16 Comments
User's avatar
John P McGeehan's avatar

These two shouldn't be within a thousand miles of any child!

Fortis Esperitas's avatar

I work in early childhood. A young boy, a toddler whose parents the state of RI deemed unfit for various reasons, one being mentally deficiency, took the boy away when he was a baby depriving him of his mother. Who did the child end up with, a lesbian couple who were unstable. One lesbian "transitioned" into a "man" while still in this same sex relationship. The relationship ended. The woman who appeared as a man, retained custody of the now 2 year old,and eventually adopted the boy. Now the boy has one false parent who, frankly has no skin in the game with this little chap. Pray for him.

Sarah Cain's avatar

Horrific. 🙏🏼

John Opalko's avatar

Thank you Sarah for addressing this issue again.

I think this surrogacy practice is as morally reprehensible as child sex trafficking, but only more so because it is legal and seen as a good thing by surprisingly many people. That so many accept or even endorse this practice saddens me greatly.

Franci's avatar

Surrogacy is prostitution where the woman sells her body for money. The child is not necessarily trafficked. But to 2 homos, that possibility increases.

The Zonie's avatar

Churches helped normalize biblically prohibited pairings in exchange for receiving and maintaining their tax exempt status. If they don’t accept the government requirements they face fines and penalties. The Schofield bible was another way of corrupting Biblical teachings. Seminary schools and religious leaders have “drunk the Kool Aid”. Do your own research - think for yourself. Great article Sarah.

Franci's avatar

Civil laws have always been at a lower moral level than Christian standards. We should lower our expectations regarding Political Conservatives. First, clergy and ministers need to preach against homosexuality and surrogacy and other vices...before public opinion and voters will reject them.

Tobías's avatar

What does it mean that homosexual relationships are “ordered towards mutual exploitation”??

Sarah Cain's avatar

It means that the eventual outcome is that they send each other to Hell. While a married couple's union is ordered towards children, and toward helping each other get to Heaven, the homosexual couple's outcome can only be negative. Its only "outcome" is internal injury (as are so common) and the rejection of God. Homosexual spouses implicitly assert, "I care about the pleasure this union gives me more than your eternal salvation."

This essay might help to add clarity: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/02/17/yes-some-moral-acts-are-disordered-heres-why/

Tobías's avatar

Thank you! I’ll read it in a bit

Franci's avatar

It means homosexual acts are inherently dishordered. So two homosexuals, in sexual congress, are just exploiting each other. Similar to how prostitution is mutual exploitation. The man exploits the woman for sex and the woman exploits the man for money.

Tobías's avatar

How are they exploiting eachother in sexual congress? A theoretically “real” homosexual couple engaging in intercourse isn’t really comparable to a paid intercourse with a prostitute… i understand the exploitation argument in the prostitute’s case but not really in a homosexual couple’s case: the homosexuals will say that they love eachother (in the same fashion a regular heterosexual couple loves eachother) and so the exploitation argument seems to be ruled out, unless there’s something i’m missing, which is what i was asking about originally.

Franci's avatar

Why is a Christian defending homosexual acts?

Tobías's avatar

I’m not, i’m probing for logical arguments. Iron sharpens iron.

Bret Green's avatar

I don't know where all these queers are coming from, but I am positive it isn't organic.

Joe de Bruyn's avatar

Thank you, Sarah, for putting the real issues plainly and simply.

Is it too much to ask our bishops and priests to do the same?

Joe.