Five reasons why same-sex marriage will harm children

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Excerpt below, entire article at source.

"Is Homosexual Parenting Best for Children?

…Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. 5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children."…

Is Homosexual Parenting Best for Children?
americansfortruth.com/news/homosexual-parenting-is-it-time-for-change.html
 
SwizzleStick said:
Excerpt below, entire article at source.

"Is Homosexual Parenting Best for Children?

…Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. 5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children."…

Is Homosexual Parenting Best for Children?
americansfortruth.com/news/homosexual-parenting-is-it-time-for-change.html
Click to expand...
Which is a long way of saying ‘we don’t know’ but attempts to conflate homosexual parent and single parent households is probably one of the most stupid sociological ideas I’ve ever seen.
 
I have not read any of those, but, in reality, there’s only one reason and one reason only that homosexual couples will harm children:

THEY WILL NOT TEACH THE CHILDREN ABOUT GOD AND HIS CHURCH.

Independent of who else doesn’t do this, they will not do that, and therefore, the children of these couples need prayers, especially. “Especially those in most need of Thine mercy;” these would be they.
 
ThomasToo said:
Which is a long way of saying ‘we don’t know’ …
Click to expand...
So, are you saying it is okay to put children at risk by trying homosexual parenting experiments because “we don’t know” the effects?

More reading and the source link below.

"Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk
Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D.

…HARMFUL ASPECTS OF OHE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE

The evidence demonstrates incontrovertibly that the homosexual lifestyle is inconsistent with the proper raising of children. Homosexual relationships are characteristically unstable and are fundamentally incapable of providing children the security they need.

Homosexual Promiscuity

Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime, a lifestyle that is difficult for even “committed” homosexuals to break free of and which is not conducive to a healthy and wholesome atmosphere for the raising of children.

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.29

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners.30

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than 100 sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than 1,000 sexual partners.31

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."32

Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples

Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.

In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.33 Most understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.

In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.34

In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.35"…

Source: orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php
 
Continued below, but these are just excerpts, there is more to read at the link.

"…Comparison of Homosexual ‘Couples’ and Heterosexual Spouses

Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing: In Sex in America, called by the New York Times “the most important study of American sexual behavior since the Kinsey reports,” Robert T. Michael et al. report that 90 percent of wives and 75 percent of husbands claim never to have had extramarital sex.36

A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.37

In The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, E. O. Laumann et al. conducted a national survey that found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.38

A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.39

While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a magnum order of difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even “committed” homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.

Unhealthy Aspects of ‘Monogamous’ Homosexual Relationships

Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed “monogamous” do not necessarily result in healthier behavior.

The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than did those without a steady partner.40 Anal intercourse has been linked with a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of AIDS concurred, finding that most “unsafe” sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.41

Of paramount concern are the effects of such a lifestyle upon children. Brad Hayton writes: Homosexuals . . . model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good ‘marital’ relationship.42

Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships "…

Source: orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php
 
adstrinity said:
I have not read any of those, but, in reality, there’s only one reason and one reason only that homosexual couples will harm children:

THEY WILL NOT TEACH THE CHILDREN ABOUT GOD AND HIS CHURCH.

Independent of who else doesn’t do this, they will not do that, and therefore, the children of these couples need prayers, especially. “Especially those in most need of Thine mercy;” these would be they.
Click to expand...
This is because, as we all know, no gays are either Christian or (more specifically) Catholic…
 
SwizzleStick said:
So, are you saying it is okay to put children at risk by trying homosexual parenting experiments because “we don’t know” the effects?
Click to expand...
I’m saying that without evidence that something actually damages people we have no reason to outlaw it. Further I think there is a growing body of data that shows a household with two parents who happen to be of the same gender is not damaging. There is a large portion of the findings of fact in Perry v. Schwarzenegger are relevant here and it is–and not just the findings of fact–worth a read.
 
adstrinity said:
None that would sin against God and themselves this way, no. I am glad you agree. 🙂
Click to expand...
How cute… now back in reality there are groups like DignityUSA (dignityusa.org/) whose website banner reads ‘celebrating the wholeness and holiness of [LGBT] Catholics.’ and New Ways Ministries (newwaysministry.org/). Catholicism–and Christianity–are a far larger tent than you seem to want to imagine.
 
ThomasToo said:
How cute… now back in reality there are groups like DignityUSA (dignityusa.org/) whose website banner reads ‘celebrating the wholeness and holiness of [LGBT] Catholics.’ and New Ways Ministries (newwaysministry.org/). Catholicism–and Christianity–are a far larger tent than you seem to want to imagine.
Click to expand...
These are not “Catholic” websites. DignityUSA had an article enticing Catholics to challenge the Pope for “abuse of power” (whatever that means). This is not Catholicism. This is a mockery of Catholicism. Gay sex is wrong. End of story.
 
JackVk said:
These are not “Catholic” websites. DignityUSA had an article enticing Catholics to challenge the Pope for “abuse of power” (whatever that means). This is not Catholicism. This is a mockery of Catholicism. Gay sex is wrong. End of story.
Click to expand...
These are websites run by groups whose members self-identify as Catholics and if you think to label an individual as a Catholic he or she must agree with every point of Church teaching then all the world’s Catholics could fit in a decent sized bus shelter.

These people disagree with you, on that there can be no doubt, but they are Catholic at least insofar as that is the religious designation they have chosen.
 
ThomasToo said:
These are websites run by groups whose members self-identify as Catholics and if you think to label an individual as a Catholic he or she must agree with every point of Church teaching then all the world’s Catholics could fit in a decent sized bus shelter.

These people disagree with you, on that there can be no doubt, but they are Catholic at least insofar as that is the religious designation they have chosen.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and the pro-choice Nancy Pelosi calls herself “Catholic” too, when being pro-choice is grounds for automatic excommunication. Just because you say that you are something doesn’t mean that you truly are.
 
JackVk said:
Yeah, and the pro-choice Nancy Pelosi calls herself “Catholic” too, when being pro-choice is grounds for automatic excommunication. Just because you say that you are something doesn’t mean that you truly are.
Click to expand...
That’s bad theology. The Code of Canon Law orders an latae sententiae excommunication for those who procure a completed abortion (Canon 1398) but being or voting for the legal protection of abortion rights is not that. I respect your right to hold an opinion on a great many topics but I do not respect your right to make false comments in a place where people could wrongly take your word as truth.

Please (a) define what it means to be Catholic and (b) explain why you are fit to judge the verisimilitude of other people’s Catholicism.
 
ThomasToo said:
That’s bad theology. The Code of Canon Law orders an latae sententiae excommunication for those who procure a completed abortion (Canon 1398) but being or voting for the legal protection of abortion rights is not that. I respect your right to hold an opinion on a great many topics but I do not respect your right to make false comments in a place where people could wrongly take your word as truth.

Please (a) define what it means to be Catholic and (b) explain why you are fit to judge the verisimilitude of other people’s Catholicism.
Click to expand...
a) to be Catholic means that you truly believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and all of her teachings. This includes the Church’s stance on the right to life, homosexuality, papal infallibility, the Sacraments, etc.

b) okay, you KIND OF got me there. I am in no position to judge the state of these peoples’ souls, nor do I wish to do such a thing. However, it’s sometimes obvious when someone is comitting heresy. In the cases of these websites, they wish for the Church to change her stance on homosexuality and to accept gay marriage, which will not happen in the Church, not now, not ever.
 
JackVk said:
a) to be Catholic means that you truly believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and all of her teachings. This includes the Church’s stance on the right to life, homosexuality, papal infallibility, the Sacraments, etc.

b) okay, you KIND OF got me there. I am in no position to judge the state of these peoples’ souls, nor do I wish to do such a thing. However, it’s sometimes obvious when someone is comitting heresy. In the cases of these websites, they wish for the Church to change her stance on homosexuality and to accept gay marriage, which will not happen in the Church, not now, not ever.
Click to expand...
a) So we’re back to all the world’s Catholics fitting in a decently sized bus shelter? I know many many very Catholic people (that’s what I get for picking the university I did, great people on the whole) but I probably know three that agree lock stock and barrel with the Church.

b) There are and always have been groups at the fringes of every sufficiently large social body and the Church is no exception. The tension between its fringes helps an organization move forward or maybe I’ve just read too much Hegel.
 
ThomasToo said:
a) So we’re back to all the world’s Catholics fitting in a decently sized bus shelter? I know many many very Catholic people (that’s what I get for picking the university I did, great people on the whole) but I probably know three that agree lock stock and barrel with the Church.

b) There are and always have been groups at the fringes of every sufficiently large social body and the Church is no exception. The tension between its fringes helps an organization move forward or maybe I’ve just read too much Hegel.
Click to expand...
Enlighten me on the ideas of Hegel. I’m not all that familiar with philosophers.
 
JackVk said:
Enlighten me on the ideas of Hegel. I’m not all that familiar with philosophers.
Click to expand...
Hegel was a teacher of Karl Marx who–as I recall–developed the idea of the dialectic. An idea, called a thesis, gives rise to an opposing idea (typically a contradiction or negation of the thesis), called an antithesis. The struggle between these two ideas gives rise to a third idea to resolve the tension; this resultant idea is called a synthesis. This cycle then repeats either with synthesis cast as thesis or with a new idea.

Marx used similar language to discuss the tensions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie but that’s not germane to this discussion but should not serve to confuse us.

In this situation the idea that Catholicism is compatible with what we could (derisively) term an active gay lifestyle is the antithesis to orthodoxy’s thesis. The synthesis is yet to be seen.
 
ThomasToo said:
Hegel was a teacher of Karl Marx who–as I recall–developed the idea of the dialectic. An idea, called a thesis, gives rise to an opposing idea (typically a contradiction or negation of the thesis), called an antithesis. The struggle between these two ideas gives rise to a third idea to resolve the tension; this resultant idea is called a synthesis. This cycle then repeats either with synthesis cast as thesis or with a new idea.

Marx used similar language to discuss the tensions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie but that’s not germane to this discussion but should not serve to confuse us.

In this situation the idea that Catholicism is compatible with what we could (derisively) term an active gay lifestyle is the antithesis to orthodoxy’s thesis. The synthesis is yet to be seen.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. I just didn’t know it was Hegel’s idea.

With that, I do see some kind of synthesis between orthodoxy and homosexuality. While homosexual actions are sinful, homosexual attractions/feelings are not. Attractions are part of the cross that Christian homosexuals bear, just like the rest of us. I’m not one of those “God hates f@gs” type of Christians, beacause “God hates (blank)” is never a true Christian statement.
 
JackVk said:
I’ve heard of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. I just didn’t know it was Hegel’s idea.

With that, I do see some kind of synthesis between orthodoxy and homosexuality. While homosexual actions are sinful, homosexual attractions/feelings are not. Attractions are part of the cross that Christian homosexuals bear, just like the rest of us. I’m not one of those “God hates f@gs” type of Christians, beacause “God hates (blank)” is never a true Christian statement.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you’ve heard of it. I was fearing for our education system for a moment there.

But I don’t think that synthesis cuts it given the reality of the antithesis at work here (namely that two men or women who love each other in the full meanings of that word eros as well as agape] want walk hand in hand into a Catholic church knowing that their religion doesn’t think anything they’re doing–with respect to their sexuality–is wrong).

I’m glad to hear you’re not a Westboro sympathizer and I’m sorry for the state of the world that you need to clarify that fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top