Church def. of marriage and gov't

[JTD_Eagle1]

Some Muslims are convinced that the free practice of their religion requires them to kill apostates. Freedom of religion is not an absolute freedom, it is limited by other people’s freedoms. “My freedom to swing my fist stops at the end of your nose.” The courts have decided that is you are operating a public business then you have to serve all the public. You cannot discriminate on the grounds of race etc. even if you belong to an “Aryan Nation” church.

If you want to discriminate, then you can operate as a private club, which only serves members. Private clubs are allowed to discriminate over who they allow as members.

Everyone has freedom of speech, but you are not allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Freedoms are not absolute.

rossum

she did not discriminate against gays, she has served gays and hired them. It was the event she found morally wrong and couldn’t participate in. I believe in traditional marriage and refuse to be downgraded to a second class citizen for that. There was a guy in Massachussetts who was arrested when he wanted parental consent when his child was learning about gay “marriages”. his liberty was trampled on.

 

[DrTaffy]

Let the last be first and all that. My main point refers to the last line of your post:

the Sarantakos study

Almost certainly this one:
Sotirios Sarantakos (1996). Same-sex couples: Problems and prospects. Journal of Family Studies: Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 147-163.
doi: 10.5172/jfs.2.2.147

Sorry, I don’t have a link to a copy that is not behind a paywall. Don’t get me started on publically funded research papers being behind a paywall. You wouldn’t like me if I get started on publically funded research papers being behind a paywall.

The main criticism of this article is that it, like the Regnerus study, compared stable married heterosexual families to broken divorced families with a gay parent. Even the article itself is not as gung-ho as the conservatives who quote it like to suggest - the abstract (freely available) only concludes that homosexual parents’ “overall performance on these measures is not very different from that of heterosexual cohabiting couples”. (emphasis added)

This article has the following criticism:

The exception has been an embrace of the one published empirical study that found children with lesbian or gay parents to be functioning substantially more poorly than children with married heterosexual parents (Sarantakos, 1996). This study has been promoted despite its use of a relatively small convenience sample, a characteristic that conservative activists have decried as a fatal flaw in the studies that found no differences in the adjustment of children according to the sexual orientation of their parents. In addition, its methodological shortcomings have been ignored. For example, parental sexual orientation was confounded with divorce: Most of the children of same-sex couples had experienced parental divorce (many in the recent past) but the children of married parents apparently had not. Whereas having gay or lesbian parents has not been linked to poor adjustment or academic performance, the negative effects of divorce on children are well documented (e.g., Amato, 2001). Moreover, the children in the sample with homosexual parents faced such high levels of prejudice that some of them had to transfer to a different school or their families had to move to another town. These factors and other methodological weaknesses most likely explain the study’s anomalous results. However, antigay groups have cited this article from an Australian social work journal as scientific confirmation of their claims, even as they dismiss the bulk of published research in this area (e.g., Family Research Institute, 2001; Rekers, 2005).

The Regnerus study! Don’t you realise that this has been widely debunked. Even his own Department has rejected his findings:

Even the author rejected that interpretation. In his own words:

I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad.

(Re: the Allen study)

… which used faulty (name removed by moderator)ut data, that meant its “same sex couples with children” included a high percentage of “opposite sex couples with children who made a mistake on the census form”.

And which also started off by explicitly acknowledging that the scientific consensus opposed its conclusions, and cited more than 50 studies showing that. This quote comes from the start of the paper:

Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It does not need to be immediate, but at some point it needs to be apparent. Imaginary harm is no basis for discrimination in law.

Where is your actual evidence of harm from same sex marriage? It has been around for more than ten years now. Where is the evidence of real, as opposed to imaginary, harm?

rossum

Sexual freedom is like a swimming pool in your backyard. As an adult, you can enjoy using it whenever you feel like swimming. If you are a parent with a toddler or young children, you take precautions. Actual harm to the child need not take place first before precautions are taken.

I think you need to answer this, rossum: why do homosexual “marriage” promoters want children to be taught that gay sex is normal and gay “marriage” is okay?

Legal SS"M" is radical because of the repercussion on the learning of our children.

The teaching to children in school that gay sex and “marriage” are normal and okay conflicts with the value formation by their parents at home. It logically increases the risk of sexual confusion and experimentation with gay sex as they mature. Child psychologists confirm this. Parents don’t need to see research by social scientists 20 years later to wait for actual harm. The risk is knowable to half way intelligent people and those without a PhD.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Raising children and teaching them is first and foremost the responsibility of parents, not the state.

To the OP: as a mom, you might enjoy viewing this.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=8slSesnoK9k
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

How does to men, or two women, getting married harm your marriage? Same sex couples have been getting married in the Netherlands since 2001. Did that have any harmful effect on your marriage? Same sex marriages have been happening in Massachusetts since 2004. Did you notice any harmful effects then. Proposition 8 in California was passed in 2008. Did you notice any beneficial effect on you marriage from that? I find it difficult to see how your particular marriage can be harmed in any specific way by same sex couples marrying.

rossum

Many postings in your record as a member of this forum for ten years contain variations of the same questions as above. Yet, you are not ever satisfied with arguments provided by respondents here against SS"M." There are serious issues down to the family level that have been articulated already, providing objections in opposition to legal SS"M."

As for its macro effect, this destructive trend started by the Dutch experiment in 2001 is fully addressed in the linked scholarly article,

The Transatlantic Divide on Marriage: Dutch Data and the U.S.Debate on Same-Sex Unions.

Chances are you would not be persuaded. The link is more for the benefit of and as a precautionary reading for followers of this thread on the never ending debate on SS"M."

You and DrTaffy (who discovered CAF more recently and now I see has just jumped in this thread – although I have to say your debating style is much better) are both from across the pond. Both of you are so into the American political and legal battle on SS"M." One would think however that the inevitable clash with the growing Muslim population in your country, who will never accept the normalcy of gay sex or accept gay “marriage” laws, should be more of a concern to you as Brits, than egging the American Catholic faithful to embrace the destructive SS"M" trend set by the Dutch experiment.

Is it wrong to conclude that advocates of SS"M" are proposing a radical social order that follows its legalization to envelop all Western nations if not the whole world?

You opted for a liberal form of Buddhism for your religion that does not even have roots on English soil. The fact that you know more about the bible and the Catechism than many Catholics is admirable. It is an advantage in engaging Catholics here who are not as conversant with scripture and not fully catechized.

The upside of having smart people like you challenging us is that we Catholics are instigated to scrutinize the teachings of our faith. The teachings do not contradict the common and social good. They lift humanity towards that which is true, good, and beautiful, not incompatible at all to a solid basis on formulation of civil law. This is far from claiming that we Catholics would favor theocracy!
,

 

[glendab]

Hello Rossum.

You disagree with same sex marriage. However, you have not produced any substantial arguments against it. If you don’t like what your children might be taught in schools then home-school them.

Let’s try that in a slightly different key:

Legalizing divorce leads to our children being taught that divorce is a-okay.

Divorce is legal and is contrary to Catholic teaching. Has that caused major problems? Have you explained to your children that sometimes the laws of the country are different from the laws of the Catholic Church? Did this cause them problems?

How have your children been harmed by teaching about the legality of civil divorce?

rossum

You’re forgetting what the reality of Same Sex Marriage will do and has done to children. It harms them in more than one regard. There are those who once married in a same-sex relationship who have obtained all the legal rights and privileges of a marriage according to whatever State they live and have ADOPTED children into their “family” and/or have blended children into their new “marital” status from previous heterosexual relationships either married or co-habiting or whatever. THESE CHILDREN ARE AT HIGH RISK OF SEXUAL ASSAULT and they will grow up in an environment that most know and will admit is gravely harmful to them. Their perception of what normal is will be skewed in a very detrimental way as will be their understanding of right and wrong. They will be the targets of harm from outside their “family” unit on a daily basis in most places as being the children of the gays. Imagine what will happen to them as school where children being children will openly ridicule them and even beat them up for it. They will be paying the heaviest price for their “parent’s” choices.

You may not like what I’ve said but with the passage of Same Sex Marriage laws, this will become and has become their reality. They are the truest victims of the political activity that neither cares for nor no longer considers their plight worth defending. They have simply lost their rights to live in a safe environment and will not have a say in the matter till they are 14 or 18 depending on each State’s child protective laws and can get out of the hell of a home they have inherited from their same-sex parents. There is now no way out for the heterosexual child stuck with homosexual parents who desires normal family. He can no longer be seen as being abused as he or she once was. Those who work in Child Protective Services did remove children from homes based upon sexual matters before. They can’t anymore except in substantiblly extremes. Who helps them now?

I apologize if I offend but those poor children have a right to life that is safe and sane through their entire childhood and greater than any right is a society’s obligation to protect it’s women and children. If we abandon that, we cease to be a society and that seems to be what we have done on more than one front. Convincing the rest of the citizens that some women and children have no rights and that is a norm that should be accepted seems to be the rest of the tangled ball of yarns that we are asked to swallow and live with.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

On a side note: it is nearly impossible to find any comparable homosexual activity among animals. Are dogs and cats smarter then their owners in this fundamental regard or do the animals simply now instinctively something more and more humans are being asked to ignore? That homosexual nature goes against nature and her laws? Does this make the family pet smarter than it’s master? Think about it. Ever see your dog go after another dog of the same sex? And if he did, wouldn’t you hit him with the rolled up newspaper or get him an extra bed for his new “pal.”

Glenda

 

[rossum]

On a side note: it is nearly impossible to find any comparable homosexual activity among animals.

You are misinformed. Homosexual activity has been observed in many mammal species and some avian species. See: Homosexual Behaviour in Animals

rossum

 

[rossum]

You’re forgetting what the reality of Same Sex Marriage will do and has done to children.

The answer is, remarkably little. No reputable research (i.e. ignoring Regnerus’ study which Professor Regnerus has himself stepped back from) there is no evidence of harm and much evidence of identical outcomes between same sex and opposite sex parents.

"Don’t trust everything you read on the internet. " – Abe Lincoln

rossum

 

[merne9]

It does not need to be immediate, but at some point it needs to be apparent. Imaginary harm is no basis for discrimination in law.

Where is your actual evidence of harm from same sex marriage? It has been around for more than ten years now. Where is the evidence of real, as opposed to imaginary, harm?

rossum

Inevitably, we are back to the only way to show legitimacy is to prove harm.
The Sunday before the Tuesday vote on Prop. 8 our Bishop came to our parish. I was very much confused on how I would vote. What stuck with me over these years is when the Bishop said, " Are we going to tell them the Truth or what they want to hear?" It started a journey in me to look into each position to find the truth.

Are people who support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex so arrogant to think that after thousands of years across every culture and continent marriage has been restricted to male-female but now is the time to redefine it?
Marriage has been male-female before Christianity and Judaism. Marriage has been male-female in all civilizations, why do we think now they had it wrong and we have it right?
Homosexual activity has existed true, however, no culture has ever left trace of themselves marrying homosexuals.

 

[rossum]

Homosexual activity has existed true, however, no culture has ever left trace of themselves marrying homosexuals.

You are misinformed. Ancient Rome had same sex marriage, both Cicero and Martial mention it. Two Emperors married men and in the Theodosian code (C. Th. 9.7.3) in 342 CE stipulated that same sex couples that were already married should be executed. Hence there was same sex marriage in Rome until the Christian takeover.

Other examples come from India and Pre-Columbian America.

Same sex marriages were not common, but they did exist.

rossum

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You are misinformed. Ancient Rome had same sex marriage, both Cicero and Martial mention it. Two Emperors married men and in the Theodosian code (C. Th. 9.7.3) in 342 CE stipulated that same sex couples that were already married should be executed. Hence there was same sex marriage in Rome until the Christian takeover.

LOL.

There is an active LGBT thread or two going on the Internet, writers scouring for “studies,” specifically to establish that

“Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies”

“The fact that marriage occurred between two men among the Romans is proved by a law in the Theodosian Code” The young Curio and Antonius, for example?

Shall we guess at the motivation behind these “scholarly” researches?

This brings to mind the scholar John Boswell’s revision of adelphopoiesis, the ancient brother making rite in medieval times to sell a false history of same sex unions. He really went full monty on the project to the glee of the gay academic elite, who bought his book, a best seller in that circle, Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, and his other published writings. Why? Boswell lived an active homosexual life (check out the cause of his death), earnestly wanting to justify and dignify same sex relations.

Other examples come from India and Pre-Columbian America.

Same sex marriages were not common, but they did exist.

rossum

Sounds like what DrTaffy would have us believe. Except I think he claims SS"M" is quite common in many many cultures and spans the whole world.
,

 

[rossum]

Shall we guess at the motivation behind these “scholarly” researches?

Motivation is not relevant. Is the evidence there, yes or no?

In this case the evidence is there. Same sex marriage was rare but did exist.

You appear to have no real contrary evidence so you call into doubt the motives of the researchers. You could always go to a good library and read the Theodosian Code for yourself.

rossum

 

[One_point]

You are misinformed. Ancient Rome had same sex marriage, both Cicero and Martial mention it. Two Emperors married men and in the Theodosian code (C. Th. 9.7.3) in 342 CE stipulated that same sex couples that were already married should be executed. Hence there was same sex marriage in Rome until the Christian takeover.

Other examples come from India and Pre-Columbian America.

Same sex marriages were not common, but they did exist.

rossum

Mind providing proof of this please? Links? Where is homosexual marriage recorded for these cultures? I say this because I’m very well aware of the propaganda in the west of schewing activities of other cultures to provide false evidence for gay marriage. For example, Transparency international (USA) has claimed, there was gay marriage among some African tribes because of a certain woman to woman marriage. If I didn’t personally know these tribes, I might buy this rubbish, but I do know very well what they are referring to. It’s a custom where a barren woman or a woman without sons pays dowry/bride-price for another woman (therefore “marries” her per African terminology) so that this woman has children on behalf of the first woman and therefore the first woman can be said not to die childless or sonless. Its like what Sarah, Rachel and Leah are recorded to have done in the bible, giving their maids to their husbands when they could not have children themselves. Imagine how laughable it sounds to these people when they hear some foreigners claiming these “marriages” as proof of gay marriage.

Propaganda is too much among proponents of gay marriage, which leads one to conclude there must be no genuine evidence. People with evidence have no need for these lies. What you’re talking about gay animals. Where are these homosexual animals who have simply never been seen/known by any animal raising culture in human history? These homosexual animals seem to only exist for 21st century scholars trying to prove that animals are gay too? Africans have lived with animals for millennia and these nonsense is simply unheard of. I really would like to know if there’s some concrete proof of sexual activity among animals of the same sex. I have no problem believing it if it is genuinely established, but this is just one of those strange things that contradict everything everyone you know knows about reality that some concrete proof would be in order.

 

[frobert]

So, not surprisingly you get pro-SS"M" advice as well, who misunderstand and misuse the argument of separation of church and state. It would be worthwhile for your husband to read The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State .

,

You are making an erroneous generalization One does not need to be pro or anti to misunderstand and misuse the argument. I believe that the author of the article you reference is misusing the argument in his first paragraph by attaching an assumption which may or may not be true.

Our nation was predicated on unalienable rights with governance through family, church and community, each rightfully sovereign within its sphere. Human dignity, legal equality and personal freedom reflect biblical values imparted on Western Civilization, which retains these values in secular form while expunging their Author from public discourse.

The Constitution is essentially an economic document based upon recognizing the claim of property to a special and defensive position in the Constitution. I would argue that “The wall of separation” in the Constitution is a prohibition on the Government being able to regulate or control religious thought or practices and that this carries the implication of religions themselves not having power to regulate or control the religious thought or practices of other religions. .

 

[rossum]

Mind providing proof of this please?

The marriages of the Emperors, Nero and Elagabulus are recorded in Suetonius (Nero) and the Augustan History (Elagabulus). Both are available from Amazon or a good library.

The Theodosian Code entry is:

Impp. Constantius et Constans aa. ad populum. Cum vir nubit in feminam, femina viros proiectura quid cupiat, ubi sexus perdidit locum, ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, ubi venus mutatur in alteram formam, ubi amor quaeritur nec videtur, iubemus insurgere leges, armari iura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt vel qui futuri sunt rei. Dat. prid. non. dec. Mediolano, proposita Romae XVII kal. ianuar. Constantio III et Constante II aa. conss. (342 dec. 4).

Source: Imperatoris Theodosii Codex 9.7.3

Google translate gives:

Impp. Constantius and Constans, a. to the people. When the man is wedded into a woman, a woman men of projection of what he wished, where the sex has lost the place where it is a crime that which does not benefit from to know where Venus is changed into the other form, where the love is sought neither hath he seen, We order to rise up against the laws, the rights of the sword by the avenging arm themselves, so that are subject to the exploration of the pains of ill repute, who are either of those who will be the real thing. Dat. Scr. no. dec. Milan set at 17 April. January. Constantius and Constans 2 and aa 3. Const. (342 of December. 4).

No doubt someone here can give a better translation, my own Latin doesn’t go much beyond, “blum, blum, blum, bli, blo, blo…”

rossum

 

[DrTaffy]

Mind providing proof of this please? Links? Where is homosexual marriage recorded for these cultures?

Here.

If I didn’t personally know these tribes, I might buy this rubbish, but I do know very well what they are referring to. It’s a custom where a barren woman or a woman without sons pays dowry/bride-price for another woman (therefore “marries” her per African terminology) so that this woman has children on behalf of the first woman and therefore the first woman can be said not to die childless or sonless.

So two women get married, and we are to take your unsupported word that this does not count as a same sex marriage?

What you’re talking about gay animals. Where are these homosexual animals who have simply never been seen/known by any animal raising culture in human history?

Anyone who has actually raised animals will be aware of homosexual behaviour. My Dad had to dispose of a ram who just was not interested in the ladies.

See Bruce Bagemihl’s ‘Biological Exuberance’ for plenty of documented examples.

 

[One_point]

Dr. Taft, two women don’t “get married” as such, one pays a price for the other one, solely to own the children she bears in the tribe’s eyes. Paying bride-price is synonymous with “marry” in the African language, hence the use f the word, but meaning is of course all about context. There isn’t even a remote notion of a sexual relationship whatever in such a relationship, and the relationship between the two is that of a mother and daughter in the homestead. You can take whatever word you wish, but this rubbish has failed in African countries precisely because of such transparent propaganda and misrepresentation, when you have foreigners projecting their modern notions on African traditions, what do you expect? For your “support”, I have found this scholarly article on jstor that explains the character and purpose of that institution in African tribes: jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3773320?uid=3739368&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103862711821

But of course this is common knowledge in that part of the world, ask anyone you know from the region from any of these tribes and you’ll realize this is like asking an American to prove what is basic knowledge about certain aspects of American culture. The notion of gay marriage is non-existent among these groups in spite of the propaganda.

Lastly, are you saying that the fact that your ram wasn’t “interested in the ladies”, proves it was gay? I believe in my post I specifically said concrete proof of sexual activity between same-sex animals.

 

[DrTaffy]

Dr. Taft, two women don’t “get married” as such, one pays a price for the other one, solely to own the children she bears in the tribe’s eyes. Paying bride-price is synonymous with “marry” in the African language, hence the use f the word, but meaning is of course all about context.

They call the two women ‘married’ - QED. The whole point is that ‘marriage’ has referred to all sorts of relationships over history.

There isn’t even a remote notion of a sexual relationship whatever in such a relationship,

So what? Why are you so obsessed with sex? Even if you could prove this assertion, it would still not change the fact that marriage has not always meant one man + one woman, as this example shows.

For your “support”, I have found this scholarly article on jstor that explains the character and purpose of that institution in African tribes: jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3773320?uid=3739368&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103862711821

…and which seems to support the idea that these relationships were seen as marriage. What point did you think it made?

Lastly, are you saying that the fact that your ram wasn’t “interested in the ladies”, proves it was gay? I believe in my post I specifically said concrete proof of sexual activity between same-sex animals.

It was completely uninterested in the ladies, but wore out the other rams chasing and mounting them. Seems clear enough to me.

It is an infrequent but well known problem in any livestock rearing community.

 

[rossum]

It was completely uninterested in the ladies, but wore out the other rams chasing and mounting them. Seems clear enough to me.

It is an infrequent but well known problem in any livestock rearing community.

Not strictly relevant, but Extreme Sheep Herding is fun. And they’re Welsh.

rossum