Homosexuality causes division between men and women but heterosexuality unites us in love

[InSearchofGrace]

The link you posted had a few cases in which a child expressed mild frustration with their homosexual parents, one case in which a bisexual mother would not acknowledge her child’s heterosexuality (which of course was wrong of the mother), and a link to a study on children of parents who had homosexual relationships while they were growing up.
The study said some very specific things, for instance, that the data implied that “natural” children of mothers who later had homosexual relationships were more likely to try homosexual relationships themselves, or to be on welfare. It says nothing about children who were adopted into gay or lesbean families.
Of course, a family in which the mother divorces the father and enters a new relationship is probably going to be worse off than a stable family.
You say that a stable gay or lesbean couple is unarguably worse than a straight couple for raising kids. Until there are verifiable statistics that refute my claim, I WILL argue that the three kinds of families are equally good environments for raising children.

That is not a surprising read by an advocate of same sex unions and gay parenting of Dale O’Leary’s article which offers conclusions contradictory to yours.

Btw, her piece did touch on adoption. For one, it mentions Rosie O’Donnell’s family of adopted children, which she formed through two same sex “'marriages” and she is now “engaged” to marry a third woman. So much for stability that legalized marriage between same sex partners supposedly fosters.

In case you missed them, the writer also provided links to other studies (there were at least 4) in the article. Would you really be accepting of a verifiable independent study with acceptable methodology and sampling that has findings not consistent with your personalized belief system?

Generations of feminine men and masculine women, contrived marriages between partners that resort to utilitarian methods to produce new life separated from the natural union of a man and a woman, adoption / placement of children in homes without a mother or father to provide balance in parenting roles towards their development … This is the world being forced on the rest of us, just because the unnatural can be normalized by the force of positive law, that science and technology can make possible certain things against all common sense.

Remember the non-fiction story of Thomas Beattie? If it does not bother you, it should.

To promote unnatural unions and family configurations is immoral. It is societal suicide.

 

[TracerBullet]

The Loss That May Not Speak It’s Name

Children are not as able to adapt to “family diversity” as easily as gay activists claim.

…
Same-sex parenting has intrinsic flaws and deficits that exacerbate the risks intrinsic to adoption,

Evidence?

Each child acquired by a same-sex couple is either fatherless or motherless because of adult decisions. To place a child into the legal care of a same-sex couple, or for such a couple to acquire a child via AID or surrogacy, unnecessarily endangers that child by forcing him to grow up in what is unarguably a sub-optimal environment.

By this logic children of military personnel who are killed in action should be promptly removed from their surviving parent because these children are being forced to grow up in a sub-optimal environment

All the “tolerance of diversity” in the world cannot change the facts on the ground.
,

I’d like to see your “facts”

 

[TracerBullet]

The Loss That May Not Speak It’s Name

Your link talks about the Regnerus study and calls it a “well designed study” just how it can be called that is not clear.
The study was funded by an anti-gay rights organization.
The study failed its peer review
The study improperly labeled “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” who were not actually “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”
The study’s author is currently under investigation for scholarly misconduct for his work on this study

Regnerus carried out a qualitative falsification of his data where he labels certain of the parents of his young adult respondents as being “lesbian mothers” and/or “gay fathers” without having done anything to determine whether the persons he labels as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” are indeed “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers.” Meaning we can’t know what or who is being studied.

 

[RiverTam51]

That is not a surprising read by an advocate of same sex unions and gay parenting of Dale O’Leary’s article which offers conclusions contradictory to yours.

Btw, her piece did touch on adoption. For one, it mentions Rosie O’Donnell’s family of adopted children, which she formed through two same sex “'marriages” and she is now “engaged” to marry a third woman. So much for stability that legalized marriage between same sex partners supposedly fosters.

In case you missed them, the writer also provided links to other studies (there were at least 4) in the article. Would you really be accepting of a verifiable independent study with acceptable methodology and sampling that has findings not consistent with your personalized belief system?

Generations of feminine men and masculine women, contrived marriages between partners that resort to utilitarian methods to produce new life separated from the natural union of a man and a woman, adoption / placement of children in homes without a mother or father to provide balance in parenting roles towards their development … This is the world being forced on the rest of us, just because the unnatural can be normalized by the force of positive law, that science and technology can make possible certain things against all common sense.

Remember the non-fiction story of Thomas Beattie? If it does not bother you, it should.

To promote unnatural unions and family configurations is immoral. It is societal suicide.

As to O’Donnell and Beattie, these are two cases of bad parents, one of whom is lesbean and the other transgender. I am not arguing that all LGBT parents are good parents, any more than all straight parents are.
Yes, I would be accepting of an unbiased study with sampling, regardless of what it says. I was originally willing to accept the outcome of the Regnerus study, although TracerBullet seems to think it is flawed. I will let him argue that because he seems to know more about it.
And you are right, I did miss several of the studies. I am sorry about that. Here is my analysis:
The Marks study apparently showed that many of the studies with results that support gay adoption had biased sampling. I am willing to accept this; bad statistics should not be tolerated from either side.
The Stacey Biblarz study is not publicly available as far as I can tell. If done well, it says that children growing up with gay or lesbean parents may be more likely to become gay or lesbean. While you may be starting off with the assumption that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality, those of us with a more neutral stance see nothing wrong with this, even if correct.
And finally, the My Daddy’s Name is Donor study seemed to be done in an incredibly biased method. Using morally charged language, the authors described how nasty and evil sperm donation is for nearly 100 pages, before finally giving us statistics. These statistics are based on a large sample of adults who were adopted, concieved through sperm donation, and raised by their biological parents. These were all asked a series of questions which painted sperm donation in a negative light, so that a donor-concieved respondent could not express discontent with one aspect of donation without agreeing to a very strong statement against the practice. Tucked away into a corner, we find that donor children with a mother and father figure were less likely to feel the need for their biological father than children of lesbean mothers, who in turn were less likely to feel the need for their biological father than children of single mothers. Despite its flaws, this study may actually reflect real issues with sperm donation, but its obviously biased method and authors make a mockery of standards of neutrality.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Your link talks about the Regnerus study and calls it a “well designed study” just how it can be called that is not clear.
The study was funded by an anti-gay rights organization.
The study failed its peer review
The study improperly labeled “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” who were not actually “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”
The study’s author is currently under investigation for scholarly misconduct for his work on this study

Regnerus carried out a qualitative falsification of his data where he labels certain of the parents of his young adult respondents as being “lesbian mothers” and/or “gay fathers” without having done anything to determine whether the persons he labels as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” are indeed “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers.” Meaning we can’t know what or who is being studied.

Please re-read Dale O’Leary’s article carefully. As for the Regnerus study, it is not surprising that advocacy groups and academics who support gay marriage view Regnerus’s findings as threatening. You may want to read why this need not be here: An Academic Auto-da-Fé

What I request you to address, however, is this:

As a self-identified Catholic, why are your postings in this Catholic forum coming across as anti-Church teaching on homosexual behavior and position on gay ‘marriage’? Are you hoping that the settled doctrine on the matter will be changed? If that is your objective or agenda, you can save your keystrokes and time. Current and archived posts and threads, too numerous and repetitive, have been submitted before your joining the forum. You can check and read through them using the forum search function.

In case you are inclined to claim lack of charity or that those on this side of the debate would like to see our homosexual brothers and sisters persecuted or unjustly disadvantaged in life, I request you to pause, as that would be so far from the truth.
,

 

[CopticChristian]

The link you posted had a few cases in which a child expressed mild frustration with their homosexual parents, one case in which a bisexual mother would not acknowledge her child’s heterosexuality (which of course was wrong of the mother), and a link to a study on children of parents who had homosexual relationships while they were growing up.
The study said some very specific things, for instance, that the data implied that “natural” children of mothers who later had homosexual relationships were more likely to try homosexual relationships themselves, or to be on welfare. It says nothing about children who were adopted into gay or lesbean families.
Of course, a family in which the mother divorces the father and enters a new relationship is probably going to be worse off than a stable family.
You say that a stable gay or lesbean couple is unarguably worse than a straight couple for raising kids. **Until there are verifiable statistics that refute my claim, I WILL argue that the three kinds of families are equally good environments for raising children./**QUOTE]

River,

Your argument is not in the best interest of the children. It is the best interest of your argument.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your link talks about the Regnerus study and calls it a “well designed study” just how it can be called that is not clear.
The study was funded by an anti-gay rights organization.
The study failed its peer review
The study improperly labeled “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” who were not actually “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”
The study’s author is currently under investigation for scholarly misconduct for his work on this study

Regnerus carried out a qualitative falsification of his data where he labels certain of the parents of his young adult respondents as being “lesbian mothers” and/or “gay fathers” without having done anything to determine whether the persons he labels as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” are indeed “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers.” Meaning we can’t know what or who is being studied.

Tracer,

You seem to know more about the frailty of studies that argue against homosexuality than the Catholic position.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your link talks about the Regnerus study and calls it a “well designed study” just how it can be called that is not clear.
QUOTE]

Tracer,

I have two questions for you.

Question 1. Do you agree with the following.

Chastity and homosexuality

 

[NEPanther]

Wow, I feel really sorry for the original poster of this forum. They must have been sexually abused as a child. I mean, how else does one come to the conclusion that the only way to relate to the opposite sex and be in a caring relationship with them is if you are in a romantic/sexual relationship.

I am very. very sorry that someone abused you and taught you that you are only good to the opposite gender if you are in a romantic and sexual relationship. That is simply not true. Some of my very best friends are the opposite sex, some of whom I have been close to for decades and love as siblings. I am not a homosexual, but if I was, I certainly would not be divided from the opposite sex for that reason, because I have a great many dear friends and relatives who are of the opposite sex with whom I discuss concerns, emotions, challenges, points of view, etc.

I would suggest seeking immediate psychiatric help to address your very disturbed views on how relationships betweent he opposite gender are restricted to marriage and nothing else.

 

[NEPanther]

As a father of a lesbian daughter and a gay son I think that left wing minded people are behind the push for gay marriage because it is destructive to society.

LOL, OMG you people are seriously insane. You HONESTLY think that people support gay marriage because they want to destroy society/marriage/the family. I live in mass. We’ve had gay marriage for over a decade. Pretty much everyone I know over age 30 is a married heterosexual with children or plans of children in the next couple years, and is very strongly pro gay marriage. These are also people who volunteer, are active in their churches and communites, many work at non profit organizations. These aren’t criminals, drug addicts, pedophiles hoping for the downfall of human civilization.

Plus, you guys say that gay rights advocates say heterosexual marriage is bigoted and want to prevent children from being born. How does this make any sense? Why are all. these married heterosexual people with kids supporting gay marriage? Do you honestly believe that this is all some giant conspiracy? That we entered fraudulent marriages with the intention of both screwing up our kids and getting divorced as part of our master plan to demonstrate that hetrosexual marriage doesn’t work or damanges kids?

I think you guys have to make this **** up to sound less evil. Just saying you want to prevent two homosexuals from getting married does look bigoted, so you lie and say the gay rights movement wants to replace heterosexual marriage with gay marriage, or get society to view heterosexual marriage as somehow less viable. You want the other side to look as intolerant and as bad as you, so 'we just want homosexuals to have the same happiness and opportunites as straight couples" becaomes “homosexuals and their supporters hate straight people, marriage, society, and children. They are part of a world wide conspiracy to destroy all of these institutions.”

By the way, this should be wualified as a hate site. I’ve been (out of curiosity) to Stormfront, the white suppremacist web page, and a lot of the posts I’ve read on this forum I have seen almost word for word on Stormfront related web pages and forums. So either you guys are in collusions with white supremacists/neo nazis, or you share a close enough ideology that you are indistiguishable from them.

 

[CopticChristian]

Wow, I feel really sorry for the original poster of this forum. They must have been sexually abused as a child. I mean, how else does one come to the conclusion that the only way to relate to the opposite sex and be in a caring relationship with them is if you are in a romantic/sexual relationship.

I am very. very sorry that someone abused you and taught you that you are only good to the opposite gender if you are in a romantic and sexual relationship. That is simply not true. Some of my very best friends are the opposite sex, some of whom I have been close to for decades and love as siblings. I am not a homosexual, but if I was, I certainly would not be divided from the opposite sex for that reason, because I have a great many dear friends and relatives who are of the opposite sex with whom I discuss concerns, emotions, challenges, points of view, etc.

I would suggest seeking immediate psychiatric help to address your very disturbed views on how relationships betweent he opposite gender are restricted to marriage and nothing else.

Panther,

Your inference is enough for you to speculate widly. I understand however in light of what was posted, recognize that this is Catholic Answer Forum and the poster is Catholic…Here is the premise…

Love between a husband and his wife teaches children to love those of the opposite sex. It teaches children to have an inclusive “us” view of the opposite sex instead of an “us vs them” “battle of the sexes” worldview. Homosexuals have all male “gay” bars, but heterosexuals believe that a man and woman should unite together in love.

I believe that the poster was stating an opinion based on belief. The one thing I take issue is that homosexuals have all male gay bars. This is true and to be correct it probably should have stated…

Homosexuals have all male “gay” bars. Heterosexuals do not have all male bars although there are bars that only males attend that are heterosexual. Heterosexuals unite in love as man and wife to procreate and have children. Homosexuals unite and are unable to have children and do not follow the tenets of the Church.

That may have been a more proper way of posting.

 

[CopticChristian]

LOL, OMG you people are seriously insane. You HONESTLY think that people support gay marriage because they want to destroy society/marriage/the family. I live in mass. We’ve had gay marriage for over a decade. Pretty much everyone I know over age 30 is a married heterosexual with children or plans of children in the next couple years, and is very strongly pro gay marriage. These are also people who volunteer, are active in their churches and communites, many work at non profit organizations. These aren’t criminals, drug addicts, pedophiles hoping for the downfall of human civilization.

Plus, you guys say that gay rights advocates say heterosexual marriage is bigoted and want to prevent children from being born. How does this make any sense? Why are all. these married heterosexual people with kids supporting gay marriage? Do you honestly believe that this is all some giant conspiracy? That we entered fraudulent marriages with the intention of both screwing up our kids and getting divorced as part of our master plan to demonstrate that hetrosexual marriage doesn’t work or damanges kids?

I think you guys have to make this **** up to sound less evil. Just saying you want to prevent two homosexuals from getting married does look bigoted, so you lie and say the gay rights movement wants to replace heterosexual marriage with gay marriage, or get society to view heterosexual marriage as somehow less viable. You want the other side to look as intolerant and as bad as you, so 'we just want homosexuals to have the same happiness and opportunites as straight couples" becaomes “homosexuals and their supporters hate straight people, marriage, society, and children. They are part of a world wide conspiracy to destroy all of these institutions.”

By the way, this should be wualified as a hate site. I’ve been (out of curiosity) to Stormfront, the white suppremacist web page, and a lot of the posts I’ve read on this forum I have seen almost word for word on Stormfront related web pages and forums. So either you guys are in collusions with white supremacists/neo nazis, or you share a close enough ideology that you are indistiguishable from them.

Panther,

So it is your premise that when someone disagrees with you that their sanity is in question?

 

[interestedman]

As a father of a lesbian daughter and a gay son I think that left wing minded people are behind the push for gay marriage because it is destructive to society.

Why would left wing minded people want to be destructive to society? How would they benefit from that? Also Canada’s society seems to be doing pretty well…better than America economically, and gay marriage has been legalized there for years.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

What point are you trying to make? This isn’t another “all gays are promiscous” thing, is it?

As a father of a lesbian daughter and a gay son I think that left wing minded people are behind the push for gay marriage because it is destructive to society.

Huh? How so? I’m behind the “push” for gay marriage because I don’t see how it’s destructive. In anyway.

 

[interestedman]

The left is aggressively pushing for so-called “same-sex marriage” and saying that traditional (true) marriage is unfair and bigoted for the same reason they are for contraception and abortion, because it will result in fewer babies will be born. The left carries Margaret Sanger’s Malthusian ideological legacy of eugenics. Adolf Hitler was another one who was obsessed with eugenics.

lol…can you please explain how gay marriage would result in fewer babies being born? Do you think that gay people say “well I can’t marry the man I am with so I guess I will get married to a woman and have kids instead.” PLEASE explain your logic.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Homosexuals have all male “gay” bars. Heterosexuals do not have all male bars although there are bars that only males attend that are heterosexual. Heterosexuals unite in love as man and wife to procreate and have children. Homosexuals unite and are unable to have children and do not follow the tenets of the Church.

I’m still confused. What does the thing about bars have to do with anything? And, I disagree that marriage is for the upbringing of children alone.

 

[interestedman]

What good is a sort of “morality” that changes direction like the wind?

Just because Catholic morality is relatively set in stone doesn’t make it better than a morality that can be altered according to the situation.

 

[interestedman]

The Loss That May Not Speak It’s Name

Children are not as able to adapt to “family diversity” as easily as gay activists claim.

…
Same-sex parenting has intrinsic flaws and deficits that exacerbate the risks intrinsic to adoption, artificial insemination, surrogate parenting, and foster care. Each child acquired by a same-sex couple is either fatherless or motherless because of adult decisions. To place a child into the legal care of a same-sex couple, or for such a couple to acquire a child via AID or surrogacy, unnecessarily endangers that child by forcing him to grow up in what is unarguably a sub-optimal environment.

All the “tolerance of diversity” in the world cannot change the facts on the ground.
,

Sorry to break this to you but most “families” in America are sub optimal (without a father, mother, or both).

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Okay, have it your way then…

I think homosexuality should be hated by all people -especially those with SSA because of all the divisions it creates… That better…?

What divisions does it create?! I’m SO confused. I’m sure if a woman entered into a marriage with a man and realised he was a homosexual who wasn’t attracted to her and had been forced into the relationship, that would cause more of a division then if the man had simply pursued the relationships that he wanted.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Just because Catholic morality is relatively set in stone doesn’t make it better than a morality that can be altered according to the situation.

It’s not set in stone. The Protestant morality won’t change, as they’re more by the book, but I’m still not quite sure where Catholic morality comes from.