Homosexual civil unions

[InSearchofGrace]

@Grace; …

here we see the slippery slope argument again. this author also fails to logically connect the points on that continuum. it should be obvious that two gay adults are rather different from 1 adult and 1 child or more than 2 adults.
…

So you don’t accept the slippery slope argument?

Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn’t hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn’t he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options would be open to unintended situations.

If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn’t matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn’t been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.

thus no man who has had a vasectomy may get married. no women with a hysterectomy may get married. this argument has been tried, and it should be obvious why it fails every time.

False. But I don’t expect a Taoist would have correct information on the argument advanced in Catholic sacramental marriage requirements. Impotence, not sterility, is the disqualifier, which has been brought up to you earlier in the thread. Dispensation for a male who has had a vasectomy or a female who has had a hysterectomy prior to the intention of marriage may be given, with the diocese performing a case to case consideration in such situations.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

@Grace; …
the APA is a group of doctors. based on their evidence, there was nothing to support the position that being gay was a mental illness. if you don’t want to believe it, you are arguing from incredulity. but i would assume that if a psychologist told you that hearing voices was more likely a symptom of schizophrenia rather than demonic possession, you’d probably be like “okay, doctors know more than i do” and move on to treatment. but for this one issue, you instead try to invent a grand conspiracy.
…

Your example on a patient hearing voices attributable to demonic possession or schizophrenia is not a good one. Not comparable to a case of incredulity regarding how the APA was forced to drop the diagnosis of homosexuality as a mental illness. I am not arguing if homosexuality is a mental illness or not, but from all the material I read, its etiology and development in an individual are not fully known, even after all the scientific studies that have been conducted. The best we have is that its origin is a combination of factors.

I take issue with your statement that I am inventing a grand conspiracy. Much has been written about the direction that the APA took in 1973, as any halfway intelligent researcher can find out from readily available sources (books, articles, accounts of psychiatrists who witnessed the showdown). No need to repeat what I have written in previous posts on it, nor the sources over again. For brevity, however, let me offer just this link of a Psychiatry site, HomosexInfo. It independent enough, without the “smell” of bias, as can be gleaned from the About part of the Home page. Please go to the History: the Declassification of Homosexuality as a Mental Illness, which is in the middle of the page. Then let me know if it does not challenge the view you have that the APA was and is not politicized. Check the footnotes.

I don’t know if you are gay yourself or you just have a lot of gay friends with whom you sympathize, as you have declared, explaining your position(s) on homosexuality and homosexual unions, adoption, etc. The subject of the debate is of interest to me because of my support for traditional marriage between a man and a woman, a value and tradition that that this country should maintain, IMO, whether the pro-gay ‘marriage’ crowd successfully pushes the country to full legalization of gay ‘marriage’ across all states or not. I’m speaking not just as a Catholic but also as a citizen who loves this country and who cares for its future generations. On a personal level, I come from a big family with several brothers, one of whom is gay, incidentally, and two who are physicians, one a psychiatrist and the other an internist.

To be honest, you are the first Taoist that I have engaged in this forum. Is that a family faith or a choice you personally made as an adult? What is behind the views you hold in support of your posts supporting gay unions / ‘marriage,’ if I may ask?
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

@Grace; …

so yes, i’m basing my claim that children of gay parents turn out alright on studies conducted by the APA, although i also know this anecdotally from my own experience. i’ve had a few friends with gay moms. from what i know personally, all of the boys turned out straight, some of the girls turned out gay. i wouldn’t want to read too much into this, it is very limited in scope, and that’s why i rely on the much larger studies that have been conducted by doctors and scientists.

It’s premature to make that claim. Gay couples raising children is a relatively new social experiment in the U.S. Let’s look at our neighbor up north, Canada, where they have already bought into the social experiment wholesale with the institution of gay ‘marriage’ in 2005.

Children lacking one or another biological parent exist in single-parent families, blended families, families rearing grandchildren and homosexual couples with a child, adopted or not. “Out of these situations arose two novelties,” he writes, “the day care center and the semi-orphan.”

Orphan is a word that has also appeared in Canada where the Charter of Rights and Freedoms sanctions religious freedoms and, according to a Supreme Court reference in 2004, same-sex “marriage.” Opposition to same-sex “marriage” in Canada nonetheless continues. While most support the right of homosexuals to seek and to have their unions ratified in law (civil unions were never an accepted option for Canada’s same-sex “marriage” activists), opposition is more generally coalescing around the right of children to be raised, as nearly as possible, by their biological parents.

Canada’s leading spokesperson on this issue is Margaret Somerville. Somerville, a bio-ethicist and Samuel Gale Chair in Law, is also a professor in the faculty of medicine at McGill University in Montreal. She reminds us that, under international law, marriage confers the right to found a family. In Canada, this means same-sex couples can adopt children as well as access reproductive technologies for this purpose even though a growing body of evidence reveals that the adult children of any arrangement that departs from traditional family norms are disadvantaged, including the children of divorce and donor conceived children. Notably, a meta-study undertaken by Swedish scientists and published in the March 2008 edition of Acta Paediatrica, confirms that children need fathers as well as mothers.

The key here is the adult children of such arrangements. While most studies focus on the seemingly benign or at least manageable effects of non-traditional arrangements on children and adolescents, longitudinal studies reveal a different picture of what happens when they mature. At the University of California in Berkeley, for instance, psychologist Judith Wallerstein demonstrated in a 30-year longitudinal study how the first group have difficulty as mature adults finding suitable partners and then sustaining their relationships. Writing in “The Legacy of Divorce,” she explains that they lack the role models most effectively secured by a child’s married biological parents.

Likewise, Margaret Somerville’s numerous articles discuss how members of the second group (who refer to themselves as “genetic” orphans), experience intense feelings of abandonment by the donor parent. Meanwhile, Kay Hymowitz’s “Marriage and Caste in America” demonstrates the role played by fragmenting family structures in rising inequalities. This on top of evidence that young men who grow up without fathers seek to have their approval and authority needs met by joining gangs.

Read more: Sacrificing our children for same-sex 'marriage’

 

[francisca]

marriage is a civil right, but whatever. the problem with “separate but equal” is the same as it has always been. but if somehow they could be the same, why not just call a spade a spade and have done with it? really, if there where no differences, then it would be the same thing, so calling things by two different names would just be confusing.

but the practical reason not to do this is so that public entities might adopt the language like “such and such benefit extends to a married spouse.” and if gay people weren’t married, they only had a civil union, then it could be argued that such and such benefit will not be extended to a gay spouse.

and history shows that separate but equal doesn’t work. that’s my main point against why the civil union language shouldn’t be used, and the government shouldn’t bother making distinctions between different classes of marriage.

Gay civil union is not equal to marriage. I’ll give you a study case:

This is only an example.

Me and my best friend are heterosexuals. But we would like to enjoy entirety of property, shared health benefits, etc. So we register ourselves as lesbian couple. Some of our friends know, so they make police report. The police arrest us, and have us physically tested. Yet, justice system can’t prove whether we truly are lesbian couple, because nobody can witness our activity in our bedrooms.

My points are:

1. In homosexual “marriage” there is no sex, what they have is masturbating each other. And there is no difference between me masturbating myself and my friend doing it for me. Therefore you can’t call such as marriage.
2. If justice system can’t prove it (have no control), then civil union sometimes are only declared-status of union of two single people doing their own things.

 

[copperblade]

Errr, I don’t get it. Is the issue that under a civil union or gay marriage, the Catholic Church would be somehow obligated to recognize those unions? For example, a gay couple would then have certain legal rights which would require let’s say a Catholic hospital to treat them as though they are married even though it is against Catholic beliefs?

 

[copperblade]

but if somehow they could be the same, why not just call a spade a spade and have done with it? really, if there where no differences, then it would be the same thing, so calling things by two different names would just be confusing.

Actually I’d go the other direction: the problem isn’t really using two different names for one thing, the problem is using the same name for two different things. Everything done by the state should just be a “civil union” and “marriage” should be religious only. Of course that’s a lot search-and-replace to do on the laws, so it’s completely impractical.

 

[francisca]

Homosexual people must establish their argument that there is sex happen in their relationship.

If my hand touch other’s vagina, does it mean I have sexual union with her? How about other parts of my body: for example my hair, my feet, elbow, tummy, my fingers, etc-- if all these touch other’s vagina, or even penetrate it-- does it mean that I have sex with her? If we ask the same question about every part of my body touching other’s genital, the question is still the same : is there any coitus.

This is “no coitus argument”.

 

[francisca]

Another argument:

There is a job opening for “male model” from a “male fashion house”.
I am denied of the job because I am a female.

Is this discrimination?

Like JimG said, you can’t call a triangle a circle.
There are natural factors to consider.
Homosexual activity can’t perform as heterosexual marriage.

This is “no discrimination argument”

 

[francisca]

Errr, I don’t get it. Is the issue that under a civil union or gay marriage, the Catholic Church would be somehow obligated to recognize those unions? For example, a gay couple would then have certain legal rights which would require let’s say a Catholic hospital to treat them as though they are married even though it is against Catholic beliefs?

And this is “agaist-religious-freedom argument”

 

[copperblade]

And this is “agaist-religious-freedom argument”

I’m sorry I don’t understand. My question is about why the Catholic Church is involved with this issue politically. I’m trying to draw some connection about how it affects the Church, because I definitely agree the Church should never be forced to recognize anything like a same-sex marriage.

I know a similar issue happened with requiring health-care and abortion, concerning Catholic hospitals.

 

[francisca]

I’m sorry I don’t understand. My question is about why the Catholic Church is involved with this issue politically.

I don’t think this is about politic, eventhough politicians may comment on these issues.

Supposedly gay couple come to catholic hospital with sperm donor/ egg donor, and they want a child from such process. The catholic hospital may have to act agaist catholic belief because the couple have gay legal protection. In this example such protection actually agaist religious-freedom because a catholic institution has to act agaist catholic belief because of it.

 

[Aleksa]

Hmmm…

I know that this is merely anecdotal, but this is my experience. My mom is gay and I turned out pretty okay. Her being gay didn’t affect her parenting of me or my two brothers. In fact, I couldn’t have asked for a better mom! I’ve had many friends tell me that they wish their mothers had been so attentive and kind. I am now in a happy, stable, hetero, marriage, so saying that gay parents raise gay children isn’t true (neither of my brothers are gay either.)

I am new to Catholicism, but even if I am baptized into the Church, I can’t turn my back on the truth that I have seen with my own eyes. That truth being that gay couples are perfectly capable of raising children and having a happy, loving family. We didn’t live in a vacuum either, we had lots of family friends who were also gay couples raising kids, and those kids are my friends, and they are just fine. Despite being raised by a gay couple.

I’m all for happy loving families, no matter who the parents are.

But, I guess that means my mom and I and all our friends are going straight to hell for thinking this way…

 

[copperblade]

But, I guess that means my mom and I and all our friends are going straight to hell for thinking this way…

AFAIK it’s not even considered a sin to disagree with the Church, much less that you’d go to hell for simple disagreement. The Church is satisfied with obedience without requiring agreement or understanding.

 

[Aleksa]

AFAIK it’s not even considered a sin to disagree with the Church, much less that you’d go to hell for simple disagreement. The Church is satisfied with obedience without requiring agreement or understanding.

I hope so!

 

[RobbyS]

@Grace; these quotes are from the article that you linked to. you have made many of the same arguments yourself, and were more articulate.

and there are material benefits that come along with being married.

this isn’t true. there are many benefits and protections afforded to married couples, exclusively. so it would change things.

here we see the slippery slope argument again. this author also fails to logically connect the points on that continuum. it should be obvious that two gay adults are rather different from 1 adult and 1 child or more than 2 adults.

thus no man who has had a vasectomy may get married. no women with a hysterectomy may get married. this argument has been tried, and it should be obvious why it fails every time.

@Grace: these are quotes from you.

you told me a few pages back that “Your “anecdotal” account or experience is just that – anecdotal and therefore unverifiable.” this single example can’t be taken as a refutation of the vast majority of evidence.

psychologist Dr John C. Gonsiorek expressed it as, “the political pressure placed on the American Psychiatric Association in the early 1970s was a necessary but not sufficient condition for the depathologizing of homosexuality.”

the APA is a group of doctors. based on their evidence, there was nothing to support the position that being gay was a mental illness. if you don’t want to believe it, you are arguing from incredulity. but i would assume that if a psychologist told you that hearing voices was more likely a symptom of schizophrenia rather than demonic possession, you’d probably be like “okay, doctors know more than i do” and move on to treatment. but for this one issue, you instead try to invent a grand conspiracy.

so yes, i’m basing my claim that children of gay parents turn out alright on studies conducted by the APA, although i also know this anecdotally from my own experience. i’ve had a few friends with gay moms. from what i know personally, all of the boys turned out straight, some of the girls turned out gay. i wouldn’t want to read too much into this, it is very limited in scope, and that’s why i rely on the much larger studies that have been conducted by doctors and scientists.

The APA decision was based on a majority vote which is a strange way to do science. In any case, it arose out of the failures of psychoanalysis, which was found to be ineffective in the treatment of a wide variety mental disorders. Despite the unscientific nature of his theories, Freud’s view of human sexuality still dominates modern culture, because it gives sanction to the "progressive"view is that sex is basically a means of providing pleasure and self-fullment.

 

[rossum]

Errr, I don’t get it. Is the issue that under a civil union or gay marriage, the Catholic Church would be somehow obligated to recognize those unions? For example, a gay couple would then have certain legal rights which would require let’s say a Catholic hospital to treat them as though they are married even though it is against Catholic beliefs?

What currently happens in the case of a couple who are both (civil) divorced and then have a civil marriage? Their civil marriage is not recognised by the Catholic Church because of their earlier divorces.

There do not seem to me to have been any major problems with that situation up to now. Their marriage is recognised in civil law but not in Church law.

rossum

 

[copperblade]

What currently happens in the case of a couple who are both (civil) divorced and then have a civil marriage? Their civil marriage is not recognised by the Catholic Church because of their earlier divorces.

There do not seem to me to have been any major problems with that situation up to now. Their marriage is recognised in civil law but not in Church law.

Ok, so what’s the reason why the Church cares about this issue from a legal standpoint? It doesn’t seem to me that the Church is promoting legislation on every moral question. So what’s the difference here?

 

[JimG]

Hmmm…

I know that this is merely anecdotal, but this is my experience. My mom is gay and I turned out pretty okay. Her being gay didn’t affect her parenting of me or my two brothers. In fact, I couldn’t have asked for a better mom! I’ve had many friends tell me that they wish their mothers had been so attentive and kind. I am now in a happy, stable, hetero, marriage, so saying that gay parents raise gay children isn’t true (neither of my brothers are gay either.)

I am new to Catholicism, but even if I am baptized into the Church, I can’t turn my back on the truth that I have seen with my own eyes. That truth being that gay couples are perfectly capable of raising children and having a happy, loving family. We didn’t live in a vacuum either, we had lots of family friends who were also gay couples raising kids, and those kids are my friends, and they are just fine. Despite being raised by a gay couple.

I’m all for happy loving families, no matter who the parents are.

But, I guess that means my mom and I and all our friends are going straight to hell for thinking this way…

I’m glad that your family life turned out well. I’m a little confused though. Your mom has children, so apparently she is not exclusively homosexual; that would preclude children. I guess I wouldn’t really refer to her as gay, but that’s her option.

 

[Aleksa]

I’m glad that your family life turned out well. I’m a little confused though. Your mom has children, so apparently she is not exclusively homosexual; that would preclude children. I guess I wouldn’t really refer to her as gay, but that’s her option.

She was raised in a Mormon household where homosexuality was obviously…discouraged. She married young due to pressures from her family to do so. I think this is somewhat common.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Aleksa, you made no mention of your father, unless I missed that.
Did you grow up with a father as well, in your household?