A
- Status
E
ephesians4
Guest
Oh look, the same old thing -
“Everybody else supports INSERT_LEFTIST_AGENDA_HERE, and you are the last tiny lunatic fringe of people who don’t. Better get on the bus to fit in, you monster.”
Leftist media (“ecstatic!”) and academics have assimilated members of a quiet conservative majority by persuading them they are a lunatic fringe for at least 30 or 40 years now in different contexts. There is no reason it can’t work for the Catholic church.
I guess that’s what they’re hoping, anyway. I wonder if Catholicism can be the sticking point where this monstrous depravity can get no purchase.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Broad, Diverse Defense of Marriage at Supreme Court
adfmedia.org/files/HollingsworthAmicusList.pdf
Check them out at the link and some here
adfmedia.org/files/HollingsworthAmicusList.pdf
E
epan
Guest
The ABA probably keeps the most up to date listing. Here are the filings, including Amicus briefs:
americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/12-307.html
E
epan
Guest
This is from the introduction to the Amici brief filed jointly by: The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association, The California Medical Association, The National Association of Social Workers and its New York City and State Chapters, and the New York State Psychological Association:
In Roe V Wade, the Court did decide not to consider the scientific evidence. There is some precedent for ignoring the science on the topic.
The entire brief may be found here:
americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-307_affirm_apa-etal.authcheckdam.pdf
It is unlikely that any entity with comparable credibility on the scientific and medical aspects of the question will come forward. The remaining argument could rest on moral grounds.
In Roe V Wade, the Court did decide not to consider the scientific evidence. There is some precedent for ignoring the science on the topic.
The entire brief may be found here:
americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-307_affirm_apa-etal.authcheckdam.pdf
D
Dawnia
Guest
While I tend to agree with the conclusion that Feds shouldn’t get to pick and choose, the author of the article is arguing against the method/reasoning used by the lower courts and not necessarily the outcome. Any court that can magically make up rights based on nothing more than their opinion is a bad thing. Courts should not have that much power.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association, The California Medical Association and New York State Psychological Association commenting on benefits for same sex couples is 100% out of their pay grade
Louisiana State University scholar Loren Marks found when he reviewed 59 studies cited by the American Psychological Association in 2005 that concluded there was ‘no differences’ in children raised in same sex households, he wrote
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.006
Roe v wade claimed that viability was at 24 or 28 weeks gestation, which is a scientific claim. I am not sure if it was in 1973 but for many years babies have survived outside the womb at 21 weeks, that is nearly 1 - 2 months prior to the viability status in Roe v wade
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Examples of Excellent Testimony Against SSM in Minnesota
Despite these and many other arguments from people opposing redefining marriage, Senate Judiciary Committee passed gay marriage bill. Contact your legislator. 53% of Minnesotans oppose legalising same sex marriage
E
ephesians4
Guest
Governments, on behalf of taxpayers invest in marriage for a number of reasons which are in effect based on all sorts of returns for society from the production of a workforce and therefore future tax revenue, to the effects of good socialisation on everything from economic performance of a workforce, to crime levels, etc. - this is geared towards families and the well-being of the society on several fundamental levels - and the small number of childless couples entering into that union are kinda irrelevant since we do encourage stable productive family units on the whole.
I wonder what the returns are for the investors, in backing a kind of romance party+romance certificate for couples that are in 100% of cases, incapable of a) producing children together or b) providing a mother and a father for children without the involvement of a real mother or real father who is excluded from that union.
I mean shouldn’t a “scientific” answer be able to show us what the benefits of this investment are, and why they are the same? As opposed to, say, an interested or emotional or politically motivated answer.
E
epan
Guest
It sounds like you did not read the brief, as your concerns were addressed here:
If these professional organizations, with their vast resources have come to this conclusion, I think that the burden is on you to show how your expertise, or any particular researcher, practitioner, or academician (as opposed to thousands who are equally or more qualified), has sounder bases of judgement.
Keep in mind that this conclusion is based on a peer review process, reviewing all available studies, even though only a subset of that knowledge base may be specifically cited. The members of the review committees are selected for their expertise and qualifications, and their findings are reviewed by their peers. This is how science and medicine advances.
E
epan
Guest
Well, I believe that the legal standard for denying a right claimed by an individual citizen is that the government must show a compelling interest. Absent that, then the presumption falls in favor of the individual.
My point is that I believe that the legal battle is essentially over. There is no reversing the current momentum. Even if the Court rules against the tide of scientific and public opinion, which it probably won’t (the Court likes to be on the right side of historic trends), that it will take several election cycles to pretty much establish gay marriage as a legal norm. It is only a matter of time, like it or not.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
APA dismissed Mark Regernus’s study which is one of the largest and most representative studies on children raised in same sex parent families released yet. Why do I get the feeling the reason APA dismissed it is because it does not fit with their ideological bias?
3 leading sociologists reviewed Regneruas’ study after it ended and offer comments and critique alongside study in ‘Social Science Research:’
Most critical reviewer, David Eggebeen of Penn State says that Professor Regnerus’ study ‘does not prove anything’ in terms of causation, but does ‘offer reasonable arguments for…[showing] more caution when drawing strong conclusions based on the available science.…’ examining same-sex parenting
hhdev.psu.edu/hdfs/directory/bio.aspx?id=124
Respected and eminent reviewer, Paul Amato of Penn State, said, ‘In contrast to most prior studies, the Regnerus study has adequate statistical power for most comparisons.’ He says, ‘the Regnerus study is better situated than virtually all previous studies to detect difference between these groups *’
pop.psu.edu/directory/pxa6
Family demographer Professor Cynthia Osborne, of UT Austin, says study ‘is solid and makes a valuable contribution to the field.’ She said, ‘the Regnerus study is more scientifically rigorous that most of the other studies in this area’ and ‘provides convincing evidence that various adult outcomes are associated with having a parent who had a same-sex relationship.’ She says, his findings ‘contradict the ‘no difference’ claim of the American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting’
utexas.edu/cola/centers/prc/directory/faculty/co763
People who were unahppy with the Regnerus’ study asked the University of Texas to investigate who vinicated Regnerus’
27 social scientists defended Regnerus’ research and they cite another study in Journal of marriage and family which was done on a large, preresnrivie sample and comes to similar conclusions that the Regnerus’ study does but neither of these studies are mentioned in the brief
baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Potter.pdf*
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Its difficult when we use the term normal. We would have to clearly understand normal and abnormal in a psychological setting first. What isn’t known is the relationship to being born gay, in other words heredity/genetics vs environment. We do know the role of environment and have known a very long time. We just cannot effectively address this without finance which btw is why Obama is not addressing the underlying issue of Gun Violence.
You can be orientated to many behaviors which by large we don’t consider normal. While there are compelling arguments which link the behavior to genes, the fact is no gene has been located. So the thinking still resides in two areas. genetic influence, and environmental influence.
If we are to view personality traits, we can’t say your hereditary genes are a set pattern that determine every detail of our personality and behavior. That is simply false. An individuals interactions with the environment are a major factor. The heredity and genetic make-up of an individual is very much learned. There is a inclination due to circumstance and personality traits developed, Not surprisingly, adolescents and those with mental health disorders are at the greatest risk. When you multiply the behaviors under the same condition possibility and inclination increase’s. Such as adding addiction to the equation for example.
Look at it a different way. If we intentionally chose to develop a gay child , we would alter the interaction with others to produce the desired outcome by influence, which also happens unintentionally by large in reality. Same in reverse to address the issue
We can go on and throw gun-control and related violence into the equation. We have a real problem out here and its escalating in all these areas, we just don’t have the proper help due to finance today, and in the most obvious area’s, welfare, state family services and the poverty line with insurance etc. The clinical area understands the issues, they have ridiculous caseloads and as a result real help is elusive until one “knows” and admits they need help and plays and active role in their own recovery. Unfortunate is that often this occurs far down the line if at all.
We need to identify the gene within the family framework first. Until then we must continue to address as suggested above. To open a door and consider a behavior “normal” simply because it seems prevalent leaves that same door open for other areas. Such as the behavior with Sharia Law. Honor killing normal? Cutting of limbs?
In “all” areas one point is a consistent for fact. We can address the issues through addressing the behavior. But you see this isn’t a rational proposition to our Government for the simple fact is that it is not cost effective. We’re not spending money to address or properly address behavior, we are addressing it with some backward thinking after the fact, which in opinion ignores what in fact we do know to be true and does work in a clinical setting. To add unproven theory distracts from the point in speculation and incorrectly opens the door for “normal” which in fact we haven’t proven this, on the contrary very much the opposite.
We have become too tolerant in one area and have less tolerance in another. But as you see its a bit more complex than this. Many decades have yielded gains but slowly and few. Its right to accept the individual as a member of our society, they certainly are. Yet it also right not to accept behavior which we know can be addressed and affects our society as a whole. Isn’t this why we incarcerate addicts? Why are addicts socially unacceptable and today we find gays socially acceptable? This is thrown under the statistic game suggesting its only a small population so we shouldn’t be concerned. Legalize it and be done with it is not addressing the issue, its avoiding it. Same as we do by large with incarceration of pure addiction in reverse by statistic. In other words addiction became a problem instead of addressing the individual we outlawed drugs and incarcerate the addict now, because statistically its out of hand. Gays are not with marriage so they could be legalized?
Complex problem and has been a very long time.
You can be orientated to many behaviors which by large we don’t consider normal. While there are compelling arguments which link the behavior to genes, the fact is no gene has been located. So the thinking still resides in two areas. genetic influence, and environmental influence.
If we are to view personality traits, we can’t say your hereditary genes are a set pattern that determine every detail of our personality and behavior. That is simply false. An individuals interactions with the environment are a major factor. The heredity and genetic make-up of an individual is very much learned. There is a inclination due to circumstance and personality traits developed, Not surprisingly, adolescents and those with mental health disorders are at the greatest risk. When you multiply the behaviors under the same condition possibility and inclination increase’s. Such as adding addiction to the equation for example.
Look at it a different way. If we intentionally chose to develop a gay child , we would alter the interaction with others to produce the desired outcome by influence, which also happens unintentionally by large in reality. Same in reverse to address the issue
We can go on and throw gun-control and related violence into the equation. We have a real problem out here and its escalating in all these areas, we just don’t have the proper help due to finance today, and in the most obvious area’s, welfare, state family services and the poverty line with insurance etc. The clinical area understands the issues, they have ridiculous caseloads and as a result real help is elusive until one “knows” and admits they need help and plays and active role in their own recovery. Unfortunate is that often this occurs far down the line if at all.
We need to identify the gene within the family framework first. Until then we must continue to address as suggested above. To open a door and consider a behavior “normal” simply because it seems prevalent leaves that same door open for other areas. Such as the behavior with Sharia Law. Honor killing normal? Cutting of limbs?
In “all” areas one point is a consistent for fact. We can address the issues through addressing the behavior. But you see this isn’t a rational proposition to our Government for the simple fact is that it is not cost effective. We’re not spending money to address or properly address behavior, we are addressing it with some backward thinking after the fact, which in opinion ignores what in fact we do know to be true and does work in a clinical setting. To add unproven theory distracts from the point in speculation and incorrectly opens the door for “normal” which in fact we haven’t proven this, on the contrary very much the opposite.
We have become too tolerant in one area and have less tolerance in another. But as you see its a bit more complex than this. Many decades have yielded gains but slowly and few. Its right to accept the individual as a member of our society, they certainly are. Yet it also right not to accept behavior which we know can be addressed and affects our society as a whole. Isn’t this why we incarcerate addicts? Why are addicts socially unacceptable and today we find gays socially acceptable? This is thrown under the statistic game suggesting its only a small population so we shouldn’t be concerned. Legalize it and be done with it is not addressing the issue, its avoiding it. Same as we do by large with incarceration of pure addiction in reverse by statistic. In other words addiction became a problem instead of addressing the individual we outlawed drugs and incarcerate the addict now, because statistically its out of hand. Gays are not with marriage so they could be legalized?
Complex problem and has been a very long time.
C
Caged
Guest
Maybe this is off topic but why do we even care? Ultimately it doesn’t affect you because you’re not going to marry the same sex and ultimately you’re going to continue to believe in and teach your children your particular religions views on such issues. Legality is null if you never excercise the right to do it. (Only if the law hurts no one which it ultimately doesn’t. Hurts beliefs maybe but this isn’t a theocracy). If it were detrimental to anyone I wouldn’t say this but really if Joe and Jack get hitched is it going to BE detrimental to John and Susan a couple houses down? I just don’t see why we give a ****. I don’t. I’m not for either side btw before someone asks. I vote for apathy on this subject.
C
Caged
Guest
Wow ok I wasn’t aware that the forum blanks out words that aren’t swears. I apologize. That looked bad. 
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
You’re not Catholic, so I could see why from your point of view, nobody should “care.” But that’s one of the essential philosophical differences between Catholicism and other Christian religions/practices. One of the central premises of Catholicism is the notion of natural law; another is the notion of absolute truth. Both control human nature in general, not one particular religion. The notion that the entire family of man does not have an interest in, or is affected by, what happens elsewhere in the family of man, is not even compatible with Catholicism. All of humanity is linked by what we all do, to and with each other. This is fundamental to understanding the Catholic approach to all of life, and how the secular world is never separated from the religious world in terms of consequences.
Marriage is an institution which affects all of society. Each marriage microcosmically affects society; and marriages collecively affect society collectively. That includes bad heterosexual marriages; it includes the failure to marry (commit) by many heterosexuals, and to substitute pleasure for commitment. Further, normalizing something which the Catholic Church considers universally harmful (disordered) also has a detriimental effect on all of society. What we revere, what we honor affects us internally and in other ways. Not to mention what it teaches children: that marriage has no absolute meaning except what random individuals at random times give to it.
E
ephesians4
Guest
Others have made various points on this - one of the least pressing but ultimately most serious issues that may arise from this is a potential for legal impact on third parties.
I don’t know enough about the legal situation in the US to give weighty comment on this, but the legislation moving forward in the United Kingdom carries potential repercussions for schools, adoption agencies, use of public facilities by religious institutions, child custody and the right for the poor to stay in their local authority provided accommodation, the echr and so on if they are of a particular religious persuasion as freedom of conscience will fall foul of newly covered equalty. Assurances about the prevention of this - “locks”, “case law” etc. really aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, most of the problems will be caused by local authority policy and equality law, the vaunted “case law” doesn’t exist and the “locks” can be dismantled along fairly predictable lines using the existing framework (equality law+echr etc).
As it stands the whole thing is a mess, and the concerns for the freedom of conscience of third parties should be a concern not only to every Catholic, but to all interests, religious or not, apathetic or not.
I am not convinced similar problems would exist in the US, and I shall bow to the superior knowledge of anyone who can tell us this, but it seems at least possible that once this fancy is regarded as a “freedom”, you too may release some genies that are difficult to put in their respective bottles.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
P
Presurmksdimnds
Guest
OH this was such a good post :clapping::clapping:
J
josh987654321
Guest
I believe that a homosexual union is wrong, that it’s okay if they are homosexual but it’s not okay for them to take part in their homosexual desires.
In Australia we have many people pushing for ‘Homosexual Marriage’, It’s mainly the media that are blowing a loud horn, the only people against ‘Homosexual Marriage’ that we hear about on the media are the extremists, like those who say something like “I’ll never have my children in a school with a homosexual teacher” or other extreme things.
I think if I told people, even unbelievers what I am about to mention that they may understand and I would like to know what you think.
Where do people think the word ‘Marriage’ comes from? It’s a religious word, it came from religion, and you cannot take a religious word and re-define it away from religion or remove the religion from it.
That’s why with regards to the Law, the Law should have nothing to do with the word ‘Marriage’ because they are Ignorant of it’s meaning, and it’s not theirs to define.
I don’t agree with a homosexual union, but I’m not going to force my beliefs on them by saying that they cannot do it, but I am going to be upset when they try to change a word (marriage) that me and many others already have a clear definition of, and hold with much respect.
‘Marriage’ is the union of a man and a women under god until death do they part, It has always meant just that, even since B.C.
If it doesn’t involve God than it shouldn’t be called a marriage, the thing that people don’t realise is that, It’s wrong of them to come up with their own definition of ‘Marriage’ and than force it onto us by teaching it in our schools.
If they quized me on ‘Homosexual Marriage’ I would just say “I believe the word ‘Marriage’ comes from God and is therefore not mine to change”
And "I don’t force my beliefs on others, so I don’t appreciate them trying to force their beleifs of ‘Marriage’ onto us by changing the law, That’s why it’s not discrimination to be against ‘Homosexual Marriage’ It’s actually discrimination to be for ‘Homosexual Marriage’, because they are trying to force their beliefs of marriage onto people like me who already have a clear definition of the word ‘marriage’ in which does not and will never include a homosexual union.
So the main argument is that it’s wrong of them to make up their own definition of ‘Marriage’ and have our children learn it, so the thing I am against is the word ‘marriage’ that they are trying to change, because we can’t force people not to sin with the Law, well we can try to but it’s very hard.
I think with the Law, instead of them trying to legalise ‘Homosexual Marriage’ They should be trying to Legalise ‘Homosexual (New Term)’ I wouldn’t agree with it but I wouldn’t oppose it by saying that they can’t do it.
Therefore it would be reffered to in the eyes of the Law as something like this:
A hetrosexual union known as (New Term) and a homosexual union known as (New Term) and a hetrosexual union known as (New Term) that involves a supreme being (God) is known as ‘Marriage’.
Anyway I’d like to see a politician or media figure speak of it this way, I wouldn’t agree with a homosexual union but I think by trying to ‘force’ them not to sin is an uphill battle, but we can stop them from using our religious word of ‘Marriage’ and removing all meaning from it.
Thank You for reading, please tell me what you think.
Josh.
In Australia we have many people pushing for ‘Homosexual Marriage’, It’s mainly the media that are blowing a loud horn, the only people against ‘Homosexual Marriage’ that we hear about on the media are the extremists, like those who say something like “I’ll never have my children in a school with a homosexual teacher” or other extreme things.
I think if I told people, even unbelievers what I am about to mention that they may understand and I would like to know what you think.
Where do people think the word ‘Marriage’ comes from? It’s a religious word, it came from religion, and you cannot take a religious word and re-define it away from religion or remove the religion from it.
That’s why with regards to the Law, the Law should have nothing to do with the word ‘Marriage’ because they are Ignorant of it’s meaning, and it’s not theirs to define.
I don’t agree with a homosexual union, but I’m not going to force my beliefs on them by saying that they cannot do it, but I am going to be upset when they try to change a word (marriage) that me and many others already have a clear definition of, and hold with much respect.
‘Marriage’ is the union of a man and a women under god until death do they part, It has always meant just that, even since B.C.
If it doesn’t involve God than it shouldn’t be called a marriage, the thing that people don’t realise is that, It’s wrong of them to come up with their own definition of ‘Marriage’ and than force it onto us by teaching it in our schools.
If they quized me on ‘Homosexual Marriage’ I would just say “I believe the word ‘Marriage’ comes from God and is therefore not mine to change”
And "I don’t force my beliefs on others, so I don’t appreciate them trying to force their beleifs of ‘Marriage’ onto us by changing the law, That’s why it’s not discrimination to be against ‘Homosexual Marriage’ It’s actually discrimination to be for ‘Homosexual Marriage’, because they are trying to force their beliefs of marriage onto people like me who already have a clear definition of the word ‘marriage’ in which does not and will never include a homosexual union.
So the main argument is that it’s wrong of them to make up their own definition of ‘Marriage’ and have our children learn it, so the thing I am against is the word ‘marriage’ that they are trying to change, because we can’t force people not to sin with the Law, well we can try to but it’s very hard.
I think with the Law, instead of them trying to legalise ‘Homosexual Marriage’ They should be trying to Legalise ‘Homosexual (New Term)’ I wouldn’t agree with it but I wouldn’t oppose it by saying that they can’t do it.
Therefore it would be reffered to in the eyes of the Law as something like this:
A hetrosexual union known as (New Term) and a homosexual union known as (New Term) and a hetrosexual union known as (New Term) that involves a supreme being (God) is known as ‘Marriage’.
Anyway I’d like to see a politician or media figure speak of it this way, I wouldn’t agree with a homosexual union but I think by trying to ‘force’ them not to sin is an uphill battle, but we can stop them from using our religious word of ‘Marriage’ and removing all meaning from it.
Thank You for reading, please tell me what you think.
Josh.
- Status