Two lesbians raised a baby and this is what they got.

[PermanentMarker]

As the data are coming in, psychologists are finding that the loving relationship of a couple is more important than their sexual orientation with regard to their children’s development. This is not so surprising. Still, the issue is far from settled in the scientific community. In some religious communities, however, the issue is completely settled and has been for quite some time. That is, for Catholicism, (Orthodox) Judaism, Islam, and certain Protestant denominations, it is not a question of whether or not children of a gay couple grow up to be fine or even outstanding citizens; rather, the issue is one of morality according to Biblical teaching. Many also claim that the approval of gay couples and parents is contrary to the natural law (apart from religion) and destructive of the fabric of society. Throw in a few strawmen, such as if gay marriage and parenting are legal, why not legalize the marriage of a human who loves a dog and decides to raise a baby elephant, and there you have it for the one millionth time on CAF…

Those are not strawmen, meltzerboy. If one holds that a same-sex couple is a legitimate pair, there is no principled basis for denying that, for example, humans and dogs cannot form legitimate pairs. The secular-progressive has to draw an arbitrary line. As always, the secular-progressive is simply not reasoning enough and arbitrarily stopping short according to his completely arbitrary opinion.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Well, if this young man marries a woman and has children, will he be able to be a good father since he did not have one as an example? Will he treat his wife well?

Yeah, he “turned out good” for now, but let’s see how his own children and his marriage turn out.

The best man and most devoted husband and father that I have ever known was raised by a single mother because his father was a deadbeat. He’s my brother.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Those are not strawmen, meltzerboy. If one holds that a same-sex couple is a legitimate pair, there is no principled basis for denying that, for example, humans and dogs cannot form legitimate pairs. The secular-progressive has to draw an arbitrary line. As always, the secular-progressive is simply not reasoning enough and arbitrarily stopping short according to his completely arbitrary opinion.

It is a strawman. A dog is not capable of understanding, much less consenting to a romantic relationship with a human. Surely you are not implying that homosexuals have diminished mental capabilities?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Those are not strawmen, meltzerboy. If one holds that a same-sex couple is a legitimate pair, there is no principled basis for denying that, for example, humans and dogs cannot form legitimate pairs. The secular-progressive has to draw an arbitrary line. As always, the secular-progressive is simply not reasoning enough and arbitrarily stopping short according to his completely arbitrary opinion.

Hi,Odell ! I wonder if his outlook will be the same in 20 years, as he begins to define himself and understand underlying causes of his birth, without a joined love connection the way God intended ? I don’t think he understands what is proper to nature ,the way we were created, with a mind to think properly. The preponderence of natures evidence given to us from our Creator stands !

God Bless
onenow1

I didn’t come from a loving, heterosexual marriage and I define myself pretty well.
The circumstances of one’s birth are pretty meaningless as long as you grow up well fed and loved. I would never give something like that power over my adult life, nor would anyone I know who didn’t come from the Leave it to Beaver cliche ideal.

 

[ASimon]

What is the “this” they got?

He’s a deeply uninteresting leftist college student with a mediocre fashion sense, mooing bromides into a microphone. Naturally the mass media gets whipped up about it. In what way is this spindly kid a disaster for us?

Sounds to me that, like most people in this day and age, they raised a boring kid with moderate talents and wholly unquestioned utilitarian prejudices. He is in short exactly like everyone I’ve ever met in college. Pfeh.

Like most liberals, he clearly doesn’t know the first damn thing about what the real argument (i.e., not the crummy lunatic Protestant argument) against gay marriage is, if he thinks he is somehow evidence that it’s false.

I mean Hell, I scored in the 99th percentile on the GREs. Nobody imagines this is evidence against gay marriage.

I agree that the example set by this young man and his lesbian parents presents no serious challenge to the Christian/Catholic argument against the ability of gay couples to raise healthy children. As far as I’m concerned, that battle was fought and won by secular America years ago.

So what’s next? A black man proudly asserting that there’s no good reason a black man can’t be elected President in this day and age?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Ah yes, moveon.org, the bastion of rationality and moderately expressed views. Nah, they don’t have an agenda.

Zach Wahls was already featured long ago on other sites. I find, and found, his statements unconvincing as an argument for the elimination of the father figure in the household. Deliberately depriving a young man of a permanent father is a form of cruelty and neglect. There was no “abusive” father in the picture, no deadbeat, no other excuse to excise a father from the household which his “parents” selected without the boy’s consent. Merely not knowing what he missed does not prove he has not suffered from not knowing his true father instead of the “knowledge” of having a sperm donor. Further, I consider it exploitation of a son to use him as a spokesmouth.

 

[Tsuwano]

The argument is that it is a MORAL EVIL UNTO ITSELF, not that it produces bad outcomes.

As for why it is a moral evil – well, I’m not going to sit here and rectify your lack of knowledge for you. Do your own homework. A good place to start would be Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition.

I disagree that two lesbians raising a child to adulthood is “moral evil unto itself.” A genital sexual relationship between the two women may be sinful and the sexual acts they engage in may be immoral, but the raising of the child is not immoral. I would also note that the sins of the father, or mother as the case may be, are not passed on to the child. I agree that a family consisting of a father and mother is best and may serve the greater interests of the child in the long run, but this doesn’t mean that two women raising a child is immoral any more than a widow raising a child by herself is immoral. I think you have failed to do your own homework.

 

[Odell]

I didn’t come from a loving, heterosexual marriage and I define myself pretty well.
The circumstances of one’s birth are pretty meaningless as long as you grow up well fed and loved. I would never give something like that power over my adult life, nor would anyone I know who didn’t come from the Leave it to Beaver cliche ideal.

I pretty much claimed the same about myself; being raised without my dad. There are times I can remember crying because it was his visitation and he would never show up to get me. Being raised a single mom has only made me realize the better dad I need to be. And I would never deprive my kids of their father. Being raised without a dad I may have turned out just fine being raised by a single mom. But I can guarantee you this is not how mom planed it. I can see all the more importance of having a father figure in my children’s own life.

 

[maryj]

Not to confuse this argument with facts…but…children that come from a Nuclear family (defined as one man one woman married and living together with biological children) are more likely to be healthier,have a lower poverty status…oh just read it
cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

 

[Boulder257]

I am glad someone brought this up, since the video is spreading like a virus; however, I am disturbed by some of the answers I have read. It seems some who claim to be Catholic don’t know the Catholic teaching on the subject while others are just plain uncharitable on both sides.

Definitely a divisive topic, but can you folks please help me in developing a strong yet charitable argument against those using this video. I ask because it is causing a rift within my own family and while I need to be a voice in my family, I need to remain charitable as well.

Thanks all!

 

[Odell]

I am glad someone brought this up, since the video is spreading like a virus; however, I am disturbed by some of the answers I have read. It seems some who claim to be Catholic don’t know the Catholic teaching on the subject while others are just plain uncharitable on both sides.

Definitely a divisive topic, but can you folks please help me in developing a strong yet charitable argument against those using this video. I ask because it is causing a rift within my own family and while I need to be a voice in my family, I need to remain charitable as well.

Thanks all!

I used this from PermanentMarker
Consider this: non-married couples, polygamists, etc. are all probably able to raise “good” children, but that does not change their moral state of affairs in the least. Reason demonstrates that these states of affairs are immoral and irrational, and promoting immorality and irrationality leads to a debasement of man and man’s society. A video showing an articulate and seemingly upstanding young man from a polygamist family would do nothing to change the standing reasoning against polygamy.

Also the fact that this kid is really no different from anyone else you meet in collage with utaltarian principles. When my children are grown I would like to be able to say “that kid right there 1 in a 1,000 morals, character, compassion he’s a beautiful human being” and if you want to say that you better be prepared to be 1 in 1,000 parent!

You might say that all catholic morality comes to this. No person should be an object of use every one as a degnified human-being deserves to be treated with love and not an object of use. Then go on with today’s culture where sex is no different than what they do on the discovery Chanel all it does is bring us down into a utilitarian culture where anything goes as long as you are happy no matter who you use to get there. How someone can’t see this is beyond me. How can you not see the fact that woman are objectified by men’s unchecked desires?
Is it not true woman really are subject to men as the bible claims? This is do to the fall where woman often fall to the man objectifying and using them at will. But in the beginning this was not so. And this is what Christ came to restore us to!

 

[Boulder257]

I used this from PermanentMarker
Consider this: non-married couples, polygamists, etc. are all probably able to raise “good” children, but that does not change their moral state of affairs in the least. Reason demonstrates that these states of affairs are immoral and irrational, and promoting immorality and irrationality leads to a debasement of man and man’s society. A video showing an articulate and seemingly upstanding young man from a polygamist family would do nothing to change the standing reasoning against polygamy.

Very good point. I take the argument to yet another extreme. Let’s say a child stood up and said, “I was raised by two serial killers.” Does this mean that serial killing should be allowed?

I feel much better after having read your post and thinking this through a little more. It seems the video is being used to tug at emotions. Typical of moveon.org though.

 

[anp1215]

REASON is something you didn’t employ in your thought pal. I don’t see why anyone is undeserving to raise a child because they arent heterosexual and married. That’s a load of ****. I do chuckle at your accusation that gays, unmarried peoples, etc. shouldn’t raise a child because it’s irrational. WTF ? are you kidding me ? How ? How ? How is that irrational ?

So… Dont’ give the homo couple a baby to raise becuase theyr’e gay, despite them both being upper class, with ivy league educations and financial independence that can raise this child with every opportunity it could ever ask for in addition to a home with two people that love it more than anything… Nope that’s irrational, let’s put the baby in a foster home where the foster kids will beat the mess out of it and the foster parent will sell the kids SSI checks for the next crack fix. THATS rationale buddy; damn you are some Rhodes Scholar, I’m sure glad you set me straight !

I’ve reported your post for lack of charity; if you wish to remain an active member of this site, I suggest you review the forum rules.

 

[Odell]

Very good point. I take the argument to yet another extreme. Let’s say a child stood up and said, “I was raised by two serial killers.” Does this mean that serial killing should be allowed?

I feel much better after having read your post and thinking this through a little more. It seems the video is being used to tug at emotions. Typical of moveon.org though.

Yes but I make sure to emphasize that serial killers are not the same as two lesbians but that it proves the point that because a child grew up normal maybe even exceptional does not prove the point that it’s a valid marriage no more than a single mother who raised a child on her own with the help of childsuport.

 

[Boulder257]

Yes but I make sure to emphasize that serial killers are not the same as two lesbians but that it proves the point that because a child grew up normal maybe even exceptional does not prove the point that it’s a valid marriage no more than a single mother who raised a child on her own with the help of childsuport.

Understood. I certainly wouldn’t imply that they were one in the same, lol. I have a good attorney friend who always says that the first test he uses for an argument is to take it to extremes. If, when properly taken to extremes it doesn’t work, than that could reflect a fundamental flaw in the argument. I always found that an interesting way to start examining an argument.

 

[Nate13]

I would find it curious to know where the woman got the sperm. Just because its “anonymous” doesn’t mean they didn’t have a breakdown of the characteristics of the person who provided the sperm. I remember reading about there being sperm banks outside of major Universities like Harvard where people would flock because most of the donations came from students there. All this story may show is that this couple went through the right steps to engineer a baby.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would find it curious to know where the woman got the sperm. Just because its “anonymous” doesn’t mean they didn’t have a breakdown of the characteristics of the person who provided the sperm. I remember reading about there being sperm banks outside of major Universities like Harvard where people would flock because most of the donations came from students there. All this story may show is that this couple went through the right steps to engineer a baby.

I’m familiar with the routine, Nate, because so many women in my region have either considered doing this or have done it. (Personally, even it weren’t a grievous sin to do so, I find the entire concept so morally repellent that I would far prefer to have been childless than to have engaged in such trafficking of human life. Yuck.)

Women, yes, look for certain characteristics in men. Highly educated men are always sought, but that kind of comes with the territory, since both individual requests for sperm donation (through private ads) and solicitations from the “banks” (gross) themselves will often feature that. Medical students typically donate sperm, often partly “working their way through med school” by doing this. (No jokes, guys.). Women often also look for height in the male and even things like eye color. It’s like shopping from a catalog.

However, many, many lesbian couples in my region engage in utilitarian mating with a male friend – often gay, occasionally straight, or with “merely” sperm donation from that known man. More realistic “screening” is obviously possible with the “live” method.

I would continue but my nausea meter is reaching capacity. CAF needs a gag icon.

 

[PermanentMarker]

It is a strawman. A dog is not capable of understanding, much less consenting to a romantic relationship with a human. Surely you are not implying that homosexuals have diminished mental capabilities?

You misunderstand. I agree that a pairing between a man and a dog is absurd, but you fail to understand that our personal opinion on the matter could only ever be an arbitrary distinction once you have questioned the rational, objective grounding of marriage in the first place. If we can redefine marriage according to our whims, why not redefine it to include inter-species bonding, polygamy, etc.? In short, everything is game. As you can see, I am not comparing humans to dogs. I am just showing the absurd results of the subjectivism involved in same-sex “marriage.”

 

[John21652]

As the data are coming in, psychologists are finding that the loving relationship of a couple is more important than their sexual orientation with regard to their children’s development. This is not so surprising. Still, the issue is far from settled in the scientific community. In some religious communities, however, the issue is completely settled and has been for quite some time. That is, for Catholicism, (Orthodox) Judaism, Islam, and certain Protestant denominations, it is not a question of whether or not children of a gay couple grow up to be fine or even outstanding citizens; rather, the issue is one of morality according to Biblical teaching. Many also claim that the approval of gay couples and parents is contrary to the natural law (apart from religion) and destructive of the fabric of society. Throw in a few strawmen, such as if gay marriage and parenting are legal, why not legalize the marriage of a human who loves a dog and decides to raise a baby elephant, and there you have it for the one millionth time on CAF…

Meltzerboy, you continue to astonish me.
here’s why…
Why do we need “data coming in” to prove, or disprove what the vast majority of the human race has known for centuries, if not millennia. A mom and dad is the ideal situation for raising kids. Lord knows, there’s even enough data floating around on the Internet to “prove” that claim, which, after all, is just plain ol’ common sense. Yes, there are lots of examples where mums and dads have had to raise kids on their own and have succeeded fairly well. However, to all intents and purposes, the ideal of a family with a mum and dad is what has served mankind admirably for nearly ever.

Today, we have interest groups who want to change what is considered as the “norm” and so they attempt to “prove” that what is not the ideal is quite OK. Consequently, we get all these “data” submissions that supposedly show this and that. Well, for most of us, statistics are just more damned lies.

Most of know a boy needs a dad for role modelling. And girls need a mom for role modelling. Boys need dads to show them how to be men; how to be strong when strength is required, both in a physical and mental sense; how to treat women properly; how to behave when the crowd might lead you astray; how to be, dare I say it, “manly”. This is what the “ideal” has striven to achieve for generations. Then along comes the “experts” who challenge these ideals as being mere ‘stereotypes’ and as being up for disection. You know, the stereotypical male is a moron and the stereotypical female is a repressed thing who needs to be set free; the nuclear family is a flawed concept because of this and that. It’s all hogwash.

We are abandoning the ideal to support the mediocre. We are abandoning the ideal because some can’t handle striving for the ideal. Society is coming apart at the seems because of this abandonement of the ideal.

You mentioned how some posters “Throw in a few strawmen, such as if gay marriage and parenting are legal, why not legalize the marriage of a human who loves a dog.”
You know of course that gay parenting is a follow on from gay “marriage” and the “marry the dog” argument is about gay marriage, not gay adoption. The philosophical argument is that if the moral barriers against gay marriage are broken down, then there is no philosophical or moral barrier to allowing someone to marry a dog, a horse, or an elephant, because ‘love’ has become relativised. You also know I have used the “marry the dog” argument to challenge the notion of gay"marriage". It is not a strawman argument. And for the one millionth time, the philosphical, logical and common sense arguments state that gay “marriage” is silly; that the idea of two mummies or two daddies raising kids is impossible without outside ‘help’ and that the social consequences of the denial of the “ideal” is dragging society down by the bootstraps.
Your very first sentence shows just how out of touch with the real world some have become.

 

[Conor7]

Why do we need “data coming in” to prove, or disprove what the vast majority of the human race has known for centuries, if not millennia.

This needs to be researched to prove that children raised by same-sex couples won’t grow up to be monsters, as many seem wrongly to think. That’s why we need the data; I think that’s apparent.

I say: Children only need to be raised in loving homes.
You say: Prove it.
I say: Here are the data.

Then the argument it over; we know it to be true as proved by science.

The philosophical argument is that if the moral barriers against gay marriage are broken down, then there is no philosophical or moral barrier to allowing someone to marry a dog, a horse, or an elephant, because ‘love’ has become relativised.

Animals are not consenting adults. This is a silly argument. When a dog can consent to marriage, I’ll advocate for your right to marry one.