T
Tlaloc
Guest
Really? The sources I’ve seen say the opposite: that marriage was indeed recognized by the state in Sparta as well as elsewhere (some native american tribes for instance).
- Status
T
Tlaloc
Guest
The same way you do in male-female divorce: based on the merits of the situation.
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
Could you cite some of those sources, I would be very interested in giving them a review!
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
And what does the American Psychiatric Association have to say?
T
Tlaloc
Guest
A
Arwen037
Guest
But how do you determine that they both were in custody of the child before?
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Kevin Walker:
psych.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html
As far as the kids of gay parents they say this:
“**How Do the Children of Gay/Lesbians Parents Fare?**Many gay men and women are parents. For example, estimates of the numbers of lesbian mothers range from 1 to 5 million and with the number of children ranging from 6 to 14 million. Most gay parents conceived their children in prior heterosexual marriages. Recently an increasing number of gay parents have conceived children and raised them from birth either as single parents or in committed relationships. Often this is done through alternative insemination, adoption or through foster parenting. Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households. Children raised in gay or lesbian households do not show any greater incidence of homosexuality or gender identity issues than other children. Children raised in nontraditional homes with gay/lesbian parents can encounter some special challenges related to the ongoing stigma against homosexuality, but most children surmount these problems.”
Emphasis added by me. Source:
http://www.psych.org/public_info/gaylesbianandbisexualissues22701.pdf
**
**
here’s what they say about the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders:
psych.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html
As far as the kids of gay parents they say this:
“**How Do the Children of Gay/Lesbians Parents Fare?**Many gay men and women are parents. For example, estimates of the numbers of lesbian mothers range from 1 to 5 million and with the number of children ranging from 6 to 14 million. Most gay parents conceived their children in prior heterosexual marriages. Recently an increasing number of gay parents have conceived children and raised them from birth either as single parents or in committed relationships. Often this is done through alternative insemination, adoption or through foster parenting. Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households. Children raised in gay or lesbian households do not show any greater incidence of homosexuality or gender identity issues than other children. Children raised in nontraditional homes with gay/lesbian parents can encounter some special challenges related to the ongoing stigma against homosexuality, but most children surmount these problems.”
Emphasis added by me. Source:
http://www.psych.org/public_info/gaylesbianandbisexualissues22701.pdf
**
**
T
Tlaloc
Guest
I’m not sure I understand your question. We’re talking about a child legally adopted by both parties right? If not then the legal adopter would i think have substantially more rights than their ex-.
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
This is typically vague and nebulous of those who support homosexuality in general, and of a public encyclopedia.
There is no specific American Indian tribe mentioned which practiced same sex marriages, or a citation to check on that assertion. It runs contrary to the general findings that homosexuality was relatively unknown amongst pre-contact Native Americans.
The Wikipedia article is also thin on information regarding same sex marriages in Sparta. While the ancient Greeks practiced and somewhat tolerated homosexual liaisons between boys and young men, the marriages were strictly between a man and a woman. Never has a same sex marriage in ancient Greece been mentioned in any literature of my Classics courses.
This Wikipedia article was unbalanced and failed to mention a lesbian couple in Cape Cod Massachusetts who were arrested for raping their adopted fourteen year old daughter. The article was written by an obvious proponent of homosexual marriage and useless in its extreme bias.
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
The removal of homosexuality from the DSM was done out of political pressure and has caused a great divide within the American Psychiatric Association, and the Psychiatric Nurses Association. Psychiatrists have been protesting political correctness in diagnosis since this non-psychological decision was made.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Dear good Dr.
See, you’re mistaken, they are not viewed as inferior. There’s no duality because we are all siners. And I’m not Baptist, I don’t have assurance of my salvation any more than I have assurance of any gay person’s salvation. I’m no more saved than they are. I hope I will die in a state of grace and I hope they do to. The sin is grave, but only God knows the culpability in one’s heart. If I die in a state of mortal sin I am going to hell too. That rule applies to everyone, no matter what type of grave sin you’ve knowledgeably and willingly commited. Luckily, anyone can go to confession and have their soul restored, homosexuals included. No one is turned away. God loves everyone equally but those who commit mortal sin (all it’s elements met, not just the grave act) reject Him, He does not reject them. He gave us free will. Legitimizing a grave act just makes it that much easier for someone inclined to that act to meet the first element.
I don’t believe I ever said homosexuality was a mental illness. It is a disorder of nature, just as any sin is. No one’s free from that. Therefore, a homosexual person is not inferior. We all have some form of the same disorder from the first sin. We all have deep rooted inclinations to sin. The approval of a grave act is not prejudiced. I would expect disapproval of any grave act I am inclined to commit.
Homosexuals should also not be fired or discriminated against. Being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex applies to everyone, however. Just because some people don’t want to do it, doesn’t make it discriminatory. Some people want to smoke pot and some don’t.
If the government refused to recognize Catholic marriages as legal, it would be no sweat off my back. All that’s necessary is the sacrament in my eyes. Homosexuals are not prohibited from having their own little ceremonies. I will offer up my disapproval, but at the end of the day it’s their choice.
Government marriages are different. The government is free to give conditional tax breaks or other benefits to promote certain behavior by individuals, corporations, and states. The government wishes to encourage opposite sex marriages. Anyone is free to choose whether or not to take advantage of these benefits or they can choose not to.
As for kids being taken away form homosexual couples, I would strongly disapprove of children being adopted by anything but mother-father households (most of the reasons for this have already been argued by others I think), however, children already in same-sex households probably should not be taken away as that would provide even greater psychological damage.
As for absolute morality, I do believe in it, as do you. We just disagree as to what is absolutely moral. The only way to settle this debate would probably be to prove which is the right one, which would take you or I more than a simple post to do. Sorry, I kind of jumped around a bit, I hope you could follow.
See, you’re mistaken, they are not viewed as inferior. There’s no duality because we are all siners. And I’m not Baptist, I don’t have assurance of my salvation any more than I have assurance of any gay person’s salvation. I’m no more saved than they are. I hope I will die in a state of grace and I hope they do to. The sin is grave, but only God knows the culpability in one’s heart. If I die in a state of mortal sin I am going to hell too. That rule applies to everyone, no matter what type of grave sin you’ve knowledgeably and willingly commited. Luckily, anyone can go to confession and have their soul restored, homosexuals included. No one is turned away. God loves everyone equally but those who commit mortal sin (all it’s elements met, not just the grave act) reject Him, He does not reject them. He gave us free will. Legitimizing a grave act just makes it that much easier for someone inclined to that act to meet the first element.
I don’t believe I ever said homosexuality was a mental illness. It is a disorder of nature, just as any sin is. No one’s free from that. Therefore, a homosexual person is not inferior. We all have some form of the same disorder from the first sin. We all have deep rooted inclinations to sin. The approval of a grave act is not prejudiced. I would expect disapproval of any grave act I am inclined to commit.
Homosexuals should also not be fired or discriminated against. Being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex applies to everyone, however. Just because some people don’t want to do it, doesn’t make it discriminatory. Some people want to smoke pot and some don’t.
If the government refused to recognize Catholic marriages as legal, it would be no sweat off my back. All that’s necessary is the sacrament in my eyes. Homosexuals are not prohibited from having their own little ceremonies. I will offer up my disapproval, but at the end of the day it’s their choice.
Government marriages are different. The government is free to give conditional tax breaks or other benefits to promote certain behavior by individuals, corporations, and states. The government wishes to encourage opposite sex marriages. Anyone is free to choose whether or not to take advantage of these benefits or they can choose not to.
As for kids being taken away form homosexual couples, I would strongly disapprove of children being adopted by anything but mother-father households (most of the reasons for this have already been argued by others I think), however, children already in same-sex households probably should not be taken away as that would provide even greater psychological damage.
As for absolute morality, I do believe in it, as do you. We just disagree as to what is absolutely moral. The only way to settle this debate would probably be to prove which is the right one, which would take you or I more than a simple post to do. Sorry, I kind of jumped around a bit, I hope you could follow.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Kevin Walker:
As opposed to the *extremely *balanced nature of what you cite. Kevin, you crack me up.
LOL!
As opposed to the *extremely *balanced nature of what you cite. Kevin, you crack me up.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Kevin Walker:
So you say. I wouldn’t know. I just point out that both professional associations clearly come down on the side you are opposed to, at least in their official literature.
shrug
So you say. I wouldn’t know. I just point out that both professional associations clearly come down on the side you are opposed to, at least in their official literature.
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
My contributions to Wikipedia are extremely well-balanced and objective because I take the time necessary for an encyclopedia to include all the necessary footnotes, endnotes, and bibliography.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
I disagree. Viewed from the outside there is a clear dichotomy. Consider the viciousness with which Protestants and Catholics often attack each other. And they are extremely similar faiths. There is a definite elitism to the Church. Do you not believe everyone would be better off being Catholic?
I understand but there’s a severe disconnect between doctrine and belief. Watch the forum for a while, tell me that you detect no trace of elitism.
How is that any different than an argument that the unworthy are born black, not vice versa? It’s always easy to justify your prejudices when you get to put words in God’s mouth. At one point God didn’t love “Niggers.” Today few would accept such teaching. Today God doesn’t love “Fags” (as Fred Phelps likes to say). Tomorrow do you think that preaching of hatred will bear up under scrutiny?
Several here have said it not only is a mental illness but that treatment of it should be mandatory. I’m sorry if my words came off as a personal attack. They weren’t meant to be. You seem intelligent and capable of rational discussion of ideas. I don’t mean to suggest otherwise. But you also picked up the gauntlet thrown down to someone else and that means you have to answer for their beliefs as well as your own.
But homosexuality is an identity. It’s not just an act, it’s who they are, at least for many of them. You cannot deny one without denying the other. You cannot say that it’s alright to be black but wrong to have dark skin.
The right to marry a partner is allowed to some and not others. That’s discrimination.
Its not that some people don’t want to do it, it that some people want to prevent everyone else from doing it.
You might have to rethink that when your tax status changes. or your wife dies and you have no right to any of her property. Or when you are turned away from the hospital as she dies. Marriage includes a lot of secular perks.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Except homosexuals, unless you want them to live a lie. As before we’re all equal but some a re more equal than others.
It turns out their arguments were specious as both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association find there is no indication that children of gay couples are disadvantaged except in so much as society continues to be prejudiced. Thats the fault of society not the gay couple.
No I don’t believe in absolute morals. I can direct you to some of my writing on relative morality and anarchism if you like.
I can follow it fine, and let me say that I find your posts quite refreshing. I disagree vehemently with you but you do put forth a decent argument. Spasibo!
G
Genesis315
Guest
Dear the Dr.
Well, first let me say, whether you know it or not you do believe in absolute morality. Your absolute morality just may be that people should be able to do whatever they want. You wouldn’t be arguing so vehemently if you didn’t believe I was wrong and you were right.
Now onto your arguments. I personally align my beliefs with Church doctrines. They are one in the same to me (why I choose to do this goes back to the absolute morality thing and is too much to get into here). If people have elitist attitudes here, then they are committing the sin of pride (one I know I struggle with). Likewise, the Church has never taught to hate anyone. It has condemned homosexual acts with the strongest language, but the individual is not hated (the Church aslo does not call it a mental illness). Likewise, the Church(when I say Church I mean Catholic) never taught that God didn’t love blacks. The Church’s teaching, unlike those of many other sects does not change (you can challenge this, but that would probably be better debated in another room–like I said, i think this debate is unending without a proof of what is absolutely true).
As for the secular perks, wills are available to anyone who wants to make one and you cna leave whatever you want to whomever you want, spouse or not. People dying without a will is called “intestate” and that is when a legal marriage would come into play. When I get married the first thing I would do is add my spouse to my will. The medical attention aspect I think can also be taken care of legally, it may be part of the will or some sort of waiver. It can definitely be done with a simple written contract (no lawyer necessary). If you want to live together, you should do these things.
I don’t follow about the born black thing. We are all born unworthy. I don’t put words into God’s mouth. I believe what He says is the same always and unchanging. (you can challenge these things, but again, that goes back to the absolutism). There has never been a doctrine of hate.
As for Protestants, their heretical beliefs are just another sin. We should love them all as sinners. The spiteful jabs that go on between Catholics and Protestants are no good. The differnces are few, but fundamental however.
As for identity, the state denies identity all the time. Many things can fall under identity. Here’s an extreme: Let’s say I’m a nudist. The state does not allow me to be a nudist in public. I cannot say they are denying me my identity. Am I living a lie then? Likewise, the state denies the homosexuals public approval but in privacy they can be whoever they want. Likewise, a homosexual can get the secular benefits without lying. They can enter into the marriage contract with a friend without lying. No where does the marriage contract mention love. I mean, this may be against the principle that you argue, but technically they are given the same opportunity as others. Just because the state doesn’t acknowldge you doesn’t mean you are living a lie. The state doesn’t acknowldge an unborn baby as a legitimate human, but that doesn’t mean people like me are living a lie by believing that it is (or that the unborn child is living a lie).
Yes I do want everyone to be Catholic. Believing your beliefs are correct while others’ beliefs are wrong is not elitest. Otherwise you would be an elitest for disageeing with me. Wanting someone to be Catholic is simply wanting someone to believe the truth. When two people disagree on what the truth is, it doesn’t make either person an elitest. Now we can ask Pilate’s question “what is truth?” There is one truth, whether you realize so or not. You just think it’s different than I do, but we both believe in a single truth. By arguing with me on this website you say I’m wrong. And where there’s a wrong there’s a right. And where there is a right, there is truth. And if you didn’t want to change my mind, you wouldn’t be posting on this forum. And I do not accuse you of elitism. But maybe you think you are an elitest.
Well, first let me say, whether you know it or not you do believe in absolute morality. Your absolute morality just may be that people should be able to do whatever they want. You wouldn’t be arguing so vehemently if you didn’t believe I was wrong and you were right.
Now onto your arguments. I personally align my beliefs with Church doctrines. They are one in the same to me (why I choose to do this goes back to the absolute morality thing and is too much to get into here). If people have elitist attitudes here, then they are committing the sin of pride (one I know I struggle with). Likewise, the Church has never taught to hate anyone. It has condemned homosexual acts with the strongest language, but the individual is not hated (the Church aslo does not call it a mental illness). Likewise, the Church(when I say Church I mean Catholic) never taught that God didn’t love blacks. The Church’s teaching, unlike those of many other sects does not change (you can challenge this, but that would probably be better debated in another room–like I said, i think this debate is unending without a proof of what is absolutely true).
As for the secular perks, wills are available to anyone who wants to make one and you cna leave whatever you want to whomever you want, spouse or not. People dying without a will is called “intestate” and that is when a legal marriage would come into play. When I get married the first thing I would do is add my spouse to my will. The medical attention aspect I think can also be taken care of legally, it may be part of the will or some sort of waiver. It can definitely be done with a simple written contract (no lawyer necessary). If you want to live together, you should do these things.
I don’t follow about the born black thing. We are all born unworthy. I don’t put words into God’s mouth. I believe what He says is the same always and unchanging. (you can challenge these things, but again, that goes back to the absolutism). There has never been a doctrine of hate.
As for Protestants, their heretical beliefs are just another sin. We should love them all as sinners. The spiteful jabs that go on between Catholics and Protestants are no good. The differnces are few, but fundamental however.
As for identity, the state denies identity all the time. Many things can fall under identity. Here’s an extreme: Let’s say I’m a nudist. The state does not allow me to be a nudist in public. I cannot say they are denying me my identity. Am I living a lie then? Likewise, the state denies the homosexuals public approval but in privacy they can be whoever they want. Likewise, a homosexual can get the secular benefits without lying. They can enter into the marriage contract with a friend without lying. No where does the marriage contract mention love. I mean, this may be against the principle that you argue, but technically they are given the same opportunity as others. Just because the state doesn’t acknowldge you doesn’t mean you are living a lie. The state doesn’t acknowldge an unborn baby as a legitimate human, but that doesn’t mean people like me are living a lie by believing that it is (or that the unborn child is living a lie).
Yes I do want everyone to be Catholic. Believing your beliefs are correct while others’ beliefs are wrong is not elitest. Otherwise you would be an elitest for disageeing with me. Wanting someone to be Catholic is simply wanting someone to believe the truth. When two people disagree on what the truth is, it doesn’t make either person an elitest. Now we can ask Pilate’s question “what is truth?” There is one truth, whether you realize so or not. You just think it’s different than I do, but we both believe in a single truth. By arguing with me on this website you say I’m wrong. And where there’s a wrong there’s a right. And where there is a right, there is truth. And if you didn’t want to change my mind, you wouldn’t be posting on this forum. And I do not accuse you of elitism. But maybe you think you are an elitest.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Dear Dr., I can’t post until tomorrow. i didn’t want you to wait for a reply! Good talk. Hopefully I will post tomorrow, the day after definitely. I look forward to your reply to the above. Maybe we should start a thread on absolute truth when this one has run it’s course.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Why do you call me Doctor? I have a degree in physics but it’s not a PhD (and I’ve never agreed with the idea of calling anyone but MD’s doctor anyway). Just wondering.
I disagree. I do believe in relative morality as a logical consequence of my world view. I certainly have my own beliefs and defend them passionately. In this instance I see a large group of reasonably decent people content to let bigotry guide their actions. That bothers me. I hope to make it clear how such perspectives are logically flawed and historically repudiated. I can’t say that objectively bigotry is bad. It’s not. I subjectively think bigorty is bad, and you most likely do too. The difference is that I see the bigorty in gay bashing and others don’t.
I understand, and I do think you should be completely free to make that choice.
Agreed.
Uh thats a tough sell for anyone familiar with the inquisitions for instance. Let’s leave that for now though.
That’s the theory, but again, if I time and again tell you you are going to hell and are an abomination for being Catholic I am hating you not just the faith. Hatred generally doesn’t narrow down it’s scope that well. Teaching hatred of an action almost inevitably means hatred of the actor.
I don’t accept that given the drastic ways church teaching has changed over the years. But I agree we should leave that to another discussion
Yes and hence married couples have an advantage over non-married couples. If a couple chooses not to marry that’s fine they choose not to get that perk, but if the are forbidden from marrying that’s discrimination.
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Married couples don’t have to. Why should they get special rights that others are not allowed?
You argued that people turn away from God and not the reverse, my point is thats a rationalization to excuse bigotry just as it was when people argued that the inferior were born black.
And over those few differences how much blood has been spilled? How many persecutions by one side or the other? How many lives ripped apart? At what point does it become clear that these are the results of hatred confined not to the sin but heaped ignominiously upon the “sinner”? If Christians had ever managed to only hate the sin our history would have been far less bloody. Clearly that path doesn’t work. So you have to decide if Christ really wanted you to persecute each other over minutae or to just try accepting each other.
Another aspect where our repressed sexuality leads to bizarre laws.
So long as they live as second class citizens.
Not with their partner. What good is it to say you can marry almost anyone except the one person you want to be with?
Sure it is. Don’t get me wrong, I’m incredibly elitist but I recognize it and accept it.
Believing your truth is superior to theirs is an elitist attitude.
No I do believe in many truths, the problem here is that we do believe the same thing (bigotry is bad) but we disagree on whether gay bashing is bigotry.
There are rights and wrongs to objective questions but not to subjective. If you really believed bigotry was fine I’d have nothing to argue with you because then its a fundamental subjective disagreement between us. But whether discriminating against one group of the population is bigotry is an objective question.
To give an example we may disagree what is the best ice cream but if you say rocky road is terrible and then proceed to enjoy eating rocky road I can objectively point out the flaw in your stated beliefs and your actions.
As before you’d be correct.
- Status