Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope

[joannazenobia]

Mr. Romney made a very good point during one debate. When you start looking at changing policies on a state or nation- wide scale that alters the definition of marriage it’s no longer something that affects that couple alone but affects every single marriage and the very definition of marriages where many laws are based on and families and agencies base their laws, rules and policies on. For example. The Catholic Church cannot violate it’s own basic laws written by God himself from where our whole foundation of faith is based on and 1 Billion Catholics depend on simply based on the need of a few or even the one homosexual couple. There are Catholic adoption agencies shutting down precisely because of this very reason ( because the government also provided tax dollars and to protect the ‘bride of Christ’ it ‘sacrificed’ itself so to speak as a witness to our God who sacrificed himself on a cross) in one state it provided for half of all adoptions in the state where the state now has to scramble to find qualified Foster homes which in and of itself is a monumental task. This is the example of the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many and it should be the other way around.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I don’t really see how it is appropriate to say that the state should not be involved in the marriage issue because “marriage is a Sacrament and shouldn’t be made into a legal standing”. Sacramental marriage has no legal standing anyway. The Sacrament of marriage only applies to Catholics, and is not recognized by the State to begin with. Jewish marriages are not Sacramental. Muslim marriages are not Sacramental. Baptist marriages are not Sacramental. The government is only involved in marriage in what it recognizes legally, and how it affords benefits and constraints to those civilly married. And yes, when legally married couples get separated or divorced, the State has laws in place to protect both parties. The Church doesn’t have the authority, when people get divorced, to look out for the interests of both parties and ensure that both parties honor their responsibilities.

Those of us who uphold marriage between one man and one woman for the good of children and society can thank Martin Luther for the degradation of marriage, which began when he removed it from the jurisdiction of the Church where Christ placed it and made it a function of the State.

 

[GraceSofia]

Those of us who uphold marriage between one man and one woman for the good of children and society can thank Martin Luther for the degradation of marriage, which began when he removed it from the jurisdiction of the Church where Christ placed it and made it a function of the State.

Oh. I didn’t know he did that. I was going to ask for a link, but it is easily searched online.
Well, he didn’t take his vows as a priest seriously, so what can you expect, nor did the nun he married. I am more and more seeing how Protestantism directly led to secularisation, even though it took a few centuries for it to become obvious.

 

[incense]

Because of the new health care laws, my spouse’s employer has asked for family proof. They requested copies of our children’s birth certificates, our marriage certificate, and the front page of last year’s tax filing.

Interestingly, if we were not married (domestic partners), we just had to write something saying so, get it notarized, and send it in.

I guess I should be grateful that spouses and children are still covered, but it makes me wonder how much longer that will be. When companies pay for insurance for “friends”, that can get expensive because friends frequently change and because homosexuals have such expensive health care.

 

[GraceSofia]

Because of the new health care laws, my spouse’s employer has asked for family proof. They requested copies of our children’s birth certificates, our marriage certificate, and the front page of last year’s tax filing.

Interestingly, if we were not married (domestic partners), we just had to write something saying so, get it notarized, and send it in.

That’s not discrimination against traditional marriage?

When companies pay for insurance for “friends”, that can get expensive because friends frequently change and because homosexuals have such expensive health care.

Which goes to show that all this stuff is political, not logical.

 

[Tigg]

That’s not discrimination against traditional marriage?

Which goes to show that all this stuff is political, not logical.

Agreed! The progressive political element would argue that any kind of norm is discriminatory. They conveniently forget that there is no such thing as perfect equality, at least in this life, (as previous popes have consistently pointed out), yet they try to impose their idea of utopia with force of law resulting in even more injustices.

 

[Teelynn]

This probably deserves a thread of its own but:

news.yahoo.com/why-gay-parents-may-best-parents-131902676.html

More propoganda from the Lame Stream Media.

 

[cemiller]

This probably deserves a thread of its own but:

news.yahoo.com/why-gay-parents-may-best-parents-131902676.html

More propoganda from the Lame Stream Media.

That article seems full of propoganda points… They mention the data was only collected from gay couples, but then goes on to say that they do things more often or better then straight couples. They said they didn’t collect the data to make those comparisons! If that happens to turn out that way when data is collected fine, but don’t just make blind assertions with no evidence to back it up… They then go on to say how people raised with gay couples FEEL about their own attitudes. They say that people raised by gay couples FEEL like they are more open-minded and less constricted then if they would have been raised by straight parents. That is not scientific evidence. They are not compared to other groups and they are not tested to back up the statement. They assert their own opinions of themselves currently, and what they assume they would be like in a different situation that they have no way of actually knowing how they would react to. If real studies show real results that say the same thing, then so be it, but I can’t stand when places like these ignore the fact that they are real studies, but continue to speak of it like it’s undeniable proof.

 

[OriginalJS]

The top comment on that linked Yahoo! article when I clicked to read it hits the point I came here to make:

The argument in defense of the family and in defense of educating children holds a lot more merit when divorce is talked about on the same level as a threat as homosexual marriage is.

Also, if the Church is really looking to support education and to ensure that the “openness to the Transcendent” is taught, a strong support of Catholic schools is needed (almost worse than anything in regards to gay marriage or divorce or anything else). There was that article here about, I think it was Philly closing like 48 Catholic schools. I see the # of Catholic Schools dwindle every year here in the Twin Cities, specifically inner city schools, where the influence of that Catholic Education is needed so much more than in the burbs.

I agree. The new Catholic schools in the suburbs are expensive and have, in my opinion, quite unlike what many older persons think of when they think of Catholic schools. The large majority of teachers are lay people (not those priests and brothers of 50 years ago), Catholics and non-catholics are admitted so that the student body is Catholic in name only; such schools are more like public schools with limited enrollment and some religion classes.

 

[DevoteC]

Poor gay people. they’re really trying hard yet in the end…God will judge them too.
Pray for gay people so they may converted from their old ways, if is His will…[BIBLEDRB]:knight1:[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Teelynn]

That article seems full of propoganda points… They mention the data was only collected from gay couples, but then goes on to say that they do things more often or better then straight couples. They said they didn’t collect the data to make those comparisons! If that happens to turn out that way when data is collected fine, but don’t just make blind assertions with no evidence to back it up… They then go on to say how people raised with gay couples FEEL about their own attitudes. They say that people raised by gay couples FEEL like they are more open-minded and less constricted then if they would have been raised by straight parents. That is not scientific evidence. They are not compared to other groups and they are not tested to back up the statement. They assert their own opinions of themselves currently, and what they assume they would be like in a different situation that they have no way of actually knowing how they would react to. If real studies show real results that say the same thing, then so be it, but I can’t stand when places like these ignore the fact that they are real studies, but continue to speak of it like it’s undeniable proof.

The jury is still out. Hasn’t been a long enough period to conduct a conclusive study.
One thing that they have studied that seems to hold weight: Gay couples are twice as likely to split up than heterosexual couples. Hmm…and that is benefitial to children how? Sorry, didn’t mean to steal the thread, but I did think it was relevant to the subject.

 

[cemiller]

The jury is still out. Hasn’t been a long enough period to conduct a conclusive study.
One thing that they have studied that seems to hold weight: Gay couples are twice as likely to split up than heterosexual couples. Hmm…and that is benefitial to children how? Sorry, didn’t mean to steal the thread, but I did think it was relevant to the subject.

Is that compared to married or unmarried couples? Do you have a link to some of those studies?

 

[GraceSofia]

news.yahoo.com/why-gay-parents-may-best-parents-131902676.html

More propoganda from the Lame Stream Media.

Other research shows that “20.3% of children with LGB parents were non-heterosexual in identity or behavior compared with 4.3% of children with heterosexual parents. This divergence increased to 28.0% when the age of the children was restricted to over 17 (when sexual orientation identity would presumably be more clearly defined).”

Study Suggests Children Raised by LGBT Parents More Likely to Grow Up Gay or Bisexual

 

[GraceSofia]

That article seems full of propoganda points… They mention the data was only collected from gay couples, but then goes on to say that they do things more often or better then straight couples. They said they didn’t collect the data to make those comparisons! If that happens to turn out that way when data is collected fine, but don’t just make blind assertions with no evidence to back it up… They then go on to say how people raised with gay couples FEEL about their own attitudes. They say that people raised by gay couples FEEL like they are more open-minded and less constricted then if they would have been raised by straight parents. That is not scientific evidence. They are not compared to other groups and they are not tested to back up the statement. They assert their own opinions of themselves currently, and what they assume they would be like in a different situation that they have no way of actually knowing how they would react to. If real studies show real results that say the same thing, then so be it, but I can’t stand when places like these ignore the fact that they are real studies, but continue to speak of it like it’s undeniable proof.

Yes, this is a silly piece.
“In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don’t.”

 

[Teelynn]

Is that compared to married or unmarried couples? Do you have a link to some of those studies?

Darn, I just read it about a week or 10 days ago…let me see if I can find it…I should learn to save pertinent articles on my favorites.

 

[Teelynn]

Yes, this is a silly piece.
“In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don’t.”

That’s one of the lines I loved. “More tolerance” is what they pointed out. Yep, right…more tolerance to sin and depravity.

 

[Teelynn]

Is that compared to married or unmarried couples? Do you have a link to some of those studies?

OK…here is (I believe) the article I was refering to:

acpeds.org/fastmedia/pdf/ErrorsAAP/media/P3RPediatricsNov20066ACPbio.pdf?id=82&type=f&pdf

 

[unafraid]

The manipulation of language used to further the cause of the Radical Cultural Anarchists is not only diabolically clever, but it is dangerous and frightening when it begins to seep into the laws that impose a new form of tyranny on the majority.

One of the terms that gets missused constantly is “divisive”. It is one of those broadly interpreted words that automatically paints with a negative hue someone in opposition to any number of culturally corrosive precepts of the radical left-wing agenda. Yet, it truth, the term finds its clearest representation in the fact that these cultural anarchists are themselves actively engaged in trying to separate (divide) mankind from God.

We live in absurd times, when the inverse reality has taken over the public square. Let’s take a biblical scene and transport it to our current age: The angels visited Sodom, and Lot invited them into his home, but the inhabitants of Sodom pressed against his door and demanded, “Bring those men out to us that we may have initimacies with them”. However, Lot resisted their demands. Now, in the modern media depiction of this, Lot would be cast as an archconservative reactionary who wasn’t progressive enough in his views. He would be cast in the role of being a “divisive” figure. The perverse mob, on the other hand, would be presented as victims of discrimination.

Homosexuality and marriage are divided by nature and God. The two are diametrically opposed concepts which have no potential for compromise. If “gay marriage” becomes the law of this land, then it will stand alongside legalized abortion as radical departures from natural law that truly will, in the Pope’s parlance, “Pose a threat to humanity’s future”.

 

[cemiller]

OK…here is (I believe) the article I was refering to:

acpeds.org/fastmedia/pdf/ErrorsAAP/media/P3RPediatricsNov20066ACPbio.pdf?id=82&type=f&pdf

Thanks I’ll go over them more a little later (hopefully) It’s nice to have the source data to look at, though sometimes it is a painfully long process of looking up link after link to actually get to the original material… What I don’t understand is that I know there have been studies showing some negative effects of homosexual parenting. I’ve seen them before; some of them are linked in the article you posted. Limited information existed for the decision to allow homosexual adoption, and some of the test groups were accused of being “handpicked” for the studies. Methodological problems are sited on both sides of the subject as means of tearing the other side down. My real question would be, if there is ANY doubt what so ever that homosexual relationships could/couldn’t negatively impact children raised in that environment, then why in the world would we give the go ahead? Wouldn’t simple prudence dictate holding out for a definitive statement one way or the other to ensure the protection of the children that are affected by the decision?

 

[Teelynn]

Thanks I’ll go over them more a little later (hopefully) It’s nice to have the source data to look at, though sometimes it is a painfully long process of looking up link after link to actually get to the original material… What I don’t understand is that I know there have been studies showing some negative effects of homosexual parenting. I’ve seen them before; some of them are linked in the article you posted. Limited information existed for the decision to allow homosexual adoption, and some of the test groups were accused of being “handpicked” for the studies. Methodological problems are sited on both sides of the subject as means of tearing the other side down. My real question would be, if there is ANY doubt what so ever that homosexual relationships could/couldn’t negatively impact children raised in that environment, then why in the world would we give the go ahead? Wouldn’t simple prudence dictate holding out for a definitive statement one way or the other to ensure the protection of the children that are affected by the decision?

I would think this would be the common sense thing to do. Like I said, the jury is still out. But…the gay activist lobby is powerful. They are the far left wing of the country. Somehow, I think their agenda entails a whole lot more. It reminds me of the FDA who approves prescription meds without actually knowing enough about the side effects.