"Gay 'marriage' doesnt hurt society"

[Regular_Atheist]

Sorry for the late reply. What with the New Year and all, I’ve been busy with friends and family.

A couple of thoughts. One I don’t think the CHILDREN would be angry if they were taught homosexuality was “normal” “moral” or “just fine.” With no context about sexuality they are likely to simply absorb whatever they are told. The anger is from the parents who feel their role in guiding their children’s moral and theological lives has been usurped by the state. Now epan is correct, that some parents are happy to hand over their kids to what amounts to a free babysitter for six hours a day and don’t much care what they are learning. But the issue is the rights of parents who DO care, particularly in matters of theology, sexuality, family structure, etc. As we are learning, schools are taking more and more control, sometimes without the parents’ knowledge or consent and sometimes against the explicit instructions of the parents.

True, I guess.

That something is “natural” in that it’s found in nature, doesn’t mean it is a good thing. Cancer is found in nature, heart disease, murder, incest, rape, theft and violence are all characteristic of life in this world. So that some are attracted to the same sex isn’t good by virtue of the existence of this behavior.

Oh, yeah, I know that. I never said it did make it moral, but that you couldn’t claim that homosexuality was unnatural. Even if it was, that wouldn’t make it immoral, as you just showed. Of course, I was not referring to ‘natural law’ when I made that point.

That being said, I believe one’s sex life is a private matter and one of my biggest objections to the homosexual agenda is their desire if not their demand that their sexual practices be explicitly made public, that they be taught in schools, that private businesses are sued or harassed (can we say Chik Fil A?) because they do not champion this cause. If homosexuals want to engage in legal (as in consenting adults) and private sexual activity…hey it’s your life and your business. I just do not want to hear about it any more than I want to hear about my many years’ married neighbors sex life.

Sure, I suppose. However, I’d like to state that Chick-fil-a were not ‘sued or harassed’. Some people chose to no longer eat food from Chick-fil-a, and they’re welcome to. If a store supports something you disapprove of, or, in this case, donated money to organisations you disapprove of, you are perfectly entitled to no longer show any patronage towards them. The same applies to people in support of traditional marriage who may oppose businesses such as Starbucks, and do so much more effectively than those who opposed Chick-fil-a. General Mills is another business that many traditional marriage supporters are strongly opposing.

As to the statement that not all and maybe not most homosexuals are activists, true enough. I have a lot of interaction with homosexuals and only one pair of Lesbians give a rip about marriage. Most are happy to live their lives like the rest of us. Unfortunately the activists are the ones creating the disputes, the lawsuits, the demonstrations, the harassment. They’re the ones we hear about, not the nice gay couple in the apartment down the hall.

Sure.

Honestly I don’t see how you can claim there is some analogy to be drawn between cycling and homosexuality. The latter has a long history of issues, of religious prohibitions and health concerns. So opinions regarding homosexuality are a lot more passionate than about a hobby. That one doesn’t cycle doesn’t mean one does not think cycling is a valid and positive activity. OTOH homosexuality has a lot more ‘baggage’ and is likely to engender a particularly passionate response.

You misunderstood the analogy. The previous poster suggested that heterosexuals are indirectly expressing a negative view of homosexuality by engaging in heterosexual activities alone, and avoiding homosexual intercourse. I was merely showing how absurd that is.

 

[LisaA]

Sorry for the late reply. What with the New Year and all, I’ve been busy with friends and family.

True, I guess.

Oh, yeah, I know that. I never said it did make it moral, but that you couldn’t claim that homosexuality was unnatural. Even if it was, that wouldn’t make it immoral, as you just showed. Of course, I was not referring to ‘natural law’ when I made that point.

Sure, I suppose. However, I’d like to state that Chick-fil-a were not ‘sued or harassed’. Some people chose to no longer eat food from Chick-fil-a, and they’re welcome to. If a store supports something you disapprove of, or, in this case, donated money to organisations you disapprove of, you are perfectly entitled to no longer show any patronage towards them. The same applies to people in support of traditional marriage who may oppose businesses such as Starbucks, and do so much more effectively than those who opposed Chick-fil-a. General Mills is another business that many traditional marriage supporters are strongly opposing.

Sure.

You misunderstood the analogy. The previous poster suggested that heterosexuals are indirectly expressing a negative view of homosexuality by engaging in heterosexual activities alone, and avoiding homosexual intercourse. I was merely showing how absurd that is.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. One comment though, I totally agree that we can “vote with our feet” and not patronize businesses or watch media that promote agendas with which we disapprove. The Chik Fil A episode was FAR from boycotts. There was harrassment online, protests outside of Chik Fil A restaurants and probably most damaging pressure on politicians to ban Chik Fil A from opening restaurants in their town simply because the founder said he and his family believe in traditional marriage. They did NOT so anything or say anything detrimental about homosexuals. There is no anti-homosexual policy regarding employment and certainly no policy not to serve or be polite to homosexual customers. The truly hateful and over the top response to the comment that the family supports traditional marriage was much more than simply a boycott of Chik Fil A’s products.

Sorry didn’t understand your bike analogy. I guess I took it seriously!
Lisa

 

[marymary1975]

the Supreme Court will strike it down. .

Actually given the composition of the actual Superme Court, the likelihood that they will declare DOMA constitutional is extremely high.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Ten people punished for believing in traditional marriage

lifesitenews.com/news/ten-people-punished-for-believing-in-traditional-marriage

 

[Farien]

I NEVER lived in a secular country and NEVER WILL.

If that is your opinion, then I will not waste more time on reading your posts. The level of irrationality you display is beyond what I can accept.

 

[Faithdancer]

Pray, brothers and sisters, that Lord Jesus Christ comes to set things right…soon.

 

[captainmike]

a child needs both a mommy and a daddy. that’s all you need to know about whether gay marriage hurts people.

 

[Giants]

a child needs both a mommy and a daddy. that’s all you need to know about whether gay marriage hurts people.

A gay couple can adopt children without being married, just as a married couple can forgo having children. So what does one have to do with the other?

 

[Ignatius]

I don’t “fight”, and I don’t care about “winning” ).

My compliments on your gracious concession. Thank you.

 

[captainmike]

A gay couple can adopt children without being married, just as a married couple can forgo having children. So what does one have to do with the other?

gay marriage will keep the owner of an adoption agency from being able to discriminate in favor of mom/dad couples.

 

[LisaA]

A gay couple can adopt children without being married, just as a married couple can forgo having children. So what does one have to do with the other?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

My hope is that gay couples are not able to force religious organizations to consider them on par with married couples when placing children for adoptions. Children need both moms and dads in their lives. Every SS couple who adopts, buys or breeds a child denies that child one or the other parent. Why should the selfish desires of adults mean children lose? That’s all SSM is, selfish desires of adults who should act like adults and consider the welfare of children before their own.

Whether married couples have children is totally irrelevant to the discussion of SSM and society. So I’m not sure where that statement arose.
Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Pray, brothers and sisters, that Lord Jesus Christ comes to set things right…soon.

I will join you in this prayer…starting tonight at Adoration.

Lisa

 

[Giants]

This makes no sense whatsoever.

My hope is that gay couples are not able to force religious organizations to consider them on par with married couples when placing children for adoptions. Children need both moms and dads in their lives. Every SS couple who adopts, buys or breeds a child denies that child one or the other parent. Why should the selfish desires of adults mean children lose? That’s all SSM is, selfish desires of adults who should act like adults and consider the welfare of children before their own.

Whether married couples have children is totally irrelevant to the discussion of SSM and society. So I’m not sure where that statement arose.
Lisa

The statement arises from the fact it’s virtually impossible to have a conversation about SSM without opponents to it almost immediately veering off the path and making the argument about sex acts and having children. My point is that marriage and having children are mutually exclusive concepts - in principle, and quite often in practice.

Your argument relies on junk science and the belief that opposite gendered parents have this magic dust that they sprinkle on their children, and that children of SSCs are, by definition, denied access to this magic dust. This is nonsense, and it needs to be pointed out as such.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The statement arises from the fact it’s virtually impossible to have a conversation about SSM without opponents to it almost immediately veering off the path and making the argument about sex acts and having children. My point is that marriage and having children are mutually exclusive concepts - in principle, and quite often in practice.

Your argument relies on junk science and the belief that opposite gendered parents have this magic dust that they sprinkle on their children, and that children of SSCs are, by definition, denied access to this magic dust. This is nonsense, and it needs to be pointed out as such.

What is nonsense is disregard that parents by virtue of being the adults in a home have great influence on formation of values and reasoning in the developmental years of the children to maturity and adulthood themselves. It is not uncommon that they follow the lead of their parents.
*Moreover, existing research on children reared by homosexuals is not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited (6,7,8) but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes.(6) Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves.(5,6,9) And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, (10) attempt suicide, (11) experience domestic violence and sexual assault, (12) and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans.(13,14,15)

It shouldn’t be surprising that studies find children reared by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves (16,9,17) since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.(18,19,20,21) There’s no question that human sexuality is fluid and pliant.(22) Consider ancient Greece and Rome—among many early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. That was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather because sexuality is malleable and socially influenced.

Same-sex marriage no doubt will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously.*
drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_notinthebest.html

From your previous post, would you please provide examples of adoption agencies that place children for adoption by unmarried same sex couples, or situations where a child unrelated to one of an unmarried same sex couple can be adopted by them? Not that same sex couples can be married in the true sense, regardless that it’s been made legal in some states.
,

 

[Giants]

What is nonsense is disregard that parents by virtue of being the adults in a home have great influence on formation of values and reasoning in the developmental years of the children to maturity and adulthood themselves. It is not uncommon that they follow the lead of their parents.
*Moreover, existing research on children reared by homosexuals is not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited (6,7,8) but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes.(6) Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves.(5,6,9) And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, (10) attempt suicide, (11) experience domestic violence and sexual assault, (12) and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans.(13,14,15)

It shouldn’t be surprising that studies find children reared by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves (16,9,17) since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.(18,19,20,21) There’s no question that human sexuality is fluid and pliant.(22) Consider ancient Greece and Rome—among many early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. That was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather because sexuality is malleable and socially influenced.

Same-sex marriage no doubt will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously.*
drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_notinthebest.html

From your previous post, would you please provide examples of adoption agencies that place children for adoption by unmarried same sex couples, or situations where a child unrelated to one of an unmarried same sex couple can be adopted by them? Not that same sex couples can be married in the true sense, regardless that it’s been made legal in some states.
,

First of all, if you need me to provide you an example of a basic fact that SSCs are legally able to adopt children, then you’ve already proven yourself unequal to this conversation. A 5-second Google search would satisfy your curiosity.

Hansen’s article simply illustrates my point. Besides being replete with misinformation and disingenuous assertions, she commits the same fallacy of focusing her argument against SSM on same-sex parenting. Again - mutually exclusive concepts. Gay couples are already legally allowed to adopt children. The horse is out of the barn. You can argue about one or the other. But you can’t use one to argue against the other.

 

[LisaA]

The statement arises from the fact it’s virtually impossible to have a conversation about SSM without opponents to it almost immediately veering off the path and making the argument about sex acts and having children. My point is that marriage and having children are mutually exclusive concepts - in principle, and quite often in practice.

Your argument relies on junk science and the belief that opposite gendered parents have this magic dust that they sprinkle on their children, and that children of SSCs are, by definition, denied access to this magic dust. This is nonsense, and it needs to be pointed out as such.

Well you seem to deny basic biological truths that it takes a male and female to conceive a child. That marriage has been distinguished from other forms of friendship or contractual obligations by virtue of the sexual relationship and accordingly the bearing of children for thousands of years seems to be of no interest to you.

Further you defeat your own credibility by specious claims about ‘sprinkling fairy dust’ on children. You’ve seen this method in action I take it? I haven’t and have never claimed such a system works in child rearing. However whether you accept common sense or many statistical studies, children raised by two married to each other parents of opposite sex have better outcomes whether the issue is lack of problems (drugs, crime, promiscuity) better health, higher educational achievement, or successful marriage themselves.

I have no idea of your background but you are like the many homosexual advocates who jump into this Forum and think that by belittling and demeaning Catholicism you provide some kind of compelling argument. You will not succeed any more than did your previous homosexual advocates.

Lisa

 

[InSearchofGrace]

First of all, if you need me to provide you an example of a basic fact that SSCs are legally able to adopt children, then you’ve already proven yourself unequal to this conversation. A 5-second Google search would satisfy your curiosity.

Hansen’s article simply illustrates my point. Besides being replete with misinformation and disingenuous assertions, she commits the same fallacy of focusing her argument against SSM on same-sex parenting. Again - mutually exclusive concepts. Gay couples are already legally allowed to adopt children. The horse is out of the barn. You can argue about one or the other. But you can’t use one to argue against the other.

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.
,

 

[Giants]

Well you seem to deny basic biological truths that it takes a male and female to conceive a child. That marriage has been distinguished from other forms of friendship or contractual obligations by virtue of the sexual relationship and accordingly the bearing of children for thousands of years seems to be of no interest to you.

To the former point, I don’t deny it. I simply dismiss it as irrelevant, which it is. A man who impregnates a woman and skips town is a glorified sperm donor, not a father. A woman who would rather attend to her own life than care for her child is an egg incubator, not a mother. We surely agree on this. And so assert a banal, biological truth as the unquestioned basis for who should be raising children and who shouldn’t is silly.

Ironically, the latter point all but overrides the former. This is perhaps news to you, but men and women can have sex, and yes, conceive children, and yes, parent them effectively, without being married. And it’s been thus and so for thousands of years.

The rest is just claptrap. You keep want to morph an argument about the morality and practicality of SSM into an argument about same-sex child-rearing. I’m perfectly happy to argue about one or the other. But despite what Holy Mother Church would have you believe, they are not necessarily related concepts, and never have been. So trying to argue against SSM by making fatuous claims about the ability of gay people to be good parents is silly.

 

[Faithdancer]

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.

 

[Giants]

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.
,

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.”