Question for those who argue for so-called "same-sex marriage"

[fix]

Foster care can mean death, sexual torture, abuse, starvation and other things.

That can happen in any home. Why make this false choice?

I know some amazingly loving foster parents, but I also have seen horror stories. Its NOT better.

Please, stop the false choices.

Whatever your position on gays being allowed to legally marry, being in a loving home that’s permanent makes a HUGE difference. I think it’s nervy for people who have had stable homes all their lives and loving parents to say children are better off shipped from house to house. I assure you, my son (who is gay) would be loving, caring, and respectful as a parent. Not all who are gay are promiscuous and not all who are gay are bad people or would be bad parents.

Two same sex persons acting as mother and father is a form of moral violence. It is no act of love to subject a child to such things.

I would rather see a child raised with my son than a bigoted over religious home where they are taught to hate.

Thanks for the straw man.

 

[fix]

You actually had me there, up until your last inflammatory sentence, which for some reason you threw out there gratuitously. Just FYI, religion does not equal “hate” or even “bigotry.” There is nothing in Catholicism that recommends hatred.

Regarding the rational part of your argument, I do not disagree (there was a much earlier this, possibly two years ago, but certainly before you registered) that in some cases, a particular person with SSA could make an excellent foster parent by any standard, including Catholic standards. However, that would assume that parent not be actively pursuing homosexual relationships, including of the cohabiting variety, and not be importing any “gay subculture” into the home. It would assume that this parent has regular, normal friendships with many people not of his or her gender, so that the child has regular opportunity to interact with that opposite gender.

A promiscuous unmarried heterosexual (importing the nation’s fornication culture into the home) would also not make for an appropriate foster parent, by not just Catholic standards.

Self identifying as “gay” is the first warning sign. People forget that children have rights. The argument usually goes as it does here. Comparing Dickens-like horror stories versus loving homosexual parents. It is a false choice. In fact, it only exists because our crazy culture suddenly says it exists.

Never in history would any sane person make such an argument. Two men are not a mother and father. Even typing this seems absurd to me.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Self identifying as “gay” is the first warning sign. People forget that children have rights. The argument usually goes as it does here. Comparing Dickens-like horror stories versus loving homosexual parents. It is a false choice. In fact, it only exists because our crazy culture suddenly says it exists.

Never in history would any sane person make such an argument. Two men are not a mother and father. Even typing this seems absurd to me.

[bolding mine]

Also, see this, if it hasn’t been posted elsewhere on CAF (and apologies if it has been). It is impotant to the discussion.

Robert Oscar Lopez, an English professor at the University of California at Northridge, discusses his experience of growing up as a child of his mother and her lesbian partner.

“To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A’s,” he recounts. “Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.”

“Whether homosexuality is chosen or inbred, whether gay marriage gets legalized or not, being strange is hard; it takes a mental toll, makes it harder to find friends, interferes with professional growth, and sometimes leads one down a sodden path to self-medication in the form of alcoholism, drugs, gambling, antisocial behavior, and irresponsible sex,” he adds. “The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them–I know, because I have been there.”

catholicculture.orgnews/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15172

 

[fix]

[bolding mine]

Also, see this, if it hasn’t been posted elsewhere on CAF (and apologies if it has been). It is impotant to the discussion.

catholicculture.orgnews/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15172

Thank you I had not seen that before. One of the aspects of these debates that I find troubling is the use of so-called studies as a metric to claim such relationships are good or bad. I am not saying to disregard all studies, but we should accept that the truth of our argument is not to be verified by hard or soft science studies. The truth is such relationships are wrong regardless of what parameters are measured.

The problem is people too often look to factors like money or whether one can drive to work without committing a crime or hearing voices as in some way proof that being raised in a bizarre way is acceptable.

 

[livingwordunity]

Foster care can mean death, sexual torture, abuse, starvation and other things. I know some amazingly loving foster parents, but I also have seen horror stories. Its NOT better. Whatever your position on gays being allowed to legally marry, being in a loving home that’s permanent makes a HUGE difference. I think it’s nervy for people who have had stable homes all their lives and loving parents to say children are better off shipped from house to house. I assure you, my son (who is gay) would be loving, caring, and respectful as a parent. Not all who are gay are promiscuous and not all who are gay are bad people or would be bad parents.

I would rather see a child raised with my son than a bigoted over religious home where they are taught to hate.

As a child, I experienced being homeless, being in and out of foster care and staying temporarily in the Children’s Receiving Home (basically an orphanage). It was better than if I had been raised in a household of gender confusion and hedonistic sodomy. So called “same-sex marriage” is a doctrine of demons. Satan makes himself appear as an angel of light. Don’t give in to his lies and seduction.

 

[RiverTam51]

River,

What does your proposition about the ability of gays and lesbians ability to raise children have to do with “The Best Interest of The Child”

Let us say that those with Paraphelias want special rights and are asking for special rights to adopt children as they openly profess and practice their paraphelias. Is it in the best interest of the children?

What about NAMBLA? There are men that adore young men. Let us say that a married couple agree that the spouse can express their sexual orientation, the husband belongs to NAMBLA, and stay married and then want to raise children via adoption. Is this in the best interest of the child?

Let’s start with paraphelias. I think it would be difficult for a person to be open about their paraphelia in the same way that a gay couple is open about their homosexuality. In the latter case, the parents simply say that they are married to each other and not to people of the opposite gender. This is pretty simple to explain, at that level, in polite conversation to adults, or to adopted children. There is no need to go deeper into the psychology of homosexuality or what happens in the bedroom when talking to children.
With parapheliacs, one could not be open about attraction to objects without directly acknowledging the sexual part of it. I have no objection to an open paraphiliac adopting children, if by open you mean they admit to being a parapheliac to other adults. But if they would explain their practices to their adopted children, it would be just as uncalled for as a gay (or straight) couple telling their children the specifics of their personal sexual practices.
As for pedophiles and hebephiles, this is much trickier. Certainly, a person should never be allowed to adopt members of a group they are attracted to, because of the huge potential for abuse. Abuse is what separates pedophiles from gays and paraphiliacs. So, a man or woman who is attracted to underage males should never be able to adopt them, and the same goes for underage females.
But this leaves the question of whether a nambla member could adopt a girl. I would also say no to this: while the girl would assumedly be safe from abuse, she would be socially isolated because her male friends’ parents would have very good reason to shun the pedophile adoptive parent. He might be able to be a good parent to her, but he could not function socially as a father because of the (completely necessary) limitations on his contact with other children.
I see no reason that any sexual practices of a parent would rule out their being a good parent, so long as the child has no contact with the sexual component of their parents lives.

 

[CopticChristian]

Let’s start with paraphelias. I think it would be difficult for a person to be open about their paraphelia in the same way that a gay couple is open about their homosexuality. In the latter case, the parents simply say that they are married to each other and not to people of the opposite gender. This is pretty simple to explain, at that level, in polite conversation to adults, or to adopted children. **There is no need to go deeper into the psychology of homosexuality or what happens in the bedroom when talking to children.**With parapheliacs, one could not be open about attraction to objects without directly acknowledging the sexual part of it. I have no objection to an open paraphiliac adopting children, if by open you mean they admit to being a parapheliac to other adults. But if they would explain their practices to their adopted children, it would be just as uncalled for as a gay (or straight) couple telling their children the specifics of their personal sexual practices.
As for pedophiles and hebephiles, this is much trickier. Certainly, a person should never be allowed to adopt members of a group they are attracted to, because of the huge potential for abuse. Abuse is what separates pedophiles from gays and paraphiliacs. So, a man or woman who is attracted to underage males should never be able to adopt them, and the same goes for underage females.
But this leaves the question of whether a nambla member could adopt a girl. I would also say no to this: while the girl would assumedly be safe from abuse, she would be socially isolated because her male friends’ parents would have very good reason to shun the pedophile adoptive parent. He might be able to be a good parent to her, but he could not function socially as a father because of the (completely necessary) limitations on his contact with other children.
I see no reason that any sexual practices of a parent would rule out their being a good parent, so long as the child has no contact with the sexual component of their parents lives.

River,

The answer to your first proposition is “TODAY”. How do you know what Parapheliacs will do. Why can’t they see the “gay” agenda as their agenda. How do you politic against this? Doesn’t every sexual orientation represent an alternative life style?

May I clear my throat with a deep clearing. I believe that being able to discuss “The Birds and The Bees” is part of ordered thinking and proper to raising a child. If the child does not hear it in the home, they hear it from someone that will not provide the proper information. The possibility exists and does exist that children are aware that their parents copulate. Children laugh about this and so what. It is ordered behavior.

I find it amusing as should you that now you are going to regulate rules for Paraphelias and NAMBLA. Who put you in charge of sexually oriented behavior?

 

[mynamesjoe]

Okay, Well this will be the THIRD time I post this comment because no one seems to want to answer the question (I think I know why). If you are someone who is PRO same sex “marriage” then I invite you to answer this question. If you are someone who is for traditional marriage aka marriage then please bring this question to people who are pro gay “marriage” so that they have to answer it.

What is the pro gay “marriage” argument AGAINST incestual marriage?

Note, that this question has a follow up question.

 

[EviPolevhia]

What is the pro gay “marriage” argument AGAINST incestual marriage?

Other then it being icky, which I do not consider a valid reason to prohibit marriage, and the procreation could lead to medical problems…not sure there is one. Sticking your hand in a trash can filled with medical waste and used needles leads to medical problems too. I don’t want people to do that either. I’m not sure it’s illegal to stick your hand in a trash can with used needles though. Heath risk are sometimes legal, sometimes not. Not illegal to smoke yet. So unless you want a nanny nation that outlaws every medically dangerous thing you could do yourself I am not sure I could be for outlawing incest on a medical basis. (I just recommend they not procreate!)

As a side note there is no “pro gay ‘marriage’ argument against incest” just like there’s no “pro desegregation argument against incest”. Pro gay marriage is not one large all consuming dogma. Some people who are for gay marriage don’t agree with others who are for gay marriage on certain issues. So in your next post you may want to clean up the question a bit.

 

[CopticChristian]

Other then it being icky, which I do not consider a valid reason to prohibit marriage, and the procreation could lead to medical problems…not sure there is one. Sticking your hand in a trash can filled with medical waste and used needles leads to medical problems too. I don’t want people to do that either. I’m not sure it’s illegal to stick your hand in a trash can with used needles though. Heath risk are sometimes legal, sometimes not. Not illegal to smoke yet. So unless you want a nanny nation that outlaws every medically dangerous thing you could do yourself I am not sure I could be for outlawing incest on a medical basis. (I just recommend they not procreate!)

As a side note there is no “pro gay ‘marriage’ argument against incest” just like there’s no “pro desegregation argument against incest”. Pro gay marriage is not one large all consuming dogma. Some people who are for gay marriage don’t agree with others who are for gay marriage on certain issues. So in your next post you may want to clean up the question a bit.

Evil,

You are correct Health Risks are the responsibility of the individual and are not registereed as illegal. Sodomy is legal.

 

[EviPolevhia]

Evil,

You are correct Health Risks are the responsibility of the individual and are not registereed as illegal. Sodomy is legal.

Minor correction. There is no L after the Evi in my handle. I don’t like to nitpick at letters but that one typo does kind of radically change the name considering the forums we are in.

 

[CopticChristian]

Minor correction. There is no L after the Evi in my handle. I don’t like to nitpick at letters but that one typo does kind of radically change the name considering the forums we are in.

EVIxxLxxxxx,

or EviPolevhia

I have a habit of using the letters of the name that come to mind as I see them. Forgive my not letting you see how I came to that typing.

 

[EviPolevhia]

EVIxxLxxxxx,

I have a habit of using the letters of the name that come to mind as I see them. Forgive my not letting you see how I came to that typing.

No problem, Copris!

 

[CopticChristian]

No problem, Copris!

Evil,

Cool…you understand…

 

[stewstew03]

Other then it being icky, which I do not consider a valid reason to prohibit marriage, and the procreation could lead to medical problems…not sure there is one. Sticking your hand in a trash can filled with medical waste and used needles leads to medical problems too. I don’t want people to do that either. I’m not sure it’s illegal to stick your hand in a trash can with used needles though. Heath risk are sometimes legal, sometimes not. Not illegal to smoke yet. So unless you want a nanny nation that outlaws every medically dangerous thing you could do yourself I am not sure I could be for outlawing incest on a medical basis. (I just recommend they not procreate!)

As a side note there is no “pro gay ‘marriage’ argument against incest” just like there’s no “pro desegregation argument against incest”. Pro gay marriage is not one large all consuming dogma. Some people who are for gay marriage don’t agree with others who are for gay marriage on certain issues. So in your next post you may want to clean up the question a bit.

That’s the point. Those who advocate for gay marriage on the basis of re-defining the concept of marriage open the door to incest, bigamy, polygamy, etc. I’m guessing you are comfortable with all of the above so there’s probably too much daylight between us to have a meaningful discussion on this issue.

 

[pete_29]

Minor correction. There is no L after the Evi in my handle. I don’t like to nitpick at letters but that one typo does kind of radically change the name considering the forums we are in.

I could have sworn there was an L. Time for new glasses I believe.

 

[livingwordunity]

Those who advocate for gay marriage on the basis of re-defining the concept of marriage open the door to incest, bigamy, polygamy, etc. I’m guessing you are comfortable with all of the above so there’s probably too much daylight between us to have a meaningful discussion on this issue.

“Same-sex marriage” proponents dismiss this as the slippery slope, but it’s what will happen. Polygamists actually have a better case to argue than “same-sex marriage” since polygamists have historical precedent as well as it being allowed in Islamic law in Muslim countries to this day. If so-called “same-sex marriage” gets approved by the state they will have no basis for objecting when the polygamists start demanding to be recognized. Then once that happens there won’t be a basis for the state to deny two brothers, two sisters, a brother and a sister, a mother and her son, a father and his daughter, etc. They will argue that with Obama’s contraception and abortion mandate, pregnancy isn’t an issue. The state will define marriage as “when people want to marry whoever”. Then when PETA wants to call their love for animals “marriage” the state will adjust the definition again to “when people want to marry whatever”.

 

[RiverTam51]

River,

The answer to your first proposition is “TODAY”. How do you know what Parapheliacs will do. Why can’t they see the “gay” agenda as their agenda. How do you politic against this? Doesn’t every sexual orientation represent an alternative life style?

May I clear my throat with a deep clearing. I believe that being able to discuss “The Birds and The Bees” is part of ordered thinking and proper to raising a child. If the child does not hear it in the home, they hear it from someone that will not provide the proper information. The possibility exists and does exist that children are aware that their parents copulate. Children laugh about this and so what. It is ordered behavior.

I find it amusing as should you that now you are going to regulate rules for Paraphelias and NAMBLA. Who put you in charge of sexually oriented behavior?

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here.
I am making assumptions on how people will act, and proposing guidelines on adoption by parapheliacs. This is to answer your question about the best interests of the child. Not being aware of any open parapheliacs, I can hardly say for sure what a parapheliac rights movement would ask for, so I am making arguments based on what I think they would do.
And yes, the “birds and the bees” discussion is a necessary and healthy part of parenting, when done at the right time and in the right way. But the amount the child is told should depend on the age of the child. A parapheliac parent who was too open about his practices would risk giving too much information to a child that is not yet ready for it.

 

[livingwordunity]

The bottom line is that even an atheist should be able to see that our bodies only have one sex organ, and this one sex organ is only made to fit that of the opposite sex organ. Rejection of this is rejection of the science of biology.

 

[RiverTam51]

The bottom line is that even an atheist should be able to see that our bodies only have one sex organ, and this one sex organ is only made to fit that of the opposite sex organ. Rejection of this is rejection of the science of biology.

And the bottom line of those arguing against you is that the above argument is completely correct, but does not imply that forms of sex not involving the “fitting” of the male and female organs are immoral.