How do i come up with a good reason why governments shouldn't allow same sex marriage?

[Prodigal_Son]

Incorrect. Again you can’t use “without a mother” as an argument against gay marriage as that encapsulates a whole range of situations that have nothing to do with gay marriage. You’d also have to show that the sole fact of not having a mother is the cause for all of these things, which studies have shown isn’t the truth. Coming from a single parent household I know that studies conclude that it’s not the lack of a certain parent that causes problems, it’s the unstable situation it causes. Hence the reason why kids going through divorce go through similar problems despite having two parents.

Also how would same-sex parenting having no adverse affects on the childs health and well-being invalidate studies about other two parent households? That doesn’t follow any logic. Both studies would be correct, they’re not mutually exclusive.

Let me spell this out for you:

1. Tens of thousands of studies say that a child with a (live-in) mom has advantages over a child without a (live-in) mom.
2. A child being parented solely by two dads is a child without a live-in mom.
3. Therefore, all of these studies tend to support the idea that gay parenting is not ideal.

Perhaps you want to argue that, despite its not being ideal, gay parenting should be allowed? Or, I suppose, you could argue that the tens of thousands of studies are wrong, or unilluminating in this case. But they’re clearly relevant.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I will look at it. I will have to go back to the books on Natural and make sure, but the good doesn’t have happiness as the good. So, that would be false.
Also, reproductive organs, ends are for reproducing.
My understanding if you get into foreplay, you are in a gray area in what is moral and not. But, it could never apply to s/s couple because they would never be able to complete it in a way that would respect the reproductive way because they are with someone of the s/s.

I will look at it.

Both Aristotle and Aquinas think that the natural end of human beings is happiness, and that happiness is the key arbiter in what makes an action good or bad.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Let me spell this out for you:

1. Tens of thousands of studies say that a child with a (live-in) mom has advantages over a child without a (live-in) mom.
2. A child being parented solely by two dads is a child without a live-in mom.
3. Therefore, all of these studies tend to support the idea that gay parenting is not ideal.

Perhaps you want to argue that, despite its not being ideal, gay parenting should be allowed? Or, I suppose, you could argue that the tens of thousands of studies are wrong, or unilluminating in this case. But they’re clearly relevant.

No, all you’d need to find out is if the well-being and health of a child raised in a same-sex household was worse off than one raised in an opposite-sex household. If they’re consistently worse off then it’s clear that the lack of mother (which would only account for 50% of same-sex households) is the main deciding factor in these cases.

If they’re on-par then it’s clear that the lack of mother isn’t the deciding factor and therefore isn’t relevant. You don’t claim that a study about mothers concludes something about same-sex parenting when it’s not about same -ex parenting, and therefore gay marriage (which is overlooking the fact that children aren’t required for a marriage liscence, making that whole point completely moot but we’ll overlook that for the sake of argument) shouldn’t be allowed because you came to a conclusion using a study not about same-sex parenting.

Instead you study same-sex parent households and see if the lack of mother adversely affects the child. If it doesn’t then those studies, which weren’t about same-sex parenting, will continue to not be about same-sex parenting and can be dismissed in an argument against same-sex parenting because they’re not relevant to the things that you’re claiming they are; the well-being of the child in same-sex households.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You don’t claim that a study about mothers concludes something about same-sex parenting when it’s not about same -ex parenting…

Let me give you a somewhat parallel case. Suppose that large numbers of mothers were considering leaving their children with their husbands and joining a nunnery. They worried about their children would be harmed, but then realized that all the studies about the benefits of having a mother were “not about” women leaving their children to join a nunnery.

Isn’t their reasoning bizarre?

 

[Skeptic92]

Let it be asked; what distinguishes Marriage from non-marriage, what is its genus and species?

As to the matter of its genera, or general class, I answer that; the genera of marriage appears to be the same as all relations based upon reason friendship. Including, however imperfectly, the notion of love; that is the willing of the good for another.Whilst the exact properties of friendship could be further examined, let us put that to one side for a moment. The next question is important; what is the specific difference of a marriage, and why does the State have mandate to legislate upon this institution but not the whole genera? The specific difference would have to relate directly to the Common Good, as if it doesn’t the State is without mandate to legislate. The only good of a human being considered solely as a Person that is served directly by a form of friendship would be reproductive or procreative friendship.

Marriage is therefore procreative friendship in terms of a real definition; and a marital relation must be of at least a procreative type, even if it never actualises its potency for procreation.

Therefore the burden of proof is on the Gay-rights activist to show where the State gets its mandate and power to legislate on the entire genera of “friendship”, which will render an absurd conclusion. Allowing you to launch a reductio ad absurdum refutation.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Let me give you a somewhat parallel case. Suppose that large numbers of mothers were considering leaving their children with their husbands and joining a nunnery. They worried about their children would be harmed, but then realized that all the studies about the benefits of having a mother were “not about” women leaving their children to join a nunnery.

Isn’t their reasoning bizarre?

They could look up studies about how abandonment and single parent households affects the well-being and development of a child I’m sure. Reading that though I’m not sure if you’re meaning it’s not about that specific situation (joining a nunnery) or not about abandonment in general (like joining a nunnery).

Here’s a better example:

Say there’s a study that says eating wheat is good for you. It helps your well-being and development greatly. What you’re doing is taking that study and saying that, because it concludes wheat is good for you, eating oats should be banned.

That’s not how it works.

Instead what you’d need to do is study the effects of eating oats to see if it’s good for you, if it adversly affects you, or if it’s on-par with wheat. You don’t come to a conclusion on oats due to an unrelated study on wheat, just like you don’t come to a conclusion on gay marriage due to an unrelated study on mothers. Instead you study same-sex parent households (seperate from gay marriage, just to point out again how moot your entire argument is) and come to a conclusion that way.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

They could look up studies about how abandonment and single parent households affects the well-being and development of a child I’m sure. Reading that though I’m not sure if you’re meaning it’s not about that specific situation (joining a nunnery) or not about abandonment in general (like joining a nunnery).

Sure, adjust my scenario in the following way: the mothers consider leaving immediately after the child is born, before it would be psychological abandonment.

Here’s a better example:

Say there’s a study that says eating wheat is good for you. It helps your well-being and development greatly. What you’re doing is taking that study and saying that, because it concludes wheat is good for you, eating oats should be banned.

Not analogous. The analogy would be more like living without calcium sources – since mothers have, historically, been considered as necessary for human prospering as calcium. But sure, if studies could prove that there’s nothing wrong with going without calcium, we could drop calcium from children’s diets. We would sure need a lot of (unethical!) research to establish that, though.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Let it be asked; what distinguishes Marriage from non-marriage, what is its genus and species?

As to the matter of its genera, or general class, I answer that; the genera of marriage appears to be the same as all relations based upon reason friendship. Including, however imperfectly, the notion of love; that is the willing of the good for another.Whilst the exact properties of friendship could be further examined, let us put that to one side for a moment. The next question is important; what is the specific difference of a marriage, and why does the State have mandate to legislate upon this institution but not the whole genera? The specific difference would have to relate directly to the Common Good, as if it doesn’t the State is without mandate to legislate. The only good of a human being considered solely as a Person that is served directly by a form of friendship would be reproductive or procreative friendship.

Marriage is therefore procreative friendship in terms of a real definition; and a marital relation must be of at least a procreative type, even if it never actualises its potency for procreation.

Therefore the burden of proof is on the Gay-rights activist to show where the State gets its mandate and power to legislate on the entire genera of “friendship”, which will render an absurd conclusion. Allowing you to launch a reductio ad absurdum refutation.

So it becomes no different than the other rights correctly understood in conscience formation. Interesting.

Then further in sequence with the Church its a matter of listening to what they are saying and since the formation of conscience is here with morality, this yields to humble obedience. I guess it comes down here to not taking the liberty with what the Church did not say.

In the other direction we head to unknown ordered by whom? Which leads to the launch of reductio ad absurdum refutation.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Sure, adjust my scenario in the following way: the mothers consider leaving immediately after the child is born, before it would be psychological abandonment.

Still doesn’t fix the single parent problem. Struggling to see what your point is with this, unless you think that same-sex households are comparable to single parent households on the development of a child.

Not analogous. The analogy would be more like living without calcium sources – since mothers have, historically, been considered as necessary for human prospering as calcium. But sure, if studies could prove that there’s nothing wrong with going without calcium, we could drop calcium from children’s diets. We would sure need a lot of (unethical!) research to establish that, though.

It is analogous. It’s about you using a study to say that something unrelated to the study should be banned because you came to a conclusion based on the unrelated study. In your analogy above there’s no alternative to calcium, which is different to the situation at hand seeing as though same-sex households are an alternative to opposite-sex households.

So yes, my analogy still stands.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Still doesn’t fix the single parent problem. Struggling to see what your point is with this, unless you think that same-sex households are comparable to single parent households on the development of a child.

Why would you think that the tens of thousands of studies I’m referring to all involve single parent households?

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Why would you think that the tens of thousands of studies I’m referring to all involve single parent households?

Well we can skip straight to this question and ask; Are those studies are mutually exclusive to same-sex household studies?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well we can skip straight to this question and ask; Are those studies are mutually exclusive to same-sex household studies?

If I understand your question, the answer is no. Some of the households in the studies I’m talking about had two same-sex parents (or two same-sex caretakers).

Moreover, more recent studies show that a child is much more likely to be abused by non-biological parents. This finding would carry over to at least one of the partners in a gay marriage.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

If I understand your question, the answer is no. Some of the households in the studies I’m talking about had two same-sex parents (or two same-sex caretakers).

So you’re saying you’re talking about studies where children raised in same-sex households are worse off in well-being and development?

Moreover, more recent studies show that a child is much more likely to be abused by non-biological parents. This finding would carry over to at least one of the partners in a gay marriage.

Nonsense claims of paedophilia will be ignored in serious debates.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So you’re saying you’re talking about studies where children raised in same-sex households are worse off in well-being and development?

I don’t think continuing this portion of our conversation is productive. Done with that.

Nonsense claims of paedophilia will be ignored in serious debates.

Bizarre statement. I am not connecting homosexuality with pedophilia.

I am connecting child abuse (NOT pedophilia!) with the presence of non-biological parents in the home. All sociologists acknowledge this statistical connection. Sometimes it can’t be helped: I’d rather have a non-biologically related dad than no dad at all!

See books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ws2-t5u8030C&oi=fnd&pg=PA79&dq=biological+parent+abuse&ots=oAmQsJomCF&sig=aM07ZRpLbMhjYVvGzI1GDfbkZvM:

Several other factors have emerged from the community studies as being consistently associated with a higher risk for abuse: (1) when the child lives without one of the biological parents, (2) when the mother is unavailable to the child either as a result of employment outside the home or because of disability or illness, (3) when the child reports that the parents’ marriage is unhappy or full of conflict, (4) when the child reports having a poor relationship with the parents or being subject to extremely punitive discipline or child abuse, (5) when the child reports having a stepfather.

By my count, (1) applies to all children of gay couples, (2) applies to all gay male couples, and (5) essentially applies to all gay male couples. You don’t have to think that gay men are pedophiles to believe that there’s an increased risk here.

Despite all that, I don’t advocate taking children away from gay couples – no more than I advocate taking children away from single mothers. But I also don’t advocate placing the normative label “marriage” on gay relationships.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Side note, Ben: FYI, most child sexual abuse is not committed by pedophiles (i.e. people who are sexually attracted to children).

 

[SMGS127]

By my count, (1) applies to all children of gay couples, (2) applies to all gay male couples, and (5) essentially applies to all gay male couples. You don’t have to think that gay men are pedophiles to believe that there’s an increased risk here.

Despite all that, I don’t advocate taking children away from gay couples – no more than I advocate taking children away from single mothers. But I also don’t advocate placing the normative label “marriage” on gay relationships.

Prodigal,

Obviously I oppose SSM, but I consider (2) and (5) specious to apply to children of same-sex male couples. There has to be evidence showing that it is specifically the absence of the mother (with double blind studies showing a detrimental effect of having a SAHD), which I have never seen, for (2) to apply, and (5) just straight up doesn’t apply because a stepfather almost universally means having divorced parents, which a child wouldn’t have in this case.

(1) I suppose could be the case, but I would only believe it if you could show me a study showcasing how adoptive parents of newborns are more abusive on average. I have seen no such thing.

If we’re going to oppose SSM (or same-sex adoption, which I consider to be more of a grey area in the Church), I want to do so for actual reasons that are logically consistent. A lot of the arguments people use are just straight up ludicrous. And I’m not saying yours are ludicrous – they’re certainly more sound than most arguments I hear – but they’re still not logically sound in my opinion.

 

[Skeptic92]

Prodigal,

Obviously I oppose SSM, but I consider (2) and (5) specious to apply to children of same-sex male couples. There has to be evidence showing that it is specifically the absence of the mother (with double blind studies showing a detrimental effect of having a SAHD), which I have never seen, for (2) to apply, and (5) just straight up doesn’t apply because a stepfather almost universally means having divorced parents, which a child wouldn’t have in this case.

(1) I suppose could be the case, but I would only believe it if you could show me a study showcasing how adoptive parents of newborns are more abusive on average. I have seen no such thing.

If we’re going to oppose SSM (or same-sex adoption, which I consider to be more of a grey area in the Church), I want to do so for actual reasons that are logically consistent. A lot of the arguments people use are just straight up ludicrous. And I’m not saying yours are ludicrous – they’re certainly more sound than most arguments I hear – but they’re still not logically sound in my opinion.

A problem that seems to be endemic in this debate is the constant appeal to consequentialist Ethics, which isn’t consistent with Catholic Moral Theology (or Philosophical Ethics). What did you make of my argument on this page? #303. I’m not 100% sure of it; which is why I ask for a critique

 

[SMGS127]

A problem that seems to be endemic in this debate is the constant appeal to consequentialist Ethics, which isn’t consistent with Catholic Moral Theology (or Philosophical Ethics). What did you make of my argument on this page? #303. I’m not 100% sure of it; which is why I ask for a critique

Yours is good, though it should also include the unitive type. This is harder to explain from a secular basis than the procreative type (as Aquinas told us we must be able to do in order to reason with those who do not believe in Christianity), but marriage is unique in its ability to unite two people as one as well. Otherwise, a man who could ejaculate but not penetrate could licitly engage in marital sex and/or licitly get married, and he cannot do either in the Church.

The reason I say it is harder to explain secularly, by the way, is because, at least for lesbian sex, the emotional unification still occurs – in other words, you still feel spiritually bonded to your partner despite the sex not being spiritually unitive. So it is harder to explain why a gay or lesbian couple cannot engage in unitive sex, as the argument “well look at how your genitalia fits!” is on an elementary school level at best and utterly fails from a philosophical standpoint.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Prodigal,

Obviously I oppose SSM, but I consider (2) and (5) specious to apply to children of same-sex male couples. There has to be evidence showing that it is specifically the absence of the mother (with double blind studies showing a detrimental effect of having a SAHD), which I have never seen, for (2) to apply, and (5) just straight up doesn’t apply because a stepfather almost universally means having divorced parents, which a child wouldn’t have in this case.

(1) I suppose could be the case, but I would only believe it if you could show me a study showcasing how adoptive parents of newborns are more abusive on average. I have seen no such thing.

If we’re going to oppose SSM (or same-sex adoption, which I consider to be more of a grey area in the Church), I want to do so for actual reasons that are logically consistent. A lot of the arguments people use are just straight up ludicrous. And I’m not saying yours are ludicrous – they’re certainly more sound than most arguments I hear – but they’re still not logically sound in my opinion.

When people deny the premise that “a child deserves a father and a mother”, S, I have to say something. I do believe that having a parent of both sexes is a benefit, and so I’m not surprised to find studies that tend to establish that fact. (2), for example, obviously applies to households without any mother at all – unless the book I’m quoting is wrong in describing the lack of a mother as the specific problem. (If so, why wouldn’t they say "the lack of a stay-at-home parent?)

I agree that (5) is iffy. But it’s clear from the research that non-biological parents are more likely to be harmful to children (in measurable and non-measurable ways) than biological parents. This is not P.C. to say, because so many people are children of divorce. But it’s true.

My real problem is with divorce. If divorce were not endemic, I think few people would be advocating for same-sex marriage anyway.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A problem that seems to be endemic in this debate is the constant appeal to consequentialist Ethics, which isn’t consistent with Catholic Moral Theology (or Philosophical Ethics).

Not true. Aquinas was a consequentialist. All virtue ethicists are.

The only two kinds of non-consequentialist Christian ethics I’m familiar with are (a) divine command theory and (b) deontology. Divine command theory makes God into an arbitrary dictator, however, and deontology is just bad philosophy.

Perhaps you are confusing consequentialism with utilitarianism?

I agree that utilitarianism is a bad ethical framework.