How do I explain same sex marriage to my seven year old?

[PetraG]

I certainly wouldn’t try and convert people with that line, no. But on a catholic forum I think it can be stated.

There are no private forums on the internet, and if there are this certainly isn’t one of them. We need to always write as if people without the background to understand what we mean in the context of Catholic teaching will be reading, since this is a place people who don’t feel they know will come to learn more.

 

[JMMJ]

He is entitled to his opinion. It doesn’t make it right.

 

[PetraG]

Here is the full context of the remarks:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/france...html#EXTEMPORANEOUS_SPEECH_OF_THE_HOLY_FATHER

“Then today — it hurts to say it — we speak of ‘diversified’ families: different types of family. Yes, it is true that the word ‘family’ is an analogical term, because it refers to the ‘family’ of stars, to ‘families’ of trees, to ‘families’ of animals … it is an analogical term. But the human family as the image of God, man and woman, is one alone…”

He didn’t say the word “family” should never be used unless it is of the type in which a man and woman become spouses and welcome children freely from God. He said that was the type of family that is the “image of God.”

That’s true. I would teach it that way to a 7 year old when he asks what marriage is and what marriage isn’t, because the day will come when he’ll need to know the difference between the divine plan for marriage and the forms that the secular institution is sometimes allowed to take.

 

[PetraG]

He is entitled to his opinion. It doesn’t make it right.

Read the entirety of his remarks, rather than a single statement with no context.

He’s right.

 

[JMMJ]

Read the entirety of his remarks, rather than a single statement with no context.

He’s right.

Yes, he is. Thank you for pointing it out.

I get really tired of people just posting a link instead of articulating their thoughts here. I only have but so much time in the day for weeding through some of the nonsense that gets posted…Thanks again for posting the actual text!

 

[goout]

This exact conversation is ongoing in our culture all the time. It exposes a false dichotomy between pastoral sensitivity and morality. Between love and morality. Between mercy and justice.
There is no dichotomy here for a Christian. We accept individual circumstances and have pastoral sensitivity for human beings, just the way they are

and at the same time (this little Catholic phrase should be taped on our heads at baptism)]

We are on a journey to be who God calls us to be, our best selves, made in God’s image not our own.

And that requires unpleasant work for all of us. Like accepting that the Church’s teaching calls us to more and better, if possible, in whatever way that is given by God. Not to indifference and sloth and false equivalencies.

 

[MarkMcClendon]

Jesus’s idea of family:

“But he said to them in reply, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking around at those seated in the circle, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” - Mark 3:34-35

“Jesus to his mother, ‘Woman behold your son.’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother’”. - John 19:26-27

 

[Le_Crouton]

Sorry, but it’s still a family. It’s just not ideal

 

[goout]

Jesus’s idea of family:

“But he said to them in reply, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking around at those seated in the circle, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” - Mark 3:34-35

“Jesus to his mother, ‘Woman behold your son.’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother’”. - John 19:26-27

Yes to all of this in the way Christ intends it.
No to the the equivalency of types of union the OP’s child is presented with on television.

We know Christ has absolutely no intention of equating unions that are not the same,

And at the same time

Affirming the bonds that connect people with one another as they are.

 

[goout]

When my brother in law died of cancer at 45 with four kids under the age of 6! were my sister in law and her children a family? Sure.
And at the same time
In her heart she also yearned for more, because it’s in the nature (literally) of a man and woman to work together in having and raising children. She never found the man to do this with her, but she certainly wanted it.

My daughter was born out of wedlock because her mom was not able to be married (long story). Were the two of us a family? Yes.
And at the same time
I yearned for a partner to form a family with, so my daughter could have a mother and a father. It’s in our human nature that family is this way. I did find a partner, and it worked out well.

To take difficult circumstances and use them for purposes of indifference to the ideal is just silly. We don’t do this in any other endeavor in life, why should it be proposed for family life?

 

[pnewton]

Someone above used the word “sick.” I think the context makes it inappropriate, as it seems to mean sick in a perverted way. If you start with such names with a little one, I think you might raise a bully, or at least one who cannot interact well even with kids his age without trouble.

However, maybe “sick” in the since of ill might work, if it is spun right as the child ages, but it is not the kind of language that would work with me. I think the key is to start with some age appropriate way of saying something is wrong with an eye to spinning it into sympathy and understanding in the future, followed by a mature understanding of how we are all sinners and judgement belongs to God alone, along side the theology of the body.

 

[AdamP88]

Do you mean we should tell our 7 year old to tell the world that there are “best” families and there are “non-families” and nothing in-between?

No, you didn’t mean that. Yes, a 7 year old will often think you did.

What I would say to a 7 year old is: There is only one family that is part of God’s plan for us. That is the man and woman and their children. Unfortunately that doesn’t always work out for everyone.

 

[AdamP88]

Why are you so hung up on the “ideal” family model.

Because it’s what the Church holds up and it’s what we should all strive to achieve. I’m fully aware that not everyone will but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend it and promote it above any other model of family.

I grew up in the ideal family model. Bio mom and dad and more kids than you can count on two hands. It was pure misery. Nothing ideal about it. Mom and dad did their best, kids were great kids. The circumstances were horrible and it brought out the worst in people at times.

That is your personal experience though. Statistically, it’s still better for a child to be brought up by biological mom and dad. Your anecdote may be true for your family but that doesn’t affect the statistic.

You see? There is no such thing as an ideal family. Families are messy. If they say they aren’t, they aren’t being truthful. Some messes are bigger than others, to be sure, but it doesn’t invalidate the family itself.

You’re missing the point. People are getting upset that I am pointing this out but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
I’m not saying that traditional families are perfect. I’m just saying that they are the model that Christ held up as superior and for that reason are to be desired by society.

 

[PetraG]

What I would say to a 7 year old is: There is only one family that is part of God’s plan for us. That is the man and woman and their children. Unfortunately that doesn’t always work out for everyone.

Here’s the thing: the boy only asked how someone could have two daddies. I’d stick with answering that question. Only one can be biological; others are addressed that way because they treat the boy as a father would and are given the title for that reason. There is far more to say than that, but I wouldn’t say it unless his questioning when in that direction.
After all, let us consider the situation where a child’s mother is in a valid marriage, but not to his father. He would have two men he might refer to as his dad. That’s not the case in this children’s program, but I’d stick with the idea that someone who acts as a father does is sometimes actually called a dad, and leave it at that until he is older, if possible.

 

[TC3033]

I’m fully aware that not everyone will but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend it and promote it above any other model of family.

From my perspective that doesn’t mean that we should put down other family models either, or make up our own definition of what a family is or isn’t and tell people they aren’t in a family because their model doesn’t fit what we believe to be ideal.

statistically, it’s still better for a child to be brought up by biological mom and dad. Your anecdote may be true for your family but that doesn’t affect the statistic.

Can you provide the statistic, hopefully the study you’re basing this off of. Seeing it interests me.

People are getting upset that I am pointing this out but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

That’s not what you were pointing out. You were trying to say that people who aren’t in the “ideal” biological family aren’t actually in families…unless you’re changing your stance?

 

[PetraG]

I’m not saying that traditional families are perfect. I’m just saying that they are the model that Christ held up as superior and for that reason are to be desired by society.

Here is the thing: the child didn’t ask what an ideal family is or what the divine plan for the family is. He asked how it could be that one child could refer to two different men as his dad.

My experience with the age group argues in favor of just answering the question posed in the most simple and inarguable terms that don’t dodge the question and not going off into related topics unless follow-up questions go there (which they might!).

An example of an answer that is not quite true because it dodges the question: A child asked her mom what a virgin was. She didn’t want to get into sex, so she said someone who wasn’t married. Well, the child started substituting “are you married?” with “are you a virgin?” thinking them to be two ways of asking the same thing. (This is what I mean by considering how something can be processed by a 7 year old before answering!!)

Having said that, parents are the primary catechists of their children and have the primary duty and privilege of introducing their children to the truths known to us by faith. If a friend were to ask me this question, I would reply with the advice I’m giving here, but after that I’d also keep my mouth shut and let the parent be the parent, provided the parent wasn’t teaching anything false.

Before launching into the idea that a child cannot have two fathers, consider that we have open adoptions now, which can be a very beautiful way of dealing with what could have been a tragic situation. Don’t put a blanket of disapproval down when there are exceptions; not with a 7 year old. They aren’t at a subtle phase of life.

 

[Anicette]

You just say there are all kinds of families.

Which means: all is acceptable, all is equal, and all is morally neutral.
No importance if children can be conceived by a man and a woman only.
I hold no Catholic vision for marriage.

I do not say it is your point of view, just what we understand in your sentence.

 

[anon48198893]

A few weeks ago, I heard a terrific, and timely, interview on my local Catholic radio station. Leila Miller and Trent Horn authored a profound book to confront these very pressing moral issues, specifically in regards to the parent-children relationship.

Made This Way: How to Prepare Kids to Face Today’s Tough Moral Issues

The book covers a variety of controversial topics:

• Sex Outside of Marriage
• Same-Sex Marriage
• Divorce
• Contraception
• Abortion
• Reproductive Technologies
• Modesty
• Pornography
• Transgenderism
• Homosexuality

 

[JMMJ]

You’re missing the point. People are getting upset that I am pointing this out but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
I’m not saying that traditional families are perfect. I’m just saying that they are the model that Christ held up as superior and for that reason are to be desired by society.

But you said that and a whole lot of other stuff. You said families, just because they don’t meet the “Catholic ideal” aren’t really families at all. That is why people are upset with your posts. If your idea of the “ideal” family is a nuclear family with bio-mom, bio-dad, and kids, you are entitled to that opinion. The Church can have the same opinion. It doesn’t diminish, for even a second, the millions (if not billions) of in tact families that don’t follow that model. It is quite bold to assert that it does, and in my opinion, quite erroneous. That is what the pushback is about.

We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Families, like people, come in all different shapes and sizes. One is not better than another, as long as they are about love.

 

[JMMJ]

Which means: all is acceptable, all is equal, and all is morally neutral

That is a leap. That isn’t said, nor is it implied. My explanation to the 7 year old is factual. It explains what he will see in the world. Nothing more, and nothing less. It sets the foundation for future conversations, on a more mature level, about the morality of what he sees in the world. I happen to believe it is not necessary to go into the morality of same sex relationships as a response to his question at 7. He has learned of something that is not familiar to him, and he has asked about it. I believe in being truthful, in an age-appropriate manner.