"Gay 'marriage' doesnt hurt society"

[Elizabeth502]

Nobody can seem to tell me, in any detail, what it is about M-F parents that makes having a mother and a father so necessary to raising well-adjusted children.

Anyone who seriously believes that male and female parents are interchangeable also believes that there are no radical differences between men and women other than genital. That person is either in denial or hasn’t been paying attention to life and relationships.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

For an honest exchange. And I gave you my honest response, however discourteous you found it. That gay couples are legally allowed to adopt is a basic fact. Not a secret, and not news. Asking me to prove it to you, as though it were a questionable claim or not easily verifiable, suggests that lack the factual basis needed to hang in this conversation.

No, but you do get that from reading her article, where she tries to prove herself right in four different ways, and in that attempt, undercuts her own credibility. She starts off citing “decades” of extensive research proving that children of mother-father parents enjoy the best outcomes by far. Here, even a slightly skeptical reader might be prompted to ask, “What are you comparing these M-F couples to?” We know that it can’t be to SSCs - they haven’t been allowed to raise children for all that long. If she’s comparing M-F couples to single-parent homes (which seems likely), it’s no surprise that children of M-F couples turn out better. What this has to do with SSCs is beyond me, however.

Later, of course, she seems to cop to the fact that there have been hardly any longitudinal studies on the outcomes for children of SSCs. Why she wasted our time telling us how great M-F parents were better than single parent homes still escapes me, but nevermind that. Having seemingly arrived at the position that we don’t know nearly enough about the long-term outcomes of gay parenting, she thinks the last thing we should do is allow it to happen, so that we actually find out. Good scientific thinking, that.

And along the way, we’re treated to a litany of nonsense arguments - that being gay is largely caused by environmental influences, so children of gay parents are more likely to wind up gay. That allowing gay marriage will lead to other disordered marital groupings (this, to her credit, is actually an argument against gay marriage - a refreshing change of pace).

Only two states (Arkansas and Florida), expressly prohibit gay singles and gay couples from adopting. Every other state in the Union either expressly permits it in both cases, or in one without specifying the other. Your concerns about expanded adoption rights are essentially groundless.

Again, the magic pixie dust rationale for child-rearing. Nobody can seem to tell me, in any detail, what it is about M-F parents that makes having a mother and a father so necessary to raising well-adjusted children. Apparently, just loving your kids and providing a solid, stable, safe home for them isn’t enough. Hansen doesn’t even try to elaborate on this point. She’d rather waste time telling us that a child being raised by two men will be “sexually confused.”

Ok. So you are right, it was easily verifiable. I should have googled instead of requesting you to provide examples. I plead guilty of ignorance of how bad the situation already is for children of this country who were adopted and those that will get adopted by gay singles or gay couples in all but two states. God help this nation! And I say that with utmost sincerity, without shame, without worry that that I would possibly receive further contempt from you, or ridicule for believing this: allowing children to be adopted in same sex homes is a form of abuse, a form of violence.

Even if SS’M’ is made legal in every state, said ‘marriages’ will remain pretend marriages to me and a great many who believe in natural law, in the wisdom of the tradition of natural family, in Scriptural and Church teaching.

You can belittle the basis of Dr. Hansen’s opinion, but you conceded that there have not been longitudinal studies to establish how a generation of children raised by same sex ‘parents’ will do and yet you seem willing to bet with the fervid assurance of an advocate that children raised by SS “parents” would come out just fine, no different, perhaps actually better. Your stance comes across as desperate to convince the world homosexual “marriages” and “parenting” are equivalent to heterosexual marriage and parenting. You needed to come onto a Catholic board to convince Catholics of a profoundly un-Catholic view?

 

[Giants]

Anyone who seriously believes that male and female parents are interchangeable also believes that there are no radical differences between men and women other than genital. That person is either in denial or hasn’t been paying attention to life and relationships.

Well, someone who evidently has been paying attention to “life and relationships” should have no problem answering my question. So let’s hear it. I’ll wait.

 

[vsedriver]

Again, the magic pixie dust rationale for child-rearing. Nobody can seem to tell me, in any detail, what it is about M-F parents that makes having a mother and a father so necessary to raising well-adjusted children. Apparently, just loving your kids and providing a solid, stable, safe home for them isn’t enough.

It’s not a matter of necessity to be raised by a mother and a father, since many well-adjusted children have been raised in institutions. One could argue that properly managed and run institutions would be a better place to raise children since there would be far more oversight on an institution than in a private home.

But it is the natural right of a child to have the experience of having a mother and a father. That should be the standard for adoption. Whether men and/or women are bad parents as singles or couples isn’t the point. The point is that by nature all children already do have a mother and a father and are therefore entitled to experience a mother and father relationship.

To equate a SS couple with a 2 gender couple when it comes to adoption is to deny a child their natural right to a mommy and daddy experience. Adoption should always mirror as closely as possible the life a child would have had if born into the family biologically.

 

[Melissa_Long]

: allowing children to be adopted in same sex homes is a form of abuse, a form of violence.

if it is such an “abuse” and you want to prohibit gay couples of both gender to raise children what are your plans on biological children of gay couples?

You do understand that homosexuality doesnt mean infertile. You do understand that there are many same-sex families raising their children.

Lesbian couples are actually two times more productive in terms of child bearing than MF couple.

metro.co.uk/2011/03/08/quintuplets-born-to-lesbian-couple-melissa-keevers-and-rosemary-nolan-643239/

So, are you going to take these children away?Perhaps put them into some god fearing families? Are you going to deny the children of gay atheists social protection given by
marital status just because YOU dont like the idea(as it has anything to do with you) hiding behind the talk “protect children, protect family” whereas in reality its you lot who instill hate, stigmatize, demonize, these families, that extremely negatively affect children who see how their parents are treated?

who believe in natural law, in the wisdom of the tradition of natural family, in Scriptural and Church teaching.

that’s entirely your problem. what does it have to do with people who do not share believes of your cult?

There were numerous studies that proved there is nothing wrong with same sex parenting. All professional psychological organization are in favor. And the latest disgrace of a study done by right wing christian Ferguson or whatever his name was as it turned out had nothing at all to do wih same-sex stable families.nothing.

No, im really curious on the subject of prohibiting adoption and all that “abuse” talk. because following that logic we would have to prohibit gay couple to have kids at all. And if they are allowed to have kids then there is no logical basis for adoption prohibition.

As for me i consider religion is a grave abuse of children and propaganda of religion must be prohibited to all children until the age of 18.
How do you like that notion?

 

[captainmike]

Nobody can seem to tell me, in any detail, what it is about M-F parents that makes having a mother and a father so necessary to raising well-adjusted children.

men and women are different–physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually. if you don’t accept that, then there is no point to continuing this conversation. i have neither the time nor the inclination to “prove” my assertion with facts.

if you do accept it–and particularly if you were raised by a mom and dad yourself (or, if not by a mom and dad, by another male and female)–then you realize there are things a child gets and needs from his mom that are different from what he gets and needs from his dad.

plus, it’s not just that a child is better off being raised by a mom and a dad than by two moms. it’s better for a child to be raised by his biological parents, because parents having their own child creates a strong.bond between the parents themselves and between the parents and the child. did i say inseparable? no. but strong–just as God intended.

advocates of SSM essentially believe that God messed up: God should have made it so that two men could have sex together and conceive a child. God knows better than we do.

 

[fix]

Certain people now demand “evidence” for what is self evident. Immaturity, hedonism, and relativism have so corrupted culture that even the most basic aspects of life are questioned. How absurd.

Like an immature child demanding answers to obvious questions. The problem is not lack of “proof”. The problem lies with the questioner.

 

[fix]

men and women are different–physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually. if you don’t accept that, then there is no point to continuing this conversation. i have neither the time nor the inclination to “prove” my assertion with facts.

if you do accept it–and particularly if you were raised by a mom and dad yourself (or, if not by a mom and dad, by another male and female)–then you realize there are things a child gets and needs from his mom that are different from what he gets and needs from his dad.

plus, it’s not just that a child is better off being raised by a mom and a dad than by two moms. it’s better for a child to be raised by his biological parents, because parents having their own child creates a strong.bond between the parents themselves and between the parents and the child. did i say inseparable? no. but strong–just as God intended.

advocates of SSM essentially believe that God messed up: God should have made it so that two men could have sex together and conceive a child. God knows better than we do.

They refuse to see the obvious. Male and female are viewed as cogs in a machine that are interchangeable. A new ideology of evil.

 

[captainmike]

They refuse to see the obvious. Male and female are viewed as cogs in a machine that are interchangeable. A new ideology of evil.

of all of the things in God’s creation, the most beautiful is the amazing difference between men and women. God alone could conceive of, and create, beings that are so similar and yet so wonderfully different. Secularists want to completely overturn what God has created. What they really want is a total destruction of the notion of gender. they are hoping that technology will make us all the same in time. no more males and females. all the same.

they also want to do away with people having kids the “normal” way. they want all kids being conceived through surrogate mothers and sperm banks, with the state dispensing babies as it wishes. the state will be the only parent, and the adults to whom the kids are temporarily entrusted will not be able to religiously form the kids (no infant baptism, for example).

brave new world.

Lord Jesus, come quickly.

anytime somebody asks what’s wrong with SSM, the answer is very simple: because God made men and women different. SSM advocates, at their core, reject this basic and obvious truth.

 

[LisaA]

They refuse to see the obvious. Male and female are viewed as cogs in a machine that are interchangeable. A new ideology of evil.

Sadly this is NOT new. It is the LEFT for whom EQUALITY is their god. This is neither supported by biology, theology, or sociology. Everything the Left does focuses on equalizing outcomes when that is an impossibility. No two people (or plants or animals) are the same. We are given different gifts, characteristics, environments, and upbringings. You don’t have to believe in God to understand that.

But just take a look at the Left’s insidious attempts to create a “utopia” in its image. My first experience was growing up in the era of “Women’s Lib.” It was all about EQUALITY but not simply men and women being able to do the same jobs but being equivalent, as one poster said, just cogs in a wheel. But in the quest for ‘equality’ much more of society has fractured and become unstable…which of course feeds into the Left’s desires for the government…the ‘smart people’ to run things, dole out assets as they see fit.

The homosexual marriage agenda is also a Leftist meme with the idea that a man and a woman joined in marriage are the same as two men or two women. A simple look at physical characteristics would deny this but they steam ahead trying to prove what is unprovable. Thus they want all of the accessories that go along with pretending they are “married” which includes buying, breeding or adopting children.

I was a horse breeder for many years and the techniques used by homosexuals to get themselves a child are just the same as my horse breeding program. Daddy and mommy don’t need to meet, much less bond together in the creation of new life. Who needs a daddy when you have a Petri dish!? But by doing so they deny their basic humanity, how they were created (whether or not you believe in God, you are a created being) how humans differ from animals, and most of all in their selfish desire to be “equal” they deny children what is clearly designed by God (or Nature or biology) to be the best environment for bearing and raising children.

That this is not the optimal situation, that they subject the innocent children to their selfish whims, is irrelevent.

Remember for the Left, facts do not matter. It’s all about feelings.

Lisa

 

[kelvinf]

Sadly this is NOT new. It is the LEFT for whom EQUALITY is their god. This is neither supported by biology, theology, or sociology. Everything the Left does focuses on equalizing outcomes when that is an impossibility. No two people (or plants or animals) are the same. We are given different gifts, characteristics, environments, and upbringings. You don’t have to believe in God to understand that.

But just take a look at the Left’s insidious attempts to create a “utopia” in its image. My first experience was growing up in the era of “Women’s Lib.” It was all about EQUALITY but not simply men and women being able to do the same jobs but being equivalent, as one poster said, just cogs in a wheel. But in the quest for ‘equality’ much more of society has fractured and become unstable…which of course feeds into the Left’s desires for the government…the ‘smart people’ to run things, dole out assets as they see fit.

The homosexual marriage agenda is also a Leftist meme with the idea that a man and a woman joined in marriage are the same as two men or two women. A simple look at physical characteristics would deny this but they steam ahead trying to prove what is unprovable. Thus they want all of the accessories that go along with pretending they are “married” which includes buying, breeding or adopting children.

I was a horse breeder for many years and the techniques used by homosexuals to get themselves a child are just the same as my horse breeding program. Daddy and mommy don’t need to meet, much less bond together in the creation of new life. Who needs a daddy when you have a Petri dish!? But by doing so they deny their basic humanity, how they were created (whether or not you believe in God, you are a created being) how humans differ from animals, and most of all in their selfish desire to be “equal” they deny children what is clearly designed by God (or Nature or biology) to be the best environment for bearing and raising children.

That this is not the optimal situation, that they subject the innocent children to their selfish whims, is irrelevent.

Remember for the Left, facts do not matter. It’s all about feelings.

Lisa

Nice! But there are also some few on the Right who kind of support this course.

 

[LisaA]

Nice! But there are also some few on the Right who kind of support this course.

I agree there are some on the Right, the Libertarians for example, who are not against prohibitions on SSM. OTOH their objective is not equality but that government be stripped of its authority to determine what constitutes a marriage. There are also those on the Right that are simply fiscal conservatives and do not want social issues to be part of the platform. Again I don’t see this as a desire for equality but more of a practical approach to opening up a bigger tent.

As I look at all of the Leftist mantras, they clearly belong more in France (liberty brotherhood and equality) with its three objectives rather than in America with our founding philosophy… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Completely different objectives. I move all of them head for France where they can pay 75% tax

Lisa

 

[Faithdancer]

I agree there are some on the Right, the Libertarians for example, who are not against prohibitions on SSM. OTOH their objective is not equality but that government be stripped of its authority to determine what constitutes a marriage. There are also those on the Right that are simply fiscal conservatives and do not want social issues to be part of the platform. Again I don’t see this as a desire for equality but more of a practical approach to opening up a bigger tent.

As I look at all of the Leftist mantras, they clearly belong more in France (liberty brotherhood and equality) with its three objectives rather than in America with our founding philosophy… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Completely different objectives. I move all of them head for France where they can pay 75% tax

Lisa

Yes, the Libertarians are essentially hands off on any social issues requiring government involvement and regulation. This includes gun control, of course. They are a curious lot…
While the French political system is certainly challenged, I greatly admire the elegant and nuanced language, the art and literature, and the rich and entertaining history. They can keep the snails and frog legs, though.:bigyikes:

 

[edwest2]

That was a non-threatening courteous request neither worthy of contempt nor arrogance on your part. Are you in this forum as a provocateur or for an honest exchange?

Just because Dr. Hansen’s professional opinion does not serve your SS’M’ advocacy, it does not mean that she is publishing misinformation and making disingenuous assertions.

SS’M’ negatively impacts society precisely and significantly because of the associated demand for widened gay adoption rights and same sex parenting. So you are advancing that gender indifferent marriage and parenting are mutually exclusive, which is not the point. The point is natural marriage of a man and a woman producing and parenting children bring about optimum results for society and the next generation of citizens.

It is obvious you do not subscribe to the wisdom and the right of a child having a mother and father, opposite sexed, not same sex pair posing as parents. If there is any emphasis to be made how wrong SS’M’ is, it is the inarguable fact that SS’M’ proponents are pursuing adult interests, disregarding the right of a child to have a mother and a father.
,

Not to mention the other goal is the documented indoctrination of young students in public schools that gay sex is OK in the guise of “marriage.” Bad enough that emotionally and intellectually mature adults have to deal with this sham, but to target kids who have not developed the emotional or intellectual capacity to fully understand gay sex, and gay “marriage,” or heterosexual sex for that matter, is just plain wrong. It’s even crept into comic books in the US.

bleedingcool.com/2011/11/23/exclusive-archie-comics-gay-wedding-cover/

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, keep shining the light on the outright falsehoods being spread and be aware of what your children are being exposed to.

Peace,
Ed

 

[maximus]

Back on this thread temporarily, my wife ran into an acquaintance who was grieving over the holidays the recent loss of her HS son due to HIV. This lifestyle lends to an increased mortality rate for different reasons beyond our scope here. So looking at this thread again.

Some of the things gleaned from some of the responses of SSM proponents is that there is a general attitude regarding:

• The need to punish the Church for it’s opposition of the HS lifestyle and other things simply of a desire for vengeance and just to rub our faces in it. Not very rational or altruistic coming from those who browbeat everyone on just how superiorly reasonable and logical they are.
• The need to hurt religious institutions by unreasonable interference and over-regulation specially those that help society like Hospitals, Soup Kitchens, Adoption Services, Universities, etc. Ironically, Catholic health services handle the lion share of caring for HIV victims. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
• The need to make life hard on people of faith because they believe there is no room for us in modern society. It’s like they would not mind if the government started putting us in gulags.
• Interfere in the formation and education of all children including those of religious households by presenting SS and sexually explicit material to them as soon as possible. Talk about giving no quarters in the culture wars.

God bless.

 

[Giants]

men and women are different–physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually. if you don’t accept that, then there is no point to continuing this conversation. i have neither the time nor the inclination to “prove” my assertion with facts.

So sorry to waste your time. Don’t mind me - I’m just coming from a background that demands assertions be supported with facts. Maybe, I should’ve been religious.

if you do accept it–and particularly if you were raised by a mom and dad yourself (or, if not by a mom and dad, by another male and female)–then you realize there are things a child gets and needs from his mom that are different from what he gets and needs from his dad.

And these things are what, exactly? Oh sorry, I keep forgetting you’re not required to support your assertions like the rest of us.

advocates of SSM essentially believe that God messed up: God should have made it so that two men could have sex together and conceive a child. God knows better than we do.

Well, this advocate for SSM actually believes that God doesn’t exist, so it’s silly to base legislative policy on the whims of a voice in a whirlwind.

 

[kelvinf]

Here is an article about work being done to explain pedophilia as merely another alternative lifestyle for those who said it couldn’t possibly happen…

 

[maximus]

While the French political system is certainly challenged, I greatly admire the elegant and nuanced language, the art and literature, and the rich and entertaining history. They can keep the snails and frog legs, though.:bigyikes:

Love the escargot!

The frogs legs I had at a Chinese buffet. I would be curious to try a French version.

God Bless

 

[edwest2]

kelvinf:
To kelvinf,

You are quite right. Men who have sex with boys are being repackaged as “minor-attracted persons” here.

Warning: The following material is not suitable for children.

americansfortruth.com/2011/08/25/firsthand-report-on-b4u-act-conference-for-minor-attracted-persons-aims-at-normalizing-pedophilia/

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

One side benefit of this whole national debate- it is driving Christians of all denominations closer together. It is also driving Christians, Jews and Moslems into a common front to oppose the socialist atheists and their agenda which seems to largely include the destruction of marriage and the family. Well, Leon Trotsky wanted to destroy marriage and the family as well, and he failed. So will his ideological descendants.

As gay divorce increases, I think the gay community will begin to wonder.

Peace,
Ed