Secular argument against gay marriage

[inocente]

That’s your hypothesis but as you have zero evidence the only place to file your hypothesis is the round receptacle.
tonyrey;10796569:

Your crude remark is not only against the form rules it is also false:

How is it crude and against the forum rules to say that false allegations should be filed in the waste bin?

You have made serious allegations against adoption agencies for placing children with homosexuals, and you have tarred all 200 million homosexuals in the world with one brush, and despite being asked many times you have still not cited any evidence at all that children placed with homosexuals have a higher rate of infection.

You’re posted evidence than promiscuous homosexual men have an elevated risk of infections, but nothing you’ve posted is about the adopted children. For that matter nothing you’ve posted relates to the 100 million lesbians in the world.

Unless you can cite evidence that children placed by adoption agencies with homosexuals have a higher rate of infection than those placed with heterosexuals, I can only conclude that your allegations are unfounded, and there is only one place to file false allegations.

 

[josh987654321]

.

Inocente, I really don’t know whats going on in your head with your support for same sex marriage.

Is it something based on sacred scripture, or is it more secularisation of sacred scripture in which you see the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

Inocente, I really don’t know whats going on in your head with your support for same sex marriage.

Is it something based on sacred scripture, or is it more secularisation of sacred scripture in which you see the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral?

Thank you for reading
Josh

Earlier I linked sites showing a majority of Catholics in support of equal marriage in Spain and Argentina (both overwhelmingly Catholic countries which have both legalized equal marriage), and polls showing a majority of Catholics in support of equal marriage in the US (from memory, for 2011, 2012 and 2013).

So if you want to know what’s going on in the heads of those of us who support equal marriage, why not ask those in the pews around you next time you’re in church?

 

[Nononsense321]

Inocente, I really don’t know whats going on in your head with your support for same sex marriage.

Is it something based on sacred scripture, or is it more secularisation of sacred scripture in which you see the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral?

Thank you for reading
Josh

I think that sacred scripture plays a major role with regards to ones position on homosexuality. In fact the Catechism’s first sentence of paragraph 2357 begins “basing itself on sacred scripture…” The interesting thing is that both sides ( those for and against gay marriage) appeal to scripture. Maybe more emphasis should be placed on the secular realities that encompass the scriptural time frames, better referred to as context. When it comes to gay marriage, aren’t secular arguments and a scriptural arguments two sides of the same coin? Although a religious argument might put a different spin on it altogether, is it possible that the Catechism makes a religious argument against homosexuality that isn’t supported by scripture or it’s context, despite the fact that it claims to be “basing itself on sacred scripture…”? I think the first logical question would be which scriptures are being referred to in the Catechism? Does anybody know?

 

[josh987654321]

Earlier I linked sites showing a majority of Catholics in support of equal marriage in Spain and Argentina (both overwhelmingly Catholic countries which have both legalized equal marriage), and polls showing a majority of Catholics in support of equal marriage in the US (from memory, for 2011, 2012 and 2013).

So if you want to know what’s going on in the heads of those of us who support equal marriage, why not ask those in the pews around you next time you’re in church?

haha, nice dodge.

Your absolutely right though, thats why Im asking someone who carries a similar view, which is you.

If any of those Catholic’s were online here believe me I would be absolutely asking them don’t you worry.

Anyway, Im just asking you, because your the only one online in these forums which has such views that I can ask.

With your support for same sex marriage incoente, Is it something based on sacred scripture, or is it more secularisation of sacred scripture in which you see the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral?

If you don’t wish to answer this question inocente than thats fine, I was just curious.

God Bless.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I think that sacred scripture plays a major role with regards to ones position on homosexuality. In fact the Catechism’s first sentence of paragraph 2357 begins “basing itself on sacred scripture…” The interesting thing is that both sides ( those for and against gay marriage) appeal to scripture. Maybe more emphasis should be placed on the secular realities that encompass the scriptural time frames, better referred to as context. When it comes to gay marriage, aren’t secular arguments and a scriptural arguments two sides of the same coin? Although a religious argument might put a different spin on it altogether, is it possible that the Catechism makes a religious argument against homosexuality that isn’t supported by scripture or it’s context, despite the fact that it claims to be “basing itself on sacred scripture…”? I think the first logical question would be which scriptures are being referred to in the Catechism? Does anybody know?

Yup.

**Matthew 19:4-6

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” **

As Elizabeth502 said in another thread - It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and cuture of the time. Anyone who manipulates the text to arrive at the “conclusion” that Christ would see nothing wrong with same sex marriage is being disingenuous, or eisegetical for personal or political reasons.

They also all knew what had happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and Christ mentions Sodom and Gomorrah when he says “they will get off easier” as he was speaking about the places that saw his miracles and refused to believe.

Revelation 17:1-5

17 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

2 With whom** the kings of the earth have committed fornication**, and the** inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.**

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

Leviticus 18:22

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

I brought up Leviticus 18:22 to show that in the time period when “revelation” was written, the sexual acts of homosexuality was labelled as “abomination” which is mentioned several times in revelation.

Now I am not saying that it is the end of the world or anything, but the more sexually immoral our society becomes, the closer this will be and those who are in favor of same sex marriage are advocating such sexual immorality.

I don’t mean to offend anyone here but for Christians to support same sex marriage, I think it’s either due to secularism, ignorance or being naive to the nature of homosexuality, Im not sure what else it could be.

The very nature of homosexuality means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for and as the first gospel passage I quoted (Matthew 19:4-6) said God clearly made us male and female to be united in marriage.

God Bless.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

haha, nice dodge.

Your absolutely right though, thats why Im asking someone who carries a similar view, which is you.

As far as scripture goes, some used to interpret it as being for slavery, most now don’t, and hopefully no one these days believes God ordered homosexuals to be put to death even though Lev 20:13 commands it, so I think no one can claim to have an inside track on what God wants.

I’m not dodging, I already gave my reasons and assume the majority of Christians in favor of equal marriage have similar reasoning: First, civil rights – a fair society is a better society. Second, full acceptance and integration of homosexuals, helping to bring an end to bullying and the harm done to victims. Third, affirmation that marriage remains a worthwhile institution and is not just about sex or baby factories. Fourth, it will not diminish the numbers of heterosexuals getting married.

 

[CandideWest]

What circumstances, could you give me an example please?

An example of what?

It would be tenable, just would require a bit of work I think.

More than just a “bit” I suspect. More like a complete re-write, which as I said is likely to be untenable.

I don’t understand that, I mean, what kind of sexual activites do you think two men are doing in the bedroom? and yet you can’t see anything immoral in it?

??? Why would I concern myself with what other couples do with each other in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

Well you disagree with “design” so therefore sexuality is not designed to be used in any way at all. It should follow that any sexual act with consent for all parties involved should be moral so it doesn’t matter what the sexual act is in question.

Now you’ve just replaced “then” with “it should follow” between two unrelated sentences. Still no argument there I’m afraid.

Basically you are saying, that the sexual act in question doesn’t determine whether it’s immoral or moral, just the foreseeable consequences. If this is the case than why arn’t more people promiscuous? with the use of contraception and consent for all parties than whats the harm right?

Because humans are a pair bonding species. We mostly want a stable long term relationship with a partner.

Yes.

No. Heterosexual sex with contraception is immoral.

It’s Immoral.

Yes.

No. Because the act in istelf is not immoral in marriage, it’s the use of contraception thats immoral.

But the act of sex is heterosexual sex with contraception, which you have said IS immoral.

In a homosexual union, the act in itself is immoral regardless of circumstance, it’s still a gravely immoral act.

Just like you have argued is heterosexual sex with contraception is immoral.

It’s only morally better in marriage if the sexual act in itself is not immoral.

Which you have argued that sex with contraception is.

What difference does marriage make to a gravely immoral sexual act? it’s immoral under all circumstances.

So why did you argue that it is morally better for a heterosexual couple to be married if they are having sex with contraception?

You seem to be arguing against yourself here. On the one side you argue that the sex act is immoral but it is still better to do it inside marriage than outside. On the other you argue that the sex act is immoral and it 's no better inside marriage than outside. When asked why the difference you keep pointing out that the latter is immoral, and I keep pointing out that the former is immoral as well by your terms.

How could the first cause be mindless? it has to have a mind behind it, you don’t get our universe from a mindless first cause because you are still faced with that rediculously large improbability like the dictionary coming together through an explosion of ink and paper.

??? Are you referring to the odds of the universe we evolved in happening to have the characteristics required for us to evolve in it?

Have you heard of the anthropic principle? This answers your problem here.

There has been lots of evidence for God in many miracles. God was even made man in Jesus Christ and came to us.

Alas nothing which reaches a reasonable standard for evidence.

Most people when they hit something they can’t explain will find the most improbable answer to deny the most probable.

Yes, in most cases the answer reached will be one which confirms pre-existing views. This is called confirmation bias. This is why Christians only see miracles which support Christian beliefs. Hindus only see miracles that support Hindu beliefs etc.

Ever heard of the “Miracle of the Sun” in the life of St. Faustina?

You’re not referring to Fatima are you? If so then I’m afraid the evidence against the miracle is much stronger than that for it.

Yet there is far, far less compelling evidence to suggest that there is no God and as an Atheist you blindly place your belief in the theory of no God.

??? Jn fact there is of course no evidence for atheism. Indeed there cannot be as it is trivial to posit the existence of undetectable gods and there cannot be any evidence against their existence, by definition. Just like there is no evidence against the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Russell’s teapot.

In a finite world you will never reach a first cause that is not God, like I said it has to have a mind behind it as the dictionary doesn’t just come together through an explosion of ink and paper.

This appears to be a bald assertion, if you want this to be convincing to anyone you’ll need to support it.

What conflict?

Are you really unaware of the attempt to teach creationism in school classrooms and all the other conflicts down through the centuries?

I believe in theistic evolution (not darwins theory from apes though). It was designed, science just explains how such design came into being.

But Darwin’s theory IS evolution, you can’t believe in evolution that isn’t evolution. Also the process of evolution is unguided by its very nature, any kind of “guiding” in evolution is just a selective breeding programme (like people breed animals).

There is no conflict with science and religion.

Surprising then that there has been so much conflict between science and religion, for centuries.

Could you provide me with a link to where it is debunked please.

Just have a look around the Internet, it’s been done many times, including in this forum. I’ve pointed out one of the most obvious problems on this thread - getting from a “prime mover” etc to a deity.

 

[CandideWest]

The link worked for me, it should take you to a large column in which has 20 arguments and each is hyperlinked at the start.

I just get to a page with stories about Antony Flew and why theists shouldn’t use certain arguments.

But I think I found the one you’re referring to anyway. I’ve had a read through them all, they are a selection of arguments all of which suffer major logical flaws ie - assuming the conclusion, conflating a concept with a referent, argumentum ad populum, bald assertion, false dichotomy etc.

It is the best one too.

Can your pc read pdf files? do you have adobe?

Here is the link again - thegospelcoalition.org/pdf-articles/Craig_Atheism.pdf

Still nothing I’m afraid. Perhaps you could summarise the argument for me?

I would say around 18. However there is no way it would be at 14 or under (<15).

So for a study to judge parenting at such early stages is rediculous I think, it would only make sense if the study was conducted throughout the rest of the stages of development aswell and most certainly over pubescent years, how could they not do that with an issue like this.

If you disagree with the methodology of a particular paper then why not write up your own paper showing why the methodology was flawed, get it peer reviewed and published. If your objections turn out to have a solid basis then the paper will no doubt become a useful reference. This is how science works.

True, but remember the greatest role models in a childs life are the parents, not what they say but what they do. So what does an adolescent say about acting on their own sexual desires when the sexual acts of homosexuality are apparently moral and normal?

Presumably that homosexuality is moral? Again, nothing wrong with that.

They don’t even have to talk about it, their kids will know whats going on closed doors because two of the same sex are inacapable of moral sexual relations.

Of what you personally define as moral sexual relations. I and many other people disagree.

Are you serious? you think biological parents are irrelevant to a childs development?

??? I think perhaps you misread what I wrote because your reply is a complete non-sequitur. Here it is again.

“I still call it parenting, I’m not sure why I would distinguish between parenting by biological parents and parenting by surrogate / adoptive / IVF parents.”

There are many forms of child abuse some are more horrific than others. Removing biological parents when it does not benefit the child is definately child abuse, it’s removing part of their family, it’s removing the childs sense of belonging and understanding, where they came from, how could that not be abusive when it’s not done to benefit the child?

Sigh, no. It is still not child abuse, any more than adoption is child abuse. I’m sorry Josh but you just don’t have an argument here. Calling IVF for a homosexual couple “the ultimate act of child abuse” is just bonkers.

I must be careful not to be too insenstive when discussing these issues, because in todays society far, far too often are the convenience of parents being put above the welfare of children. and it is absolutely child abuse.

No, it is not. Your position here is just silly and to be honest quite insulting to those children who do suffer from abuse. Seriously, try finding a kid who was raised in a happy, loving homosexual household and see if you can convince him or her that they were abused as a child. See how far you get. I strongly suspect the result will be confusion and then amusement.

I am very focused on this issue of same sex marriage because marriage is just far too important to be trampled all over precisely because of the damage it does to children who are caught up in situations that were set up for the convenience of adults rather than for the benefits of the children.

And yet, you have still not shown any evidence that there is any damage to children involved. So you have simply not produced a case to answer.

Removing biological ties removes this deep loving relationship shared between family. Our biological mother and father are a part of us, how could that not be important? and so many in this day and age suffer the consequences when the convenience of adults are put above the welfare of the children.

… And as I said a persons identity is still not defined by who their parents were.

Thats okay, I wont take it as arrogance. I would like to know what you are thinking about my views and please try and correct and educate me if you feel I have misjudged something, because it’s the best way we can learn.

I’m happy to reply to your posts and explain things to you, but I’m not going to try to educate you. I’ve given you reasons why not.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Take care

 

[josh987654321]

As far as scripture goes, some used to interpret it as being for slavery, most now don’t, and hopefully no one these days believes God ordered homosexuals to be put to death even though Lev 20:13 commands it, so I think no one can claim to have an inside track on what God wants.

Your right, Leviticus does demand alot of immoral things. Leviticus also demands the same for adultery.

**Leviticus 10

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death**.

Does this mean that Adultery is moral because the way it was delt with in Leviticus was immoral?

I’m not dodging, I already gave my reasons and assume the majority of Christians in favor of equal marriage have similar reasoning: First, civil rights – a fair society is a better society.

Wouldn’t it be unfair to reject polygamous marriage? why do they not have equal rights to marriage?

Second, full acceptance and integration of homosexuals, helping to bring an end to bullying and the harm done to victims.

I understand this, however I think same sex marriage is completely the wrong way to go about it. We don’t love the sin so that people will love the sinner, because that would be irresponsible.

Third, affirmation that marriage remains a worthwhile institution and is not just about sex or baby factories.

It’s not just about sex or baby factories, however it does involves sexual intimacy, if you remove sexual intimacy from marriage, than marriage really doesn’t have any value, it’s the sexual act that consummates the marriage, that unites the couple in such an intimate way.

Fourth, it will not diminish the numbers of heterosexuals getting married.

Probably not. But it will advocate the sexual acts of homosexuality as a societal normal as moral behaviour. Which I think will have disasterous consequences for future generations being brought up with it, as it will advocate sexual immorality amongst us like never before.

My main question is, what do you get out of this passage here?

**Matthew 19:4-6

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”**

God Bless.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[stewstew03]

Sigh, again Stewstew, you really need to read a post before writing your reply to it. Otherwise your posts are just nonsensical.

Once again, I have agreed you gave one situation where chewing gum could be argued to be “ordered towards” breaking down food ready for digestion. I then produced two examples of acts of chewing gum which couldn’t.

Then pointed out that this just goes to highlight the absurdity of the position here in that chewing gum like “Juicy Fruit” is not disordered INITIALLY. But you’ve got to be careful because if you chew it too long then it becomes disordered. By this i mean after it has lost all its “nutritional value” (because it gets broken down and released in the act of chewing) the same act then becomes “disordered”.

Equally chewing some types of gum (ie gum base - chicle) that has no nutritional value, is “disordered” from the start.

Fingers crossed you actually read my post this time.

You’re introducing “nutrients” as a way to escape from your original argument, which centered on the digestive process.

Fingers crossed you understand the difference between “digestion” and “nutrition.”

And fingers crossed you resist the urge to make another incoherent argument in an attempt to get the last word…

 

[CandideWest]

You’re introducing “nutrients” as a way to escape from your original argument, which centered on the digestive process.

No, perhaps you’ve forgotten what you wrote? You raised the “nutritional values” of Juicy Fruit chewing gum as a defence against my argument. It’s your attempt to escape the argument, not mine.

I’ve just debunked your attempted rebuttal by showing that EVEN IF we accept your rather odd position that chewing some types of gum can be argued to be “ordered towards” the evolutionary purpose of chewing. It is clear that the argument does not apply to all chewing gum. Thus highlighting the absurdity of the position. This is because it would mean that chewing one piece of gum is morally fine, while chewing a different piece of gum (or chewing the same piece of gum more than a certain amount) is “disordered” and immoral.

 

[inocente]

Does this mean that Adultery is moral because the way it was delt with in Leviticus was immoral?

No, it means Leviticus stopped being a moral authority some time back.

Wouldn’t it be unfair to reject polygamous marriage? why do they not have equal rights to marriage?

We went round that one, let’s not get into repetition again.

Probably not. But it will advocate the sexual acts of homosexuality as a societal normal as moral behaviour. Which I think will have disasterous consequences for future generations being brought up with it, as it will advocate sexual immorality amongst us like never before.

It’s not immoral and I think you’re being a bit melodramatic - the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are not War, Famine, Pestilence and Lady Gaga.

My main question is, what do you get out of this passage here?

We went round that one before as well.

 

[CopticChristian]

Regnerus admits that the foundation of his study is too weak to draw the conclusions that many have made - thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/30/1110591/regnerus-admits-gay-parenting/?mobile=nc

Nothing NARTH does is the slightest bit trustworthy, they are loonies:

They also awarded a prize to George Rekers, a board member, who later had to resign after he was photographed with a male escort from a gay escort service.

They published a paper by Gerald Schoenewolf, a member of their Science Advisory Committee in which he claimed that “Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle… . Life there was savage … and those brought to America, and other countries, were in many ways better off”.

Another prize was awarded to Warren Throckmorton, but he broke with them over perceived racism and is now a strong critic of them.

They tried to give a prize to Robert L. Spitzer for claiming to “cure” homosexuals, but he recanted and apologized for being wrong.

His study was never recanted or removed from publication. He just apologized.

 

[inocente]

His study was never recanted or removed from publication. He just apologized.

Nope, he retracted in 2012:

*But if they continue to promote its flawed research, they will do so only in the knowledge that its author, psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, has now publicly disowned it.

In an article in the May issue of The American Prospect magazine, Spitzer tells Gabriel Arana he wants his retraction of the landmark study on the record:

“In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct,” he said. “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” … Would I print a retraction of his 2001 study, “so I don’t have to worry about it anymore”?

exgaywatch.com/2012/04/spitzer-retracts-2001-landmark-ex-gay-study/*

 

[tonyrey]

You have made serious allegations against adoption agencies for placing children with homosexuals, and you have tarred all 200 million homosexuals in the world with one brush…

False!

1. Not all homosexuals adopt children.
2. In many countries homosexuals not allowed to adopt children.
3. Not all homosexuals resort to anal sex.
4. Not all homosexuals have sexual relations with other men.
5. Not all lesbians adopt children.
6. In many countries lesbians are not allowed to adopt children.
7. Not all lesbians resort to anal sex.
8. Not all lesbians have sexual relations with other women.
9. Not all adoption agencies place children with homosexuals.
10. Not all adoption agencies place children with lesbians.

You’re posted evidence than promiscuous homosexual men have an elevated risk of infections, but nothing you’ve posted is about the adopted children. For that matter nothing you’ve posted relates to the 100 million lesbians in the world.

Unless you can cite evidence that children placed by adoption agencies with homosexuals have a higher rate of infection than those placed with heterosexuals, I can only conclude that your allegations are unfounded, and there is only one place to file false allegations.

Regardless of whether homosexuals are promiscuous:

Unlike the vagina, the tissues of the anus are not stretchy. This means that the anus can easily tear, which puts the receiving partner in danger of anal abscesses, hemorrhoids, or fissures (a very large tear).

• Anal sex can weaken your muscles down there, which makes it hard to hold feces.
• The anus is full of bacteria. Consequently, the giving partner is especially prone to infections.

The fragile nature of the anal tissue makes it easier for STDs to enter into the bloodstream.

• **Unprotected anal sex is one of the primary ways in which HIV is spread. ** If you don’t already know, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) can eventually lead to AIDS!
• Recent studies have linked anal sex to anal cancer. ** HPV (Human Papillomavirus) is closely associated with anal cancer, which is frequently spread through anal sex. **
• The use of a latex condom certainly lowers the chances of contracting an STD. However, even perfect condom use does not completely eliminate the risk of STDs. In fact, the condom is more susceptible to leakage, breakage, and slippage during anal intercourse.

medinstitute.org/2012/06…ous-trend-3-2/

To expose such a risk of serious infection throughout their most vulnerable years to children who have close physical contact with homosexuals is morally wrong, medically unjustifiable and socially irresponsible*.*

The same organization also stresses the importance of fathers in the upbringing of boys - which demonstrates the inadequacy of lesbian parents:

                                             A recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal *Pediatrics*   underscores the important role that fathers play in adolescent sexual   health and behavior. Previous research and interventional programs have   focused on the role of mothers on the sexual behavior of adolescents   with little or no attention to the pertinent role of fathers in   adolescent sexual health.

This study was a structured literature review of studies published over a span of three decades between 1980 and 2011 using a target population of adolescents aged 11-18 years with a focus on the processes of paternal parenting. A literature search of six relevant electronic databases was conducted with a yield of 13 articles that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review.1

Paternal variables were classified into five groups: paternal attitudes about adolescent sexual activity, monitoring and discipline-related behaviors, paternal involvement in adolescent’s life; emotional qualities of the father-adolescent relationship including warmth, closeness, attachment; and father-adolescent communication about sex.

No response whatsoever…

 

[tonyrey]

As I thought you have no evidence whatsoever, just opinions, and your allegations are unfounded.

No response whatsoever…

 

[inocente]

inocente;10806241:

No relevant response.

What’cha talking about?

I already said that it’s irrelevant to your serious allegations against adoption agencies for placing children with homosexuals - NOTHING YOU HAVE POSTED IS EVIDENCE ABOUT THE ADOPTED CHILDREN.

Surely you can see that the evidence is irrelevant unless it is about the children?

No response whatsoever…

The only place I could find that quote was an anonymous blurb on facebook.

Although I did look at the actual study, which was a summary of an internet trawl of 13 papers which concluded that “Existing research preliminarily suggests fathers influence the sexual behavior of their adolescent children; however, more rigorous research examining diverse facets of paternal influence on adolescent sexual behavior is needed. We provide recommendations for primary care providers and public health practitioners to better incorporate fathers into interventions designed to reduce adolescent sexual risk behavior”.- pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1313.full.pdf

Not exactly world-shattering (and irrelevant to your allegations that children adopted by homosexuals have elevated risk of infection).

 

[Muze]

Thus far at least I know of nothing in law that expects or requires married couples to have or be able to have children.

Except that they be male-female.

If the law does not make any attempt to discern if a couple can have children before permitting them to marry then there appears not to be any requirement that the couple are able to have children in order to marry.

It does. It requires male-female pairing. Homosexual marriages cannot reproduce together and thus don’t qualify.

Now, is the male-female standard perfect? OF course not. But it is fair and effective. Think about it for a moment. Men are effectively able to reproduce for their entire lives, short of some dysfunction. The oldest woman to give birth was 64. So, science continues to change that number.

And even fertility doctors are amazed when couples they though couldn’t reproduce do.

And the percentage of the male-female pairing that have known issues in this area are so small that the huge expense of having a “fertility certification” of any kind would outweigh its need, and be inaccurate in some cases anyway.

So, the male-female standard represents the procreation argument quite accurately.

If there is no such requirement then homosexuals cannot be considered ineligible for marriage by failing to meet it.

But there is such a requirement. It’s inherent in the standard,.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it means Leviticus stopped being a moral authority some time back.

Yes. Catholics do not claim any books of the Bible have moral authority. Authority is a characteristic of living organisms, not books, no matter how holy.

Our moral authority is a Person. And this Person speaks through the living entity of His Body, the Catholic Church.