- Status
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
We don’t make laws in this country based on statistics alone. (One horrible decision in any secular arena can overshadow hundreds of more frequent but ultimately less harmful decisions.) Laws are made with many things in mind, including harm, lack of harm, the reach or projected reach & effect of that law on its immediate subjects, the permanency of it (or lack thereof), its enforceability, the ages of the subjects involved (especially if that includes minors), effect on existing social institutions, and much more.
Substance is considered, not just numbers. One murder is generally considered far more harmful than many petty assaults, as alarming as both of them are.
Teenage pregnancy with no viable, permanent marriage in sight: harmful to child
Professional woman deciding that her local sperm bank will suit for a “father”: harmful to child
Fathers (or mothers, more rare) who abandon their birth responsibilities: harmful to child
Gay couples who decide that their personal pleasure trumps a complete gender experience for a child: harmful to child.
They’re all based on selfishness and irresonsibility. They all lack the foundation of a moral code. The fact that several selfish and irresponsible categories of parenting are occurring, in varying and fluctuating numbers, does not justify one of those categories more than another. They are all evil.
When you make a decision to deprive a child of one gender, that is an objective evil. No matter how you spin it. Gender matters. That, btw, is the T in LGBT.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No. I see “hordes” (your irrationally exaggerated word of several magnitudes) of gay parents who dismiss the needs of children in preference to the several-magntitude rationalization of assuming that the other gender doesn’t matter.
They care about their own “loss” of not parenting far more than the child’s loss of either a live-in mother or a live-in father.
T
TMC
Guest
You are arguing against all kinds of things I never said. My comments were limited to refuting what you said about the numbers of people affected, nothing more. You made a completly unsupportable statement of fact. I called you on it. Now you are trying to evade that by spinning all kinds of things into my posts that are not there.
I am happy to agree with you that the sheer numbers do not change the morality of anything. But the numbers are what they are, that’s all I’m saying.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Excuse me. You’re the one trying now to evade your own claims, not me. (Or to minimize their supposed relevance.) You brought up some wild statistic equating, erroneously, the number of unwed mothers with the number of fathers who have abandoned relationships with their children. That is not supported by the statistics I cited, which if anything, point to quite the opposite of your statement.
Now you are backtracking on your statement, claiming that by citing these you didn’t mean to say what you originally claimed you were saying. Like others who argue for gay marriage, your “arguments” become increasingly less credible the digger hole you deep for yourself.
You actually argued (and I quoted you) that it’s really immaterial that two genders aren’t there, because after all it’s too parents. Don’t try to wiggle out of your frequent argument that several wrongs justify an additional new, legislated wrong.
Answered, above. If the numbers do not change the morality, then numbers are immaterial. But the gay lobby, of which you are clearly a member, will throw out whatever they can to justify their desire for personal pleasure at the expense of societal norms, and at the expense of the consideration of a child’s full needs.
Then, of course, as you’ve just demonstrated, they’ll backtrack on their arguments when pinned to the wall about how they don’t hold up.
T
TMC
Guest
OK, we both agree that the numbers don’t drive the morality. I don’t agree that my numbers are some wild statistic - they came from the CDC which tracks such things for the government. You don’t agree with my charge that you are spinning numbers to cover a factual misstatement. Fair enough. I feel like we are fighting over nothing, however, because we seem to agree that the numbers do not drive the morality. I suggest we let the numbers fight go and return to discussing whatever it was we were discussing before this little side argument erupted.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
So would eating together at a restaurant, or going bowling, or going to church.
L
larkin31
Guest
Gay parenting does not make any claim one way or the other about whether another gender “matters.” All you do is keep making false summaries of the positions of others.
This illustrates the point I just made: you are ascribing negative motivations and selfishness to others in a prejudicial way. If you wish to be fair and just, you will suggest that ALL self-centered motivations for having children is wrong and should be legislated against. And honestly, it is an odd argument to suggest that love for children and the desire to give them a loving home is self-centered and should be legislated against in ALL cases where a child will end up in a single-parent home or, say, in a home of less-than-ideal parents (I, for one, am much more concerned about stupid parents than I am about gay parents, the harm of the former being much greater than that of the latter).
Of course, adoption law has nothing to do with marriage or civil union law, regardless of one’s position on gay or single-person adoption.
But, we already know that single persons are fully permitted by law to adopt. As are gays. And that the business of adoption is run by various state and federal laws that must be deemed “just” and not prejudicial if the companies in any way accept federal monies. And as employers, they are also subject to state and federal employment law.
L
larkin31
Guest
Do you want law to prohibit single-parent adoption? What is your point with all this?
L
larkin31
Guest
I have never seen any studies that collected data nor studied data on either of these claims. Honestly, I only see them as speculation on the internet. Has any study EVER examined these?
S
StTommyMore
Guest
I have not seen them first hand, but I was told of them by someone I deem trustworthy
L
larkin31
Guest
I have looked and looked. I have been given one link (just one time) to an internet essay written by a psychologist that was not in any way associated with a published study with data.
So, if you ever do find anything, let me know. In the meantime, I treat this as speculation, no matter whom it is from.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Fair enough.
I
inocente
Guest
Leaving aside your quip about pleasure
, this CWLA article is ten years out of date in terms of statistics, but says 31% of adoptive parents are single women, 2% single men and 1% unmarried couples. All three groups include homosexuals in the US states that are open to same-sex adoption.The article summarizes a study indicating that kids raised by homosexuals are less likely to conform to gender norms, more likely to experiment with same-sex relationships, but no more likely to be homosexual. They show no difference in self-esteem or social performance but show higher levels of affection and responsiveness toward others.
This is despite the possibility that homosexuals may be more promiscuous and have higher suicide rates, both factors influenced by being treated differentially in society, and despite homosexuals being willing to take hard-to-place children (because they may be given no other choice).
However, just that summary is politicized (see this Fox article) - the cited Stacey and Biblarz study only included lesbian parents because the numbers for gays were too low, and while the LBGT lobby can point to there being no harm, the anti lobby can point to the sexual experimentation.
This politicization seems to be an issue with all research about gender orientation, leaving us with uncertain evidence and only our own convictions, and I guess that’s why it’s interesting to debate. The issue for the anti lobby is an absence of killer evidence, a dubious case from scripture and so on.
Question – I can easily see how the Church’s stance on abortion is central to the sanctity of the human person, but for the life of me can’t see how the teaching on homosexuality is in the same league. Frankly, as a big fan of Benedict’s writing (and btw your post #807), I can’t get my head round the teaching on homosexuality. Little help? Forsooth, why is it such a big deal to the Church?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
^ Because the idea of “harm” is only one element (as I mentioned) of law. Many other elements are involved. They were previously listed. I’m not going to re-list them, but it is more complex than just Group A feels like doing this, so why can’t they? Consensus, scope, and variables versus other institutions are all examined.
^ Because the theology of the Catholic Church proceeds from Catholic, very rational, philosophy, revolving around natural law and the concept of order. It doesn’t proceed from populist notions, from modern statistics selectively cited, from how particular nations do it, from what has and has not passed in civil legislatures, and most definitely it doesn’t proceed from the modernist determinism of isolated personal choice as the standard for morality. Most non-Catholics posting on this discussion forum do not get it; they see no reason why other-than-Catholic premises should not apply, uniquely, to the concept of gay “marriage” and gay “parenting.” For some reason the Catholic Church should abandon its intergrated view of philosophy and theology as it applies to morality, and get behind a radical movement. But the Catholic Church is not in the people-pleasing business.
^ Because ‘you don’t understand for the life of you’ why the Catholic Church should oppose something is not the same thing as concluding it’s not understandable, or that it’s irrational, or that any of the adjecives that many non-Catholics throw out, on this board and elsewhere (‘nonsensical,’ ‘prejudiced,’ ‘unfair’ — critciism or even insult) apply.
Aside from the above three points, however, there are sound secular reasons which I’ve argued for two years on this board as to why many even many non-religious people (and even many gays) oppose any formalization of gay “marriage.” Virtually everything I’ve posted on this thread belongs to that category. Since you asked in addition, however, about why the Catholic Church should oppose it so vehemently, that is related to the entire concept of complementarity, which is absolute, not relative. Additionally, on a secular level, gender differences are ultimately radical and linked to biology (especially brain biology) and not up for dismissing out of volition, being in denial about it, or being regarded superficially as mere societal role (a very different reality).
As to your comments about adoptive single mothers, again the vast majority of those are straight single women, with a social circle that would tend to include more heterosexual men than are typically included in the lesbian social circle. Many heterosexual women adopt a child, or give birth to a child, and then find a male partner. It is slightly more common now, in fact, than when adoptions began occurring for single women.
^ Because the theology of the Catholic Church proceeds from Catholic, very rational, philosophy, revolving around natural law and the concept of order. It doesn’t proceed from populist notions, from modern statistics selectively cited, from how particular nations do it, from what has and has not passed in civil legislatures, and most definitely it doesn’t proceed from the modernist determinism of isolated personal choice as the standard for morality. Most non-Catholics posting on this discussion forum do not get it; they see no reason why other-than-Catholic premises should not apply, uniquely, to the concept of gay “marriage” and gay “parenting.” For some reason the Catholic Church should abandon its intergrated view of philosophy and theology as it applies to morality, and get behind a radical movement. But the Catholic Church is not in the people-pleasing business.
^ Because ‘you don’t understand for the life of you’ why the Catholic Church should oppose something is not the same thing as concluding it’s not understandable, or that it’s irrational, or that any of the adjecives that many non-Catholics throw out, on this board and elsewhere (‘nonsensical,’ ‘prejudiced,’ ‘unfair’ — critciism or even insult) apply.
Aside from the above three points, however, there are sound secular reasons which I’ve argued for two years on this board as to why many even many non-religious people (and even many gays) oppose any formalization of gay “marriage.” Virtually everything I’ve posted on this thread belongs to that category. Since you asked in addition, however, about why the Catholic Church should oppose it so vehemently, that is related to the entire concept of complementarity, which is absolute, not relative. Additionally, on a secular level, gender differences are ultimately radical and linked to biology (especially brain biology) and not up for dismissing out of volition, being in denial about it, or being regarded superficially as mere societal role (a very different reality).
As to your comments about adoptive single mothers, again the vast majority of those are straight single women, with a social circle that would tend to include more heterosexual men than are typically included in the lesbian social circle. Many heterosexual women adopt a child, or give birth to a child, and then find a male partner. It is slightly more common now, in fact, than when adoptions began occurring for single women.
L
larkin31
Guest
For myself, I do fully understand the Catholic argument against homosexuality. It is fairly straightforward and unsubtle. The problem is that I find it unconvincing, unsophisticated, and over-all prejudiced. Whether it “pleases” me or others is rather moot. Indeed, the strictures against homosexuality seem to please many persons here at this forum and many out in society. But as you say, this is no argument for it or against it.
And now, it turns out that many Catholics are supporting the idea of civil unions for gays because, I would speculate, they see the inherent injustice in a legal marriage system with the state and church intertwined in an uncomfortable manner to deny certain cohabitating couples similar protections as married couples.
I
inocente
Guest
Thanks. I wasn’t intending to make a point for or against there, just trying to see your point of view. It isn’t the Church’s opposition that I have problems understanding but why, in your words, it objects so vehemently.
The opposition is contentious even amongst Catholics, non-Christians may use it to dismiss Christianity as outmoded, it detracts from and potentially undermines the Church’s case on issues like the rising tide of secularism, so what is it here so central to Christ that warrants such strong opposition?
I understand the complementarian position on marriage, but not why same-sex unions pose such a unique threat. This isn’t to pretend that the Church should go with the tide or abandon anything, but to ask what it is here that is so fundamental to Christ.
C
CradleCath
Guest
It matters not how **many **children are put into the homes of homosexuals or single people. I look about this world today & see so many children actually born into homes that are dysfunctional to parents who neglect & abuse them. I do wish children could CHOOSE their parents. Adoption is one area in which this can happen via intelligent persons who can actually delve into their homes & run background checks on would-be parents.
I agree that divorce has put children in homes that have been torn apart & that this is very damaging for children. I agree that children are born to single women who are indulging in fornication & non-commital “live in” situations & I think that many of these women are totally irresponsible.
Adoption agencies have historically done their very best to prevent adoptive children from facing the same fate that children born into horrible situations live with daily.
I think that we can all agree that the BEST homes for children, are those with a MARRIED** man & woman **in a stable, loving, committed situation. Yet, you are asking that adoption agencies place children in less than the BEST!!! That is a terrible mistake. Because of the ease with which one can obtain an abortion today, there are not a whole lot of children, in this country, elligible for adoption. Why not give those who are the best chance they can have?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Two of my close lesbian friends adopted a girl from China. She is now flourishing in a loving home environment, rather than languishing in a Chinese orphanage.
I
inocente
Guest
Elizabeth – having just made a first read-through of Benedict’s latest hit Verbum Domini (it may be easier to read here), some extracts that amplify my confusion, not about the teaching but about the hard line:
*The Bride of Christ – the great teacher of the art of listening – today too repeats in faith: “Speak, Lord, your Church is listening”. … The Church draws life not from herself but from the Gospel, and from the Gospel she discovers ever anew the direction for her journey.
… Fidelity to God’s word leads us to point out that nowadays this institution [the sacrament of marriage] is in many ways under attack from the current mentality. In the face of widespread confusion in the sphere of affectivity, and the rise of ways of thinking which trivialize the human body and sexual differentiation, the word of God re-affirms the original goodness of the human being, created as man and woman and called to a love which is faithful, reciprocal and fruitful.
… I would like also to call the attention of everyone to the importance of defending and promoting the human rights of every person, based on the natural law written on the human heart, which, as such, are “universal, inviolable and inalienable”. The Church expresses the hope that by the recognition of these rights human dignity will be more effectively acknowledged and universally promoted, inasmuch as it is a distinctive mark imprinted by the Creator on his creatures, taken up and redeemed by Jesus Christ through his incarnation, death and resurrection.
… Love of neighbor, rooted in the love of God, ought to see us constantly committed as individuals and as an ecclesial community, both local and universal. As Saint Augustine says: “It is essential to realize that love is the fullness of the Law, as it is of all the divine Scriptures … Whoever claims to have understood the Scriptures, or any part of them, without striving as a result to grow in this twofold love of God and neighbor, makes it clear that he has not yet understood them”.*
*The Bride of Christ – the great teacher of the art of listening – today too repeats in faith: “Speak, Lord, your Church is listening”. … The Church draws life not from herself but from the Gospel, and from the Gospel she discovers ever anew the direction for her journey.
… Fidelity to God’s word leads us to point out that nowadays this institution [the sacrament of marriage] is in many ways under attack from the current mentality. In the face of widespread confusion in the sphere of affectivity, and the rise of ways of thinking which trivialize the human body and sexual differentiation, the word of God re-affirms the original goodness of the human being, created as man and woman and called to a love which is faithful, reciprocal and fruitful.
… I would like also to call the attention of everyone to the importance of defending and promoting the human rights of every person, based on the natural law written on the human heart, which, as such, are “universal, inviolable and inalienable”. The Church expresses the hope that by the recognition of these rights human dignity will be more effectively acknowledged and universally promoted, inasmuch as it is a distinctive mark imprinted by the Creator on his creatures, taken up and redeemed by Jesus Christ through his incarnation, death and resurrection.
… Love of neighbor, rooted in the love of God, ought to see us constantly committed as individuals and as an ecclesial community, both local and universal. As Saint Augustine says: “It is essential to realize that love is the fullness of the Law, as it is of all the divine Scriptures … Whoever claims to have understood the Scriptures, or any part of them, without striving as a result to grow in this twofold love of God and neighbor, makes it clear that he has not yet understood them”.*
- Status