Gay Marriage

[KyrieEleison17]

Something tells me you never spent much time with a family that has same sex parents. I’ve known many children from this type of family, and the only observation I could make was that they were extremely well-adjusted, thoughtful kids/adults.

They are exposed necessarily to sexual deviancy and error which is falsely normalized by their environment. This encourages dangerous beliefs and inculcates serious errors about human sexuality. This is not good for children.

I won’t necessarily disagree with you that having both a mother figure and a father figure ever-present is “ideal”, but I would disagree that it is the only acceptable family.

I didn’t make that claim.

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, you appear to believe that children would be better left in the foster system than with two parents

Guardians =/= parents.

of the same gender. I find that completely and utterly misinformed and incorrect.

It’s not being “of the same gender” that’s actually the problem, though that is imperfect as ideally children should be exposed to the examples of loving motherhood and fatherhood as well as that of a loving, faithful wife and a loving, faithful husband. Of course, in any situation where there is only one gender represented (regardless of how many times that gender is multiplied) the child is necessarily deprived of the witness and experience of that ideal state.

Two brothers sharing a flat who are considered safe and stable might, in some emergency situation, be allotted the care of a child, at least temporarily. Single persons might also be allotted the care of a child. However, none of these situations are ideal for the child’s development and education. That is why we to this day prefer and sometimes even mandate that foster parents be a stable, married couple. No one complained that by denying single people a right to adopt children meant that more children might have to remain in foster care.

The problem is that we are putting the self-centred interests of adults over and above the interests of the child. The child’s welfare and interests come first. Same-sex partnerships adopting children is a categorical assault on the rights of the child and constitute a revolution that puts the selfish demands of adults over and above the welfare, rights and interest of children. This constitutes an assault on the very notion of human rights as power and a spectacularly absurd ideology rather than truth and justice is being served - or, in the case of the former, rather pandered to.

 

[Kitcat1968]

They are exposed necessarily to sexual deviancy and error which is falsely normalized by their environment. This encourages dangerous beliefs and inculcates serious errors about human sexuality. This is not good for children.

I didn’t make that claim.

Guardians =/= parents.

It’s not being “of the same gender” that’s actually the problem, though that is imperfect as ideally children should be exposed to the examples of loving motherhood and fatherhood as well as that of a loving, faithful wife and a loving, faithful husband. Of course, in any situation where there is only one gender represented (regardless of how many times that gender is multiplied) the child is necessarily deprived of the witness and experience of that ideal state.

Two brothers sharing a flat who are considered safe and stable might, in some emergency situation, be allotted the care of a child, at least temporarily. Single persons might also be allotted the care of a child. However, none of these situations are ideal for the child’s development and education. That is why we to this day prefer and sometimes even mandate that foster parents be a stable, married couple. No one complained that by denying single people a right to adopt children meant that more children might have to remain in foster care.

The problem is that we are putting the self-centred interests of adults over and above the interests of the child. The child’s welfare and interests come first. Same-sex partnerships adopting children is a categorical assault on the rights of the child and constitute a revolution that puts the selfish demands of adults over and above the welfare, rights and interest of children. This constitutes an assault on the very notion of human rights as power and a spectacularly absurd ideology rather than truth and justice is being served - or, in the case of the former, rather pandered to.

Oh my. I’m not going to debate this with you any further. Your complete and utter lack of knowledge on this subject would make the conversation a never ending one. God bless.

ETA: On a parting note, I have yet to meet a single adult who was indeed raised by two mothers/two fathers who even subtly suggested they were deprived and raised by selfish, self-centered parents. In fact, I’ve witnessed the exact opposite - time and time again. When you have some solid proof that these children are somehow “deprived” of anything, then you would have a valid argument. But all the evidence points to the contrary, even if that evidence is just personal testimony - which might actually be the most valid evidence of all.

 

[JimG]

I would note that Catholic adoption agencies have ceased doing business rather than accept a state mandate to place children with same sex couples.

 

[Kitcat1968]

I would note that Catholic adoption agencies have ceased doing business rather than accept a state mandate to place children with same sex couples.

I would argue that, so long as ANY adoption agency isn’t receiving government funding, it’s wrong to force them to do what their faith dictates otherwise. However, if they’re receiving money - which comes from, at least in part, the taxpayers, they should have to follow the law.

 

[JimG]

I would argue that, so long as ANY adoption agency isn’t receiving government funding, it’s wrong to force them to do what their faith dictates otherwise. However, if they’re receiving money - which comes from, at least in part, the taxpayers, they should have to follow the law.

I don’t recall the details of the case I had in mind, but I think the issue was not receipt of government funding. The issue was compliance with a state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which applied regardless of source of funding. (I will note that such laws inevitably clash with religious liberty.) The adoption agency could not place children with gay couples because it considered that an egregiously immoral action. It closed down.

 

[Kitcat1968]

I don’t recall the details of the case I had in mind, but I think the issue was not receipt of government funding. The issue was compliance with a state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which applied regardless of source of funding. (I will note that such laws inevitably clash with religious liberty.) The adoption agency could not place children with gay couples because it considered that an egregiously immoral action. It closed down.

Well, like I said, if they were not in fact receiving funding from the government, then I find that to be very wrong. Unfortunately, some people take information like this and try to use it as ammo against same-sex marriage. The two issues are not the same.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, like I said, if they were not in fact receiving funding from the government, then I find that to be very wrong. Unfortunately, some people take information like this and try to use it as ammo against same-sex marriage. The two issues are not the same.

Not true. Suppose that a private adoption organization refused to place children in the homes of black parents. The government should rightly shut them down.

If you are saying that same-sex marriage is marriage, then you can’t make it second-class marriage, but not allowing gay people the rights of other married couples. You cannot consistently defend a Catholic adoption agency and gay marriage. You have to choose one or the other.

Or else you have to defend pure bigotry – that is, instituting a system where you arbitrarily have two marriage castes, with different sets of rights.

 

[Kitcat1968]

Not true. Suppose that a private adoption organization refused to place children in the homes of black parents. The government should rightly shut them down.

If you are saying that same-sex marriage is marriage, then you can’t make it second-class marriage, but not allowing gay people the rights of other married couples. You cannot consistently defend a Catholic adoption agency and gay marriage. You have to choose one or the other.

Or else you have to defend pure bigotry – that is, instituting a system where you arbitrarily have two marriage castes, with different sets of rights.

I disagree that I cannot defend both a Catholic run organization and gay marriage. Look at me, doing it right this second. You views may force you to see otherwise, but my views do not. I see gay marriage as nothing more than a civil matter, completely separate from the church. The preoccupation with that baffles me.

Now, if gay couples were actively attempting to force a church to marry them, I would have a problem. But I would have a problem with any couple forcing any church to marry them. Yet this is not what is happening. Gay couples simply want a piece of paper. That’s it. Whether or not someone feels as if they are hijacking the “word” is their own problem. The legalization of same-sex marriage does not force one to suddenly change their mind against their will. One can continue being against civil gay marriage (although I can’t for the life of me figure out why).

ETA: and “because of the children” is not a reason. Not a single shred of evidence has pointed to children of same sex couples being somehow harmed or deprived. Quite the opposite.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I disagree that I cannot defend both a Catholic run organization and gay marriage. Look at me, doing it right this second. You views may force you to see otherwise, but my views do not. I see gay marriage as nothing more than a civil matter, completely separate from the church. The preoccupation with that baffles me.

Now, if gay couples were actively attempting to force a church to marry them, I would have a problem. But I would have a problem with any couple forcing any church to marry them. Yet this is not what is happening. Gay couples simply want a piece of paper. That’s it. Whether or not someone feels as if they are hijacking the “word” is their own problem. The legalization of same-sex marriage does not force one to suddenly change their mind against their will. One can continue being against civil gay marriage (although I can’t for the life of me figure out why).

ETA: and “because of the children” is not a reason. Not a single shred of evidence has pointed to children of same sex couples being somehow harmed or deprived. Quite the opposite.

Can you explain to me either of the following?

(1) Why there is a disanalogy between race and sexual orientation.
or
(2) Why private adoption agencies should be able to refuse black couples – say, for “religious reasons”.

If you can’t give me a reason for either (1) or (2), then I think you do have to choose between the rights of the Catholic organization and gay marriage.

 

[JimG]

The fact is, some or many gay couples don’t want just a ‘piece of paper.’ They want a Catholic adoption agency to treat them the same as a married heterosexual couple in the placement of children.

The Catholic adoption agency cannot do that as a matter of conscience, because it views placing the child in such a situation as immoral and a grave disservice to the child. There is and there will be an inevitable conflict between such laws and religious liberty.

 

[Nacho45]

Heterosexuals debased marriage …

So, because a few folks lost the meaning of marriage, that makes it acceptable to completely twist it inside out? That’s not logical in any way. Marriage, real marriage, will always and forever continue to be based on the same foundation. Anything outside of that is a poor imitation at best.

 

[JimG]

So, because a few folks lost the meaning of marriage, that makes it acceptable to completely twist it inside out? That’s not logical in any way. Marriage, real marriage, will always and forever continue to be based on the same foundation. Anything outside of that is a poor imitation at best.

Of course, the previously existing debasement of marriage is no reason to debase it further. But I think it began with more than “a few folks.” How many Catholics practice contraception? How many rejected Humanae Vitae and still do? It was the acceptance of contraception that enabled the sexual revolution and began the destruction of marriage.

 

[Rau]

…
It is a new idea, it should be a completely new legal terminology, legal state, and one that heterosexuals cannot partake in.

The institution you propose should be for any persons not seeking “Marriage”. Thus, it could serve the needs of (say) 2 aged sisters to share assets and to mutually care for each other. There need not be, and should not be, any assumed sexual relationship between the parties.

The only sexual relationship that the State need take an interest in is Marriage, for that is the only institution associated with the creating of citizens and the building of the society.

 

[Rau]

?..
I just can’t for the life of me figure out what all the fuss is about. Civil marriage and religious marriage two completely different things.

Not really true. The Church recognises valid civil marriages as Marriages.

 

[Rau]

I would note that Catholic adoption agencies have ceased doing business rather than accept a state mandate to place children with same sex couples.

Note that IVF, sperm donors and surrogacy arrangements are increasingly common in the quest for gay couples to form families.

 

[SMGS127]

Note that IVF, sperm donors and surrogacy arrangements are increasingly common in the quest for gay couples to form families.

IVF is actually fairly uncommon. The temptation of IVF is that two people can still have children the “normal” way: between two spouses, using their own zygotes. That obviously can’t apply to gay couples. But you are correct to note that sperm donation is very common with lesbian couples (“lesbians bring a turkey baster on the second date”), and surrogacy is very common with gay male couples. Adoption occurs occasionally too, but there’s so many obstacles to adoption, especially for gay couples, that they usually either go with foster homes or adopt the unwanted children of good friends so they avoid the usual adoption process. Occasionally they adopt foreign, but very few countries who need foreign adoption sponsors view homosexual physical relationships as moral.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The fact is, some or many gay couples don’t want just a ‘piece of paper.’ They want a Catholic adoption agency to treat them the same as a married heterosexual couple in the placement of children.

The Catholic adoption agency cannot do that as a matter of conscience, because it views placing the child in such a situation as immoral and a grave disservice to the child. There is and there will be an inevitable conflict between such laws and religious liberty.

I wonder why Catholic adoption agencies chose to close down in the states where this law applied. From my perspective, it would be much more effective to practice civil disobedience, and force the government to arrest us.

 

[SMGS127]

I wonder why Catholic adoption agencies chose to close down in the states where this law applied. From my perspective, it would be much more effective to practice civil disobedience, and force the government to arrest us.

The government wouldn’t arrest them; they’d just wait for someone to sue and then support it, causing huge financial burdens on the Church. That’s hardly preferable or more effective .

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The government wouldn’t arrest them; they’d just wait for someone to sue and then support it, causing huge financial burdens on the Church. That’s hardly preferable or more effective .

I don’t see why it’s not preferable.

Do we think that money is what wins hearts? I’d be more than happy to have the papers reporting on the fact that the Church was being forced to shell out millions of dollars for obeying its conscience.

Moreover, I would refuse to write the checks, if I were the diocese. If the government seizes the assets, you can’t do anything about it, but paying an unjust fine is cooperating with evil.

 

[Rau]

I don’t see why it’s not preferable.

Do we think that money is what wins hearts? I’d be more than happy to have the papers reporting on the fact that the Church was being forced to shell out millions of dollars for obeying its conscience.

Moreover, I would refuse to write the checks, if I were the diocese. If the government seizes the assets, you can’t do anything about it, but paying an unjust fine is cooperating with evil.

The church is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to operate an adoption service. Closing down is probably a good prudential judgement, preserving the church’s resources for other useful purposes.