried "couple" (whether gay or straight) would remain celibate in perpetuity.

Forgive me; but you almost come off as if you were looking for a fight here where none need exist.

[Quin]

Since you've shifted from "what is the church's stance" to "should we advocate XYZ politics".

Nope.

I believe very strongly in there being equal protection, rights, and responsibilities under the law for everyone.

Which means that I not only would NOT support such a law, but would fight against any such law that would prohibit someone from adopting children based on their race, creed, sex, sexual identity, marital status, age, religion, etc.

I doubt it would ever come to that, however, since most people desire to choose their children's godparents / guardians-in-the-event-of-their-death. Placing laws making it illegal for grandparents (age), Unmarried adults (siblings, widowed or divorced parents/ uncles/aunts, best friends), et cetera to adopt or raise children entrusted into their care will gets hundreds of millions of angry parents flooding to the polling stations regardless of party.

Specifically back to same sex couples adopting... Many of the BEST parents I know are same sex couples & singles. If anyone tried to pass a law taking their children from them, you'd better believe I would do everything in my power to help them escape such an awful circumstance.

Q

Edited March 17, 2014 by Quin

[dirtydevil]

If nobody here cares if single people (gay or straight) adopt, even though the adopted child would be missing out on a parent of the opposite sex of their adopted parents, then why is a child missing out of a parent of a particular sex the primary argument against the legalization of same sex marriage by the LDS?? Do you see the connection now? You are trying to do a character assasination of me when you should not be. If you had a logical argument to defend your LDS stance against ssm, then you would not engage in a last resort character assasination in stating that I appear to be out to attack you as apposed to bringing forth an argument for moral advocacy.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Scotch

[Syme]

"in Canada they can legally marry..."

most of the population of the US lives in states where gays can legally marry, as well. What is your point? People are free to advocate for ssm wherever they live here, where their lived ones are. Are you saying that a same sex couple should leave their beloved family and friends and move to Canada for marriage instead of vexing you with their advocacy and logical arguments? Apparently you want freedom of speech, you just dont want people to take advantage of it where you live, if you disagree with their views.

Your response had nothing to do with Lakumi's post. Why don't you just come out over what's really bothering you?

[Lakumi]

Your response had nothing to do with Lakumi's post. Why don't you just come out over what's really bothering you?

Not only does it have nothing to do with my post, but I fully support gay marriage

I also live in Canada, not the US

[dirtydevil]

"Your response had nothing to do with Lakumi's post. Why don't you just come out over what's really bothering you?"

attempted character assasination and presumption?

I am engaging in moral advocacy through logical argument.

[dirtydevil]

"Not only does it have nothing to do with my post, but I fully support gay marriage

I also live in Canada, not the US"

I am sorry. I assumed that you were a stateside conservative. I find that some will say things like, "If you dont like the law here, then leave". Canada being one of those destination because the see it as a liberal bastian. My apologies.

[Quin]

If nobody here cares if single people (gay or straight) adopt, even though the adopted child would be missing out on a parent of the opposite sex of their adopted parents, then why is a child missing out of a parent of a particular sex the primary argument against the legalization of same sex marriage by the LDS?? Do you see the connection now? You are trying to do a character assasination of me when you should not be.

Ahem.

Several of us on this site are pro-SSM.

Even of those who are not... You began by asking for the Church's official view. Not our own, nor our own experiences within the church.

Our church also does NOT tell us how to vote.

On any issue.

The church may hand down standards of living for OURSELVES as members to follow (modesty standards, word of wisdom, law of chastity, etc,) but that doesn't mean that we all go around trying to change laws to get everyone to cover their shoulders and not drink coffee, purely because we choose to follow those standards. I'm sure some do. But that hardly means we ALL do.

Sure. Many members of the church are against SSM. Maybe even most. I wouldn't know. In my area most are part of Mormons for Marriage Equality or similar groups. But I live in a fairly liberal area.

One of the really AWESOME things about the LDS church?

We're allowed to be.

We are encouraged by our leaders to educate ourselves and vote our consciences.

As I said before, our church does not tell us how to vote, nor which causes to champion.

Next time, before picking a fight, you might want to do a little more research.

Q

[bytebear]

The simplest answer is this. There are blessings gained by having a "traditional" marriage. Children cannot be sealed to a single parent. They can only be sealed to a mother and father who are sealed to each other. This is simply the way sealings work, so any non-traditional family, including children born out of wedlock, children raised by a grandparent, or children adopted by anyone not temple worthy (including non-members).

It's not that the church is trying to punish people who by choice or by circumstance do not fit into that mold, but they cannot simply change the family unit that God has established. So, the church will do everything they can to make sure members (and non-members) are afforded all the blessings they are entitled to, but some blessings are simply not attainable in this life, and as such, the leaders of the church are going to encourage behavior and decisions that do afford the potential for the greatest blessings this life can bring (which may include a child raised in a non-traditional situation if the alternatives are worse for the child). It's not fair to criticize the church for not extending blessings that cannot be given.

Edited March 17, 2014 by bytebear

[dirtydevil]

"I fully support gay marriage"

I do find this interesting because I believe that the LDS church advocates against legalized ssm. I believe that the church was recently successfully sued for interferrance in political matters in their attempt to keep ssm illegal. How do you justify supporting a legal matter that the church is against. It would seem to me that you would have faith they they are correct in this ambition, instead.

[skippy740]

Uh... I find this interesting that not everyone on lds.net is LDS. If you would notice, each poster shows their religious preference. For example, yours says "muslim". Lakumi says "other".

[Lakumi]

"I fully support gay marriage"

I do find this interesting because I believe that the LDS church advocates against legalized ssm. I believe that the church was recently successfully sued for interferrance in political matters in their attempt to keep ssm illegal. How do you justify supporting a legal matter that the church is against. It would seem to me that you would have faith they they are correct in this ambition, instead.

Well, the most important point there I can make is, I am not a member of the LDS church.

[dirtydevil]

The simplest answer is this. There are blessings gained by having a "traditional" marriage. Children cannot be sealed to a single parent. They can only be sealed to a mother and father who are sealed to each other. This is simply the way sealings work, so any non-traditional family, including children born out of wedlock, children raised by a grandparent, or children adopted by anyone not temple worthy (including non-members).

It's not that the church is trying to punish people who by choice or by circumstance do not fit into that mold, but they cannot simply change the family unit that God has established. So, the church will do everything they can to make sure members (and non-members) are afforded all the blessings they are entitled to, but some blessings are simply not attainable in this life, and as such, the leaders of the church are going to encourage behavior and decisions that do afford the potential for the greatest blessings this life can bring (which may include a child raised in a non-traditional situation if the alternatives are worse for the child). It's not fair to criticize the church for not extending blessings that cannot be given.

But is this reasoning that the most blessing be made available by god to a complete family justification for the LDS church (through its media front organizations) and anyone else to advocate that ssm be illegal? The LDS church was recently successfully sued over this.

[Soulsearcher]

"I fully support gay marriage"

I do find this interesting because I believe that the LDS church advocates against legalized ssm. I believe that the church was recently successfully sued for interferrance in political matters in their attempt to keep ssm illegal. How do you justify supporting a legal matter that the church is against. It would seem to me that you would have faith they they are correct in this ambition, instead.

I'm curious of the "successfully sued" precedent. I must have missed that one.

Again as stated while people might belong to a religion they do have the free will to not agree 100% or to be able to find a line between their faith and a political stand point. All depends on the person and exactly how they practice their faith.

[bytebear]

I find it interesting that a Muslim is critical of the LDS Church and confused about some members not agreeing with the church's involvement over this issue. Certainly most Muslims would have homosexuals killed outright and various sects of Islam have this in their belief system (if not practice). Is that not your position as well?

[dirtydevil]

"Well, the most important point there I can make is, I am not a member of the LDS church."

"Uh... I find this interesting that not everyone on lds.net is LDS. If you would notice, each poster shows their religious preference. For example, yours says "muslim". Lakumi says "other".

oops, somebody face-palm me.

[dirtydevil]

I find it interesting that a Muslim is critical of the LDS Church and confused about some members not agreeing with the church's involvement over this issue. Certainly most Muslims would have homosexuals killed outright and various sects of Islam have this in their belief system (if not practice). Is that not your position as well?

I left the church. Now I am affiliated with the organization "Muslims for Progressive Values" we promote legalized ssm among muslims too. I am here because of my LDS background. Some of us have been very vocal, and a few in our organization have even been jailed in Egypt for supporting ssm. We are UN sponsored organization.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Scotch