how does gay marriage harm society?

[jrgiancola]

Anyway, please keep posting. I really get a good laugh when I see you flash your frustrated life all over the thread.

 

[jrgiancola]

By the way, read posts 17, 18 and 30 and you may learn something since they quote from the Bible, you know, that thing that God, not the church, wrote? Oh, I apologize. Since you don’t post here to LEARN anything, but just to play POPE, you WON"T learn anything.

Incidently, it’s been widely shown over the years that men who hate homosexuals usually are struggling very hard with their own sexual identities. Maybe you should think about this ZACH.

 

[michelleds]

Joe, I don’t know what you’ve read and haven’t here on CAF, so forgive me if this is redundant. I identified as out and proud lesbian for more than 20 years. I have converted to Catholicism and over the last 12 months have come to believe that God calls me to be holy. In calling me to be holy, I believe that acting on same sex attractions would be immoral and wrong. I am chaste and have been so since deciding to convert.

I believe that God has commanded us to avoid immorality and impurity. I believe that homosexual acts are immoral according to GOD, regardless of what man thinks or wants to believe.

Living a virtuous, moral life is no more difficult or impossible for me than it is for any other man or woman who is not married. we are ALL called to chastity. Be holy as the Lord your God is holy.

And since you indicated in another thread that I personally was unhappy and frustrated, I will tell you that I am neither. I am frequently referred to as a ball of sunshine. Please don’t try any of the usual balderdash about how I wasn’t a “successful lesbian” or I must be ugly or I’m depressed or any of that other rot. None of that is true.

What I am is a child of God. I will live according to HIS will and I hope to help anyone along the way with my story.

I’m sorry that you feel so personally attacked on these threads, so much so that you are lashing out at others. If you are a gay man, then I’m truly sorry that our beliefs wound you. Please step into prayer with God, ask Him what He wants you to do and believe. and then listen. with your heart, because He has written His law on your heart.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The point is there are other kinds of stories that portray the worst of gay parenting, more so than the occasional story of your young male neighbor who apparently grew up normal after being raised by a homosexual uncle and his partner. I say apparently because you really don’t know if he has latent psychological harm that would surface later in his adulthood.

InSearch, I looked at the links you had posted earlier in this thread. They are, indeed, shocking examples of abuse. And let’s be clear, that’s what they are: examples of abuse, and not necessarily typical examples of gay parenting. Your argument seems to be that gay parents will always necessarily abuse their children in the same ways as these sad gay people abused their own children and the children in their care. I think your heart is clearly in the right place, but it’s leading you to an irrational conclusion.

As we discussed on another thread that mysteriously vanished, I think it’s pretty easy for us to agree that the ideal is for a child to grow up in a loving and nurturing environment cared for by loving and nurturing opposite sex parents, but that loving and nurturing same sex parents are also capable of providing a loving and nurturing environment in which a child can grow and flourish that is vastly preferable to an institutional upbringing. We human beings require the loving nurture of other human beings that occurs most profoundly in a loving, safe home that is supportive of human flourishing and the cultivation of virtue. (I figure that’s where we most disagree–in the cultivation of virtue part. I would argue, based on experience, that same-sex couples can grow in virtue together, though I would imagine that you would not make that argument.)

Don’t gloss over researches of gay unions that are for the record beset by promiscuity and its attendant health and relationship issues which lead to break-ups, eclipsing break ups of heterosexual marriages.

Am I reading you correctly here? Are you saying that all gay unions are beset by promiscuity, and that they are so beset is an incontestable fact which forms a part of some public record?

The general public is better served with meaningful social science, which bases conclusions on formal surveys presenting relevant statistics on trends and prevalence given a set of factors and parameters. They are not based on anecdotes. To be credible and meaningful, such studies use random sampling, adequate sample size, and anonymity of research participants. They should also be carried out with no self-presentation bias.

Indeed! But let’s also remember that old adage, “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” This goes for both sides of this argument.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

This is why your belief that you are against gay ‘marriage’ comes across as incongruent with the focus of your posts: traditional marriage is under siege, so why don’t Catholics sink it some more?

I disagree with the idea that traditional marriage is under siege. (We won’t begin to discuss the problems with the phrase “traditional marriage,” particularly in light of systems of polygamy and/or concubinage being able to lay claim to the “traditional” honorific.) The various problems (such as they are) that marriage is having are symptoms of a larger cultural issue: individual vs. community. This struggle is played out in every level of our culture, from the economy to the home. And this struggle is not so new. You can see it taking shape during the Renaissance.

With the current technological revolution (which I would situate as starting with the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century), the tensions between individual and community have increased, particularly because the terms of the struggle keep shifting ever so slightly but with greater and greater speed–what it means to be an individual in relationship with a community is necessarily changing in the world of global markets, virtual reality, and social networking.

And, unsurprisingly, marriage is not unaffected by all of this change. The question of gay “marriage,” for instance, would be impossible were it not for the idea that people should marry for love. This is a radical change in the nature of marriage, a shift from social/communal priorities to individual priorities. I would argue that it’s a good change insofar as love is a good thing. But it’s not without it’s social consequences. The co-option by the state of sacramental terminology (“marriage”) further complicates the issue.

Personally, I think we would do better to focus less on fixing marriage and more on increasing our consciousness of the value of community, our consciousness that we have various responsibilities to each other by virtue of our shared humanity, and by virtue of the universal promptings of charity within us by the grace of God. I think if we made this shift in our attention, we would begin to notice a rehabilitation of marriage. In short, I think how we answer the old question, “Who is my neighbor?” will determine the real future of marriage.

Just my 2 cents.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[John21652]

LIZ:

 Actually, it's you and some of the other regulars here who have real serious delusions of grandeur.  One dude called me a heretic; he must be the Grand Inquisitor.  Perhaps he should burn me at the stake for having an interpretation of Scripture different from our church's interpretation.  Let's go back to the Middle Ages when our church was totally under the control of satan.  

 You come to this website and pontificate to anyone who is naive enough to believe you have any idea who God is.  You know what the Church is; you have no idea who God is.

Wish I knew how to separate the quotes and write comments like some of you do.

If you did some real homework you’d soon know what a false idea of history you have. The one institution that kept Europe functioning during the upheavals of the Middle Ages was the Catholic Church. While the developing European states were squabbling over who owned what, the Church alone stood as a repository of knowledge and enlightenment. I wonder if you knew that during the outbreaks of plague that frequently spread through Europe, that it was the Church’s resources that kept whole populations fed. Oh sure, you’ll quote us more of the uneducated secular nonsense about the crusades and the inquisitions, subjects which soon highlight the ignorance of a lot of people who willingly beleive anti-catholic propoganda, but the truth is far more enlightening for those willing to seek it out. Your suggestion that the Church was under the control of Satan during the Middle Ages shows not only an appalling lack of history in general, but it shows that you have totally fallen away from the history of the Church itself, from both her theological and temporal history. Your comment is anti-catholic. You even equate knowledge with ‘delusions of granduer’. You need to work on that chip on your shoulder.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Just a quick reply to yours, as I am composing a post on the status of Catholic marriages for the benefit of Eugenius when your submitted post displayed.

…
They are, indeed, shocking examples of abuse. And let’s be clear, that’s what they are: examples of abuse, and not necessarily typical examples of gay parenting.
…

Clearly, the gay couple in the linked news article were abusers. In my exchange with Eugenius, I presented the other end of anecdotal outcomes of gay ‘parenting.’ In his example, everything right was done in a case of gay ‘parenting’ (presumably from genuine love and feeling of duty as an uncle to his young orphaned nephew, no abuse happened). The link I provided portrayed everything wrong (a gay couple’s home where children were abused).

Please note Eugenius and I discussed anecdotes or exceptions (which we can say are not representative, only meaningful from a narrow angle, lacking in weight of a larger sociological perspective) vs. studies (preferably longitudinal studies).

…
Are you saying that all gay unions are beset by promiscuity, and that they are so beset is an incontestable fact which forms a part of some public record?
…

No, not all homosexuals are promiscuous partners. I have a homosexual sibling who would resent that statement! There are homosexuals who choose to live in monogamous relationships; in fact, there are those that live chastely, or celibately. I am saying that there are enough studies from homosexual respondents in studies admitting to promiscuous behavior or having multiple partners, even when they are in relationships or supposed unions, revealing that promiscuity is not uncommon.

I disagree with the idea that traditional marriage is under siege. …

That is the way Eusebius framed it – that it is the main problem why Catholics should just look away from the push by the homosexual movement for gay ‘marriage’ and ‘parenting.’ I do not agree with this.
,

 

[Charlemagne_II]

No, not all homosexuals are promiscuous partners. I have a homosexual sibling who would resent that statement! There are homosexuals who choose to live in monogamous relationships; in fact, there are those that live chastely, or celibately. I am saying that there are enough studies from homosexual respondents in studies admitting to promiscuous behavior or having multiple partners, even when they are in relationships or supposed unions, revealing that promiscuity is not uncommon.

All this allowed, the real problem is not whether gay parents turn out to be promiscuous, but the fact that gay parents do not present a normal parenting model for a heterosexual child. I would not care a fig for whether society would allow men to marry men and women to marry women … if it were not that right away demands would be made that homosexual couples have equal rights for adoption with heterosexual couples. That would be an inevitable crusade for the ACLU, and the Courts would go right along with it.

Pity the millions of heterosexual children who, according to equal rights law, must be then adopted by homosexual parents … and for what purpose?

In this very long discussion one thing has received little attention.

Do heterosexual children not have rights?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

All this allowed, the real problem is not whether gay parents turn out to be promiscuous, but the fact that gay parents do not present a normal parenting model for a heterosexual child.

I think I understand what you’re saying, here. But I don’t know that the conclusions to which it leads us make much sense. Some questions:

1. Are you making a distinction between homosexual children and heterosexual children?
2. If you are not actually making this distinction, are you suggesting that the sexual orientation of the parents determines or influences the sexual orientation of the child?
   2A. In which case, why are there gay people with heterosexual parents?
3. If you are making the distinction, are you assuming that the needs of a heterosexual child are fundamentally different from the needs of a homosexual child?
   3A. Would you be comfortable making a similar argument: that Asian children cannot be properly raised by African American parents, that such parents cannot truly serve the child’s needs, or that that the child’s ethnicity as opposed to the child’s humanity determines the child’s needs?
4. Is a “normal parenting model” determined principally if not exclusively by a parent’s sexual orientation, or does it involve the capacity of a parent to model virtue and provide a loving and safe home in which the child’s flourishing (physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) is both possible and encouraged?
   4A. Are you asserting that it is impossible for homosexual parents to model any virtue for their children–that is, must one be heterosexual in order to model virtue?

(Granted in question 3A above that a child of one ethnicity raised by parents of another presents some interesting and unique challenges, but the questions are: are these challenges definitive, and are they insurmountable?)

I would not care a fig for whether society would allow men to marry men and women to marry women … if it were not that right away demands would be made that homosexual couples have equal rights for adoption with heterosexual couples.

I think what’s needed is for children who need parents to be adopted by parents who will provide that child with the love and nurture they need, with a preference being given to heterosexual parents but allowance made for adoption by homosexual parents who can provide love and nurture to a child.

I agree with your fundamental premise–that different things are not the same. We do two different things an injustice if we decide to treat them as if they are identical–the differences must be recognized and respected.

However, we also err when, in situations like this, we make arguments that suggest that a shared humanity is superceded in value by something like the determination of sexual orientation. It is not a parent’s heterosexuality that makes them a good parent–what makes a good parent stems from their humanity and involves, among other things: their capacity to love and to receive love, their talent for recognizing and fostering the good in their child, their ability to set reasonable boundaries for that child and enforce them, their capacity for modeling virtue, their ability to provide a secure home in which a child may grow, their capacity for reliability and dependability. I fully recognize, given the evidence available to me, that the ideal situation is for a child to be raised by a pair of opposite-sex parents who also have the capacity to provide the highest level of care and attention available to a child. But I also recognize that love and nurture are not the sole properties of heterosexuality, and that the highest level of care and attention available to a child may, in fact, come from a homosexual couple.

Do heterosexual children not have rights?

Of course! But not by virtue of their heterosexuality, just as a child prodigy does not have the right to be raised by prodigious parents, but does have the right to have loving and nurturing parents who will foster his or her talents or abilities, regardless of their own. Just as a genius child cannot rationally demand he or she be raised by geniuses.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Is a “normal parenting model” determined principally if not exclusively by a parent’s sexual orientation, or does it involve the capacity of a parent to model virtue and provide a loving and safe home in which the child’s flourishing (physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) is both possible and encouraged?
4A. Are you asserting that it is impossible for homosexual parents to model any virtue for their children–that is, must one be heterosexual in order to model virtue?

1. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
   Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
   As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…unions_en.html

To understand the issue, one must first consider who the client is when there is a child in need of adoption or foster care. Is this a service for the child or is it a service to adults seeking to acquire a child? The qualifications for the adoptive parents can be quite different depending on the answer to that question.
If the clients are the adults, the child then becomes a precious commodity. The qualification for the adoptive parent(s) is merely competence in parenting. However, if the client is the child, the process for qualifying the prospective parent is quite different, taking into account the human rights and dignity of the child.
First, let us consider the state of the child up for adoption — deprived of his or her mother and father who for some reason were not able to fulfill their responsibilities to the child. Nevertheless, the child carries the flesh of these people and is a witness to their union for all of eternity. The child has not only lost a very real primordial connection associated with his or her identity, but something that is common to every person without exception and important to human flourishing.
As the child grows in age, the awareness of loss increases. Not only the connection with the persons from whom the child originated is missing, but there are also questions about siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins, medical history, sense of family history and ethnic and cultural heritage. The ability, as far as possible, for a child to know and be cared for by his or her mother and father is so precious that it is an internationally recognized human right specified in the “U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
Considering the child’s status, adoption is really an accommodation for this privation. It is an act of charity in which strangers make an irrevocable promise to love, to stand in for and to represent the man and woman who gave the child life and who were not able to fulfill their responsibilities. In this sense, they are not only taking on responsibility to the child, but also to the parents of the child.

cont’d

 

[Elizabeth502]

cont’d…

Only a Man Can Stand in for the Father
It is therefore common sense that only a man can stand in for the father and only a woman can stand in for the mother of which the child was deprived. It would seem that every effort should be made to accommodate the child in this way, as is the case with Catholic Charities’ policy. To disregard this would result in a second privation — a privation of the experience of being loved, cared for and reared by a man and a woman. This second privation, unlike the first, would therefore be intentional if the option of a married man and woman were available to the child. The Catholic Church teaches that this second, intentional privation would amount to an intolerable violation of the dignity and the rights of the child.
A second consideration in adoption is the principle of irreplaceability. What prepares a man and a woman to receive life from their union as a gift is to first freely choose to make themselves irreplaceable to each other through marriage. This starts the circle of irreplaceability that we call the family, both nuclear and extended. In the adoption process the parents choose to make the child irreplaceable to them. Is it not then a matter of common sense and justice for the child to expect the adoptive man and woman to first make themselves irreplaceable to each other through marriage? Should this not be a precondition for receiving the child as a person of equal value and dignity? This is what Catholic Charities does. How can anyone find this discriminatory — unless the child is seen as a person of little value, having no rights, or as a mere commodity? The child is effectively treated as a pet, with the primary consideration that he or she be treated humanely rather than humanly.
The question of adoption policy, as one can see, is really a matter of human rights. When people argue for the “best interest of the child” in the abstract, the perceptions of that can be skewed by the interest and experience of the adults making the argument. It is so easy for weak and vulnerable children to become abstractions, unless we ourselves “become like a child” (Matthew 18:3). Reflecting on the desire we have for connection with our own mother and father and recognizing that this is a common human experience helps us understand that the child in the state of privation is really another self.

Powerless
However, the deprived child is powerless to express or advocate for his or her interest. He or she does not vote or make political contributions. Children are completely dependent on the charity and sense of justice of adults. They depend on adults to defend their rights even when it is unpopular and takes courage to do so. They depend on adults to treat them with the respect and dignity of true clients, as Catholic Charities does. It is only then that justice for deprived children can be possible.
Human rights cannot be created or changed, only recognized. It is time for the state of Illinois to recognize the human rights of children in need of adoption. It is time for every person of good will to stand in solidarity with children less fortunate than themselves and stand with the Catholic Church against the powerful forces that would deprive these children of married mothers and fathers.

ncregister.com/daily-news…#ixzz1Oh7YnmUO

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…The justifications for being against gay marriage (role models, promiscuity, God’s intent, procreation, agendas, etc.) are meaningless when the divorce rate is around 50%. …

Although I believe this is a side issue to the OP, your repetition in this thread of the “50% divorce rate” (to also apply to Catholics) and that the Church has not focused on failing marriages (of her members) has instigated me to research if your premise is true.

According to published divorce statistics, the oft-cited 50% divorce statistic is a projected rate. It is not the actual rate, certainly not for Catholics.

This detailed report reflects the latest data collected (2007).

As per the statistics collected so far, the divorce rate of first marriages in the United States is 41 percent, …

If the citizens are grouped as per their religious beliefs, then the following results are obtained.

Divorce rate in percent

Agnostics and Atheists 21
Other Christians 24
Born-again Christians 27
Jews 30

The various denominations can be summarized as follows:

Denomination Divorce rate in percent

Lutheran 21
Catholic 21
Presbyterian 23
Methodist 26
Pentecostal 28
Episcopal 28
Baptist 29
Non-denominational 34
Note the Catholic divorce rate at 21% in the above statistics.

You assert that the Church is not doing anything or enough to stem the divorce rate. This study, Marriage in the Catholic Church: A Survey of U.S. Catholics, October 2007, which was put together by Mark M. Gray, Ph.D., Paul M. Perl, Ph.D., and Tricia C. Bruce, Ph.D., dispels your incorrect notion.

In April 2007 the Committee on Marriage and Family Life of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) commissioned the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University to conduct a survey of U.S. adult Catholics on several issues regarding the sacrament of marriage. Survey topics included: (1) awareness of and understanding of Catholic Church teaching on marriage, (2) general attitudes about marriage, and (3) personal experiences of marriage preparation, the sacrament of marriage, and daily married life. The survey was designed to assist the Committee’s implementation of the National Pastoral Initiative for Marriage. The results are meant to assist the Committee in shaping messages for the Initiative, to identify the best ways to reach Catholics, and to identify potential knowledge gaps within the Catholic population regarding understandings of marriage in the Church as well as important sub-group differences within the Catholic population regarding different aspects of marriage.

The whole document is informative and interesting. Pages 13 - 29 has all sorts of demographic breakdown according to marital status. The divorce data on Catholics: Twenty-three percent of adult Catholics have gone through a divorce. Eleven percent of adult Catholics have divorced and are currently either remarried, living with a partner, or widowed. These proportions are generally similar to those for the U.S. population as a whole.

The detailed report is on Page 23:

12 percent of adult Catholics are currently divorced. Additionally 11 percent of adult Catholics who are not currently divorced say they have been divorced at some point in their lives.15 Thus, collectively 23 percent of adult Catholics have experienced divorce.

Divorce

Currently divorced 12%

Not currently divorced,
but has been divorced 11

All other respondents 77
The 23% is about broken marriages, not something that deserves praise, but it is not near 50% for Catholics. And the Church is paying attention to the problem, contrary to your premise.

As I posed upthread, even with the problems with traditional marriages, the Church and Catholics cannot ignore the threat of the homosexual movement march to legalized gay ‘marriage’ in all states and consequent pressure for ‘equal rights’ to adoption and parenting of children.
,

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Deo volente

So far as I can gather, your argument rests on the premise that homosexual parents can parent heterosexual children and have a right to do so. This is the nub of the question. You are looking at the rights of the homosexual couple, rather than the rights of the heterosexual child.

When placing children for adoption, how do you distinguish between a homosexual child and a heterosexual child? The assumption to make is that all children are heterosexual. Let them develop accordingly and sort things out for themselves in their own autonomy as human beings.

So what you are saying is that homosexual parents have rights?

Don’t heterosexual childrens’ rights trump those of homosexual couples?

The ACLU, by your logic, will be on the side of the homosexual parents to adopt and offer unnatural models for the development of heterosexual children.

Shame on you all!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Thanks for those quotations, Elizabeth. I wonder if you can help me make sense of them?
Vatican:

1. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition.

Lacking in the presence of both male and female genitalia, sure. I can see why the inclusion of the word “biological.” What is meant, here, though, by “anthropological”? I can’t quite suss that one out. If they’re referring to the history of marriage in society, “historical” would be a better word. If they’re inferring that the historical record is indicative of an ontological reality, anthropological barely works–the history of marriage is not necessarily the history of monogamous marriage, and the history of the family and what family has meant to people throughout the ages has not necessarily coincided with the history of marriage. Moreover, the historical recognition of same-sex partnerships did not, and does not, depend on such partnerships being marriages, but that did not stop them from being socially recognized. Is the vatican subtly insisting that the state co-option of sacramental terminology (marriage) continue, suggesting that the state actually has a say over what the sacrament of marriage actually is?
Vatican:

Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race.

Not able to contribute to procreation is clear. But throwing survival into the mix is a bit absurdly apocalyptic (and let’s not even get into whether or not the vatican is indicating here that it is pro life and it’s living or pro mere survival). By this reckoning, monks and nuns are also contrary to the survival of the human race, but that doesn’t make the office of the monk or nun any the less honorable or dignified. Perhaps pinning survival solely procreation doesn’t tell the whole story?
Vatican:

The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Understandable.
Vatican:

Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

This adds an interesting spin on things: homosexual sex is inhuman. So, too, is sex between an elderly married couple incapable of producing offspring–you can only say such an act is “open to the transmission of new life” if you understand the phrase symbolically, but the moment you do that, you open the door to “new life” being interpreted in a number of different ways, admitting the possibility that sex can be life-giving or life-affirming without being procreative. Which is probably not what the Vatican means here, so we should probably assume that elderly infertile married couples have inhuman sex.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]
Vatican:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons.

“As some experience has shown, the absence of biological sexual complementarity in these unions can create obstacles etc.” would perhaps be a better way of saying this. In some cases, experience has shown no such impediments.

And let’s clarify here–are we comfortable with the idea that sexual complementarity is purely biological? That fatherhood, say, is not a quality of relationship, but related to the physical presence of a phallus in a relationship?
Vatican:

They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood.

Ah! So the Vatican is saying that fatherhood is not a quality of relationship, but has everything to do with male genitalia. How does this relate to our notion of the Fatherhood of God? Is Julian of Norwich a heretic for speaking of the Motherhood of Jesus? Is Jesus being disingenuous when he compares God to a mother hen?
Vatican:

Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.

I’ve yet to see how this universal conclusion, stated as fact, follows from any universally recognized evidence–the Vatican has simply made assertions (that, to me, need clarifying), but has offered no evidence. And how are they understanding “full human development” here? Is the assumption that a child raised by same-sex parents cannot fully develop as a human? That’s a bold assumption. So where’s the evidence?
Vatican:

This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

Of course the interests of the child are paramount! Placing the child into a home that is conducive to their development as full human beings is the priority, and I have yet to be shown conclusive evidence that same-sex parents are universally incapable of providing such a home.

The way the Vatican talks about it, we should all have wanted to be put up for adoption! Naturally, we have no right to choose our parents, but if we were put up for adoption, the Vatican (with the UN) would have naturally placed us with the parents that are best suited to us, and vice versa! What a dream for all those human beings born to parents that were overbearing, or had issues, or were too permissive, or had an eating disorder, or were unemployed, or didn’t like reading, let alone those human beings whose natural parents did them actual demonstrable violence. But perhaps all those folks didn’t grow to be full humans after all…who knows.

I’ll try to get around to responding to your other quotation from ncregister.com. But maybe in future we can have an actual conversation in this thread?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Deo volente

So far as I can gather, your argument rests on the premise that homosexual parents can parent heterosexual children and have a right to do so. This is the nub of the question. You are looking at the rights of the homosexual couple, rather than the rights of the heterosexual child.

When placing children for adoption, how do you distinguish between a homosexual child and a heterosexual child? The assumption to make is that all children are heterosexual. Let them develop accordingly and sort things out for themselves in their own autonomy as human beings.

So what you are saying is that homosexual parents have rights?

No no no! I’m not saying that anyone at all has any right to adopt a child. No one has the right to adopt a child.

I’m saying this: that an orphaned child has the right to the best home situation available. And that sometime that can be provided best by a homosexual couple.

That’s all.

As I wrote earlier: “what makes a good parent stems from their humanity and involves, among other things: their capacity to love and to receive love, their talent for recognizing and fostering the good in their child, their ability to set reasonable boundaries for that child and enforce them, their capacity for modeling virtue, their ability to provide a secure home in which a child may grow, their capacity for reliability and dependability. I fully recognize, given the evidence available to me, that the ideal situation is for a child to be raised by a pair of opposite-sex parents who also have the capacity to provide the highest level of care and attention available to a child. But I also recognize that love and nurture are not the sole properties of heterosexuality, and that the highest level of care and attention available to a child may, in fact, come from a homosexual couple.”

Re: making a distinction between a heterosexual or homosexual child, I too find making such a distinction absurd–which is why when you were speaking of the rights of heterosexual children qua heterosexual children, it made no sense to me. (I think the assumption to make, by the way, is that all children are human.)

Under the Mercy.
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[jrgiancola]

Joe, I don’t know what you’ve read and haven’t here on CAF, so forgive me if this is redundant. I identified as out and proud lesbian for more than 20 years. I have converted to Catholicism and over the last 12 months have come to believe that God calls me to be holy. In calling me to be holy, I believe that acting on same sex attractions would be immoral and wrong. I am chaste and have been so since deciding to convert.

I believe that God has commanded us to avoid immorality and impurity. I believe that homosexual acts are immoral according to GOD, regardless of what man thinks or wants to believe.

Living a virtuous, moral life is no more difficult or impossible for me than it is for any other man or woman who is not married. we are ALL called to chastity. Be holy as the Lord your God is holy.

And since you indicated in another thread that I personally was unhappy and frustrated, I will tell you that I am neither. I am frequently referred to as a ball of sunshine. Please don’t try any of the usual balderdash about how I wasn’t a “successful lesbian” or I must be ugly or I’m depressed or any of that other rot. None of that is true.

What I am is a child of God. I will live according to HIS will and I hope to help anyone along the way with my story.

I’m sorry that you feel so personally attacked on these threads, so much so that you are lashing out at others. If you are a gay man, then I’m truly sorry that our beliefs wound you. Please step into prayer with God, ask Him what He wants you to do and believe. and then listen. with your heart, because He has written His law on your heart.

Dear Michelle,

 I had to answer this post because you appear to be so sincere and honest.  I apologize for suggesting that you are a frustrated person.  When anyone lashes out at me in what appears to be anger, I conclude they are frustrated or unhappy, because they usually are.

 I am absolutely NOT against chastity as a personal choice.  I am against coerced chastity, that is, the statement that unless one is chaste in a certain  situation, particularly when one is gay, he or she cannot know God, cannot be loved by God, and cannot be saved.  To me it's balderdash and I've already given my reasons for thinking this way.  I interpret the Bible differently than our church, and many other churches, does when it comes to sexual and familial issues.  

 If you have chosen chastity without coercion, and find peace and happiness with this decision, then I am very happy for you, honestly.  Our priests and sisters choose chastity in order to be a part of our religious community.  Most feel very happy and peaceful with their chastity and I am very happy for them.  

 I have been blessed to have known two priests as personal friends; they were not my confessors or anything like that.  Both I loved, both were wonderful priests and it never occurred to me that they should be anything but chaste.  

 I also live a life of chastity, but of my own choice.  My wife of 35 years passed away in 2007.  We loved each other deeply and intensely.  Since her death, I have turned down offers of "dates" and "outright sex" from both women and men.  It's not that I have no sex drive or can no longer function.  It's just that I have no desire to be with anyone other than my wife.  

 Since her death, God has comforted me more than I ever imagained anyone could.  My children and 3 year old grandchild also add much to my life.  I am never alone, though at times I am lonely.

I don’t know what plans God has for the rest of my life; I never imagined ever being alive without my wife. I figured we would grow old together and sit in our rockers on the front porch. I expected to die before her.

I don’t know if God plans for me to have another love; right now, He would have to change my heart because I have no desire to ever love anyone else that way again.

 Believe that I share the peace with God that you have found and I am NOT an unhappy man.  God has always loved and protected me; and He has never denied anything I have ever asked Him for, except for the stupid things.  

 I wish you well, and a very peaceful, happy life.

Joe

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Deo Volente

I’m saying this: that an orphaned child has the right to the best home situation available. And that sometime that can be provided best by a homosexual couple.

And I’m saying this: that a heterosexual child has a right to the best home situation possible. And that is going to be provided by a heterosexual couple.

Believe it. When (if) married homosexuals command it, they will get a quota system in which they cannot be denied a child even when (if) heterosexual couples are available to adopt.

Civil rights, dontcha know?

That is a crime against common sense as well as against nature.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children

1. 
   *]Mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

1. 
   

   Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

   *]Children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

   A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.

   Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.

   Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.

   *]Boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

   *]Same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

   There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

   *]If society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.

   [Con’t]

 

[InSearchofGrace]

[Con’t]

Conclusion

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

by Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
,