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

[toe]

Rather, it is a common argument (“What’s the harm?”) The harm is in the data.

We seriously need more households in America without fathers. And especially households which include sons.

Which data are you looking at? This doesn’t make much sense unless you have compiled data from primary psychological/sociological literature.

cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20(1).pdf

“According to Herek’s extensive review of the literature in 2006, the research on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples rely, look at the functioning of children in intact families with heterosexual parents compared to those children raised by a single parent following divorce or death of a spouse. They do not include studies that compare the functioning of children raised by heterosexual couples with the functioning of children raised by same-sex couples. In this group of studies, any differences observed are more accurately attributable to the effects of death or divorce, and/or to the effects of living with a single parent, rather than to parents’ sexual orientation. These studies do not tell us that the children of same-sex parents in an intact relationship fair worse than the children of opposite-sex parents in an intact relationship.
Although the research relied on by supporters of marriage of same-sex couples is not without its methodological flaws (as can be made the case for almost an area of scientific inquiry), it is based on comparisons of children with same-sex and opposite-sex parents. Herek points out that this group of studies is more relevant to the marriage debate and the findings of this group of studies are very consistent. A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts.”

EDIT: How is my post count relevant? We might both be practicing Catholics, and although you are most certainly more well-versed in the Bible (and, as you pointed out, this forum) than I am, you weren’t being completely fair in your criticisms. It is fine to say that the Bible says this shouldn’t happen. It isn’t fine to say that empirical data says you shouldn’t if it isn’t true.

 

[Kolbe300]

No. I have tremendous empathy for the son used as their tool. I have zero empathy for what they did.

I see. To each his own, I guess.

 

[Whadyamean]

In the post below the one I’m responding to, you give us a description of how it is certain philosophers view the world. In light of that, I’d like you to mull over what one of them, David Hume, had to say about a certain point of view and apply it to what you wrote here -

In other words, shouldn’t you be careful about generalising from your own “agitation of the brain” on this matter?

Thanks John, but kind of ahead of you there. That is exact;y why I posted that title from F M-W. Happy reading!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

To those impressed by the story of the baby raised by two lesbians in the OP,

For every Zach Wahls …

…
Enter Zach Wahls. He is the University of Iowa engineering student who testified in the Iowa statehouse, on behalf of gay marriage. The well spoken Wahls told the Iowa lawmakers that his family , one sister, two “mothers” was typical in every other respect,

“Um, I guess the point is our family really isn’t so different from any other Iowa family. You know, when I’m home we go to church together, we eat dinner, we go on vacations. Ah, but, you know, we have our hard times too, we get in fights…you know.”

Wahl’s stated that the fact that his younger sister was conceived by the same “anonymous sperm donor” as he was , “is cool”.

The internet showing of Wahl’s testimony before the Iowa Legislature has gone viral, and Wahl’s is an instant internet sensation, and a spokesman for gay marriage. He was featured on MSNBC, and is sure to be feted in other media.

I understand Zach Wahl’s wanting to stand up for the only family he has ever known. Who wouldn’t? If I was raised by the a mafia member, chances are I would still love my family dearly and assert that it was “normal”. How would I know any different?

*I wouldn’t expect Wahls to act any different, but on the other hand I wouldn’t consult him on whether or not we should fundamentally transform our society based on his subjective experience.

The argument to up-end more than 4000 years of western civilization cannot be made logically and rationally, so the left must personalize it. Zach Wahls becomes the “face” of the debate, so to reject gay marriage is to reject this clean-cut “sixth generation Iowan”, who naturally loves the only two parents he has ever known.*

But for every well spoken Zach Wahls, I wonder how many hundreds and thousands of unfortunate children have a radically different story to tell. Without any say in the matter, as wards of the state, how many were put into the custody of homosexuals and lesbians, denied a ‘normal’ family of Father and Mother, and used as props in the culture war, to further the war on christian marriage.

How many thousands are there , who would not be as comfortable as Zach was, in recounting their conception and birth, not as an act of love, but as a by an “Anonymous sperm donor”?

I doubt the Iowa State house will ever hear the testimony of the adopted son of Duke University researcher, Frank Lombard. This Mike Adams story tells the horrifying fate of the five-year old boy adopted by a prominent homosexual,but warning, not for the faint of heart.
…

The linked piece has the full document.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Which data are you looking at? …

It is not a surprise that Canadian psychologists are in lock step with APA, which signed onto and now endorses gay ‘marriage’ and gay parenting. Thank goodness, there are discerning mental health professionals such as those in CAMFT, who are not quick to join and serve as mouthpieces for politicized organizations. A Samson and Goliath struggle? I don’t doubt it, but you know how that one ended.
Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings:
Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality

A Review and Analysis of Research Studies Which Assessed Sexual Preference of Children Raised by Homosexuals

Same Sex Marriage, Not in the Best Interest of Children

 

[Corki]

front.moveon.org/two-lesbians-raised-a-baby-and-this-is-what-they-got/#.Ttf2ixAorEr.facebook

This video has been spreading like wildfire on Facebook. I’m afraid we are in a world of trouble. But I would like to know what some of you have to say?

I would say why dos t the dad get any credit? Yea the kids smart that would be more along the lines of genes wouldn’t you think? Two woman raising a boy has nothing to do with how smart the kid turned out to be.
Anyway I think the underline issue is the video seeks to silent those who claim children are better off being raised by a mother and father. I semply would just say he has a right to his father and even though he turned out to be a fine young man. He was still deprived of his basic right to be raised by a father.

Idk this is a tough one?

I’ve been following this thread and some of the Facebook blur.

I don’t get the big deal. Sure, he’s well spoken. That speaks to his education, not his upbringing at home. He’s intelligent. That’s genetic. He’s clean cut.

No one who is against homosexual couples adopting would say that same-sex couples are incapable of sending kids to good schools or buying them nice clothes.

The video tells us nothing about his morals or his character. Nothing about his ability to find a good wife or to raise Godly children. He may yet be able to rise above his upbringing - many people overcome great adversity - or he may be a mess.

 

[John21652]

Thanks John, but kind of ahead of you there. That is exact;y why I posted that title from F M-W. Happy reading!

In post #8 Saribee wrote this -

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.

In post #97 you responded with this -

Wow–OK, I’m thinking now of the large percentage of dysfunctional kids I went to school, high school and college with, all of whom had some dillies of parents. Yes, all of these kids are walkin talkin proof of how wonderfully “straight” parents can do the parenting job. Get real, folks. This has to do with character, education, and training, and maybe with genes, not with gender orientation.

You thenwent on to attempt at distinguishing between the various strains of Philosophy and in that attempt you have named Hume as one of those Philosophers who had a “mechanical” view of the world.

It strikes me as odd that one of those meachanistic philosophers should write something which should make you question how you yourself have made a general judgement from a particular example. In this case, you tell us that you saw lots of dysfuctional families and because of your experience, you can generalise to such an extent that you can write “Get real, folks”.

Your entire answer is based on what Hume would describe as a particular "agitation of the brain. You told us Hume saw the universe as nothing more than a collection of meaningless particles, yet you have hung your entire argument on one of those meaningless collections of particles. Hume would haul you over the coals and tell you to go do more homework. He’d probably throw one of his billiard balls at you.

Putting in a link to some obscure practicioner of eastern vedantic mysticism doesn’t answer the problem your post has created for you.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I agree with you. Please see the end of my post (# 95) and you will see that I am not advocating for Gay marriage but merely expressing my opinion on how the “brainwashing” argument may not be the most persuasive for Catholic Opponents to Gay marriage to wield. That being said, there are many more valid arguments out there.

Unfortunately this post of yours suggest otherwise forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8553795#post8553795

And this exchange of posts we had suggest your alignment with the gay rights claim to gay adoption / parenting. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8147623#post8147623

And then you bring up clergy abuse in your argument that brainwashing by abusive priests and brainwashing of gay parented children such as Zach Wahls are no different. There is something disingenuous about your argumentation.

Again, I ask how do you square these with your being a Catholic and coming onto this Catholic board with your positions?

…

I thought that your 99kids who fall on the wayside was a much more persuasive statement, as social statistics like this are key to winning the non-catholics over. Do you have a link or any more info on these 99 kids?

See my posts #114 and #115.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I’ve been following this thread and some of the Facebook blur.

I don’t get the big deal. Sure, he’s well spoken. That speaks to his education, not his upbringing at home. He’s intelligent. That’s genetic. He’s clean cut.

No one who is against homosexual couples adopting would say that same-sex couples are incapable of sending kids to good schools or buying them nice clothes.

The video tells us nothing about his morals or his character. Nothing about his ability to find a good wife or to raise Godly children. He may yet be able to rise above his upbringing - many people overcome great adversity - or he may be a mess.

Thank you, Corki, for at least telling the truth in a respecful, charitable, non-name-calling way.

Unfortunately, many people on BOTH sides of the issue have not done that.

Again, thanks.

 

[John21652]

Unfortunately this post of yours suggest otherwise forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8553795#post8553795

And this exchange of posts we had suggest your alignment with the gay rights claim to gay adoption / parenting. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8147623#post8147623

And then you bring up clergy abuse in your argument that brainwashing by abusive priests and brainwashing of gay parented children such as Zach Wahls are no different. There is something disingenuous about your argumentation.

Again, I ask how do you square these with your being a Catholic and coming onto this Catholic board with your positions?

See my posts #114 and #115.

InSoG,
:clapping:

:tiphat:

 

[karoleck]

I agree with you completely and your comparison was spot on. Might I suggest one minor tweak? Rather than comparing a thief to a hard worker why not compare a hard working janitor to a hard working pornographer (maybe like Hugh Hefner). One makes money honestly while the other makes money legally but is still morally bankrupt.

I hear you on the natural law argument. However, I find that the natural law/moral law/In my Holy Book God Says this!- argument is not as persuasive outside our Christian Community (let alone our Catholic Community)

I thought that your 99kids who fall on the wayside was a much more persuasive statement, as social statistics like this are key to winning the non-catholics over. Do you have a link or any more info on these 99 kids?

Here is a snipet which might give you a clue.

"During a presentation on research conducted by George A. Rekers, Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of South Carolina, the presenters noted that “boys and girls adopted by lesbian and homosexual couples show a greater level of stress than that which is already generated by their status as orphans or children abandoned by their biological parents.” They added that this situation “produces diverse trauma and behavioral disorders that can even lead to suicidal tendencies or attempts.”

“According to various studies containing testimonies from children of homosexual parents, most them of admit to suffering strong emotions, such as fear, anxiety, apprehension, shame and anger in trying to hide from their friends and relatives the homosexuality of their father or mother,” (end of quote.)

But judging by your form record as shown here recently ,your status as a “catholic” has taken a battering.I looked up the links provided,please explain!Judas too claimed he was a follower of Jesus.

 

[bearer]

Two lesbians committed a mortal sin and this is what they got…for now.

 

[Odell]

I’m sorry, but how do you know the smart gene came only from the father? Are you saying the boy is a half wit? or do you have no comprehension of genetics???

I’m suggesting the Dad should get SOME credit some how you skipped over that word:shrug:
I never suggested the parents should get no credit. Are you suggesting the dad gets no credit?

 

[WesleyF]

Odell, one cannot argue the general case from the specific. So what if two lesbians raised a baby and it became successful? How does one case prove that such raising works in general?

 

[ndeparis88]

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!

I do like this post to. However I’m trying to explain the Catholic side when someone says something like “Not only is it sad that she can’t make any decent arguments against a teenager, but the fact that she gets applause whenever she says gay marriage isn’t acceptable. This is not America and those who think like she does, you’re not Americans. Sorry” and "This is how you can expect things to run under Bachmann: When faced with a statement made by an 8-year old, she dismisses him. What did he say?

“My mom is gay and doesn’t need fixing.”

I seriously don’t understand a single one of you that side with idiots like her. If gay people getting married bothers you, move to Iran. They don’t believe in personal freedoms either."

I know this is in relation to the Bachman thing that’s also getting loads of attention

I stand still and feel utterly hopeless I know that it’s a labor of love to defend the faith and I could defend it even on my dying breath. But I can’t help but feel a little scared when those who say we are haters and say we shouldn’t bash other people’s opinions and beliefs, but when they do it it’s ok.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Unfortunately this post of yours suggest otherwise forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8553795#post8553795

Yes, I am a Roman Catholic born and raised. DO i struggle with Church teachings as to whether homosexuality is a sin? Most definitely. Having Family with SSA will do that to you.

As to the the post, do I submit to Holy Mother Church’s teachings? Of Course. Am I human? Yes, thus I have questions, doubts, arguments, confusion. I bring these senitments to this board because if I post them elsewhere they will not be viewed with the same charitable scrutiny. I dare say that there have been times when even you, InSearchofGrace have guided me on my path to holiness with instruction on Church Teachings.

If you cared to notice, I even offerred a more apt analogy in regards to making a moral argument against sames sex marraige in a previous post. But alas, you did not.

And this exchange of posts we had suggest your alignment with the gay rights claim to gay adoption / parenting. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8147623#post8147623

Yes notice how my follow up post on that thread shows my stance, “give them gay rights, let me keep my sacraments.” THis is currently where I stand on the topic.

And then you bring up clergy abuse in your argument that brainwashing by abusive priests and brainwashing of gay parented children such as Zach Wahls are no different. There is something disingenuous about your argumentation.

Sadly, there is nothing disengenious about the argument. I am good friends with monsignor at my Church (I know hard to believe) he told me a story: He suffers from severe spinal problems and is often under intense pain whenever he walks. He has had numerous spinal surgeries and is on a regiment of painkillers. Whenever he gets to a point were he cant take it anymore he merely walks outside the rectory and into the school yard. He is greeted by children at the CAtholic School in Pre-K. The kids run up and hug him-and just like that the pain is not so bad anymore.

He laughed when he told me that the kids often call him “God”. They arnt being sacreligious or anything it just that they are so young and incapable of wrapping their tiny heads around Church doctrine. The point being that children, for better or for worse view clergy in a role that is more authoratitive then teachers or even their parents.

Clergy Abuse has happened, I have family who have been abused. Do I hate all priests? No. My life has been shaped by the guidance of priests. Is the Church telling us the whole story on clergy abuse? I honestly dont know, I am sure you can reference that prior post i started on the authenticity of certain clergy abuse claims. In the thread I was lucky to have the guidance of others as I deconstructed the arguments alleging a widespread cover up. I was a more informed Catholic because of it.

Again, I ask how do you square these with your being a Catholic and coming onto this Catholic board with your positions?

My positions are nothing more than the genuine thoughts of a Catholic. I am sorry you do not like how I think or the issues I currently struggle with. I humbly ask that you pray for me.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Here is a snipet which might give you a clue.

"During a presentation on research conducted by George A. Rekers, Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of South Carolina, the presenters noted that “boys and girls adopted by lesbian and homosexual couples show a greater level of stress than that which is already generated by their status as orphans or children abandoned by their biological parents.” They added that this situation “produces diverse trauma and behavioral disorders that can even lead to suicidal tendencies or attempts.”

“According to various studies containing testimonies from children of homosexual parents, most them of admit to suffering strong emotions, such as fear, anxiety, apprehension, shame and anger in trying to hide from their friends and relatives the homosexuality of their father or mother,” (end of quote.)

But judging by your form record as shown here recently ,your status as a “catholic” has taken a battering.I looked up the links provided,please explain!Judas too claimed he was a follower of Jesus.

I thank you for your background info. May I trouble you for a link so that I may read this info on my own.

As for Judas comment, I’ve been called worse by better people (See InSoG post)

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, I am a Roman Catholic born and raised. DO i struggle with Church teachings as to whether homosexuality is a sin? Most definitely. Having Family with SSA will do that to you.

Perhaps you’d like to explain how both InSearchofGrace and I, each of whom has close Family with SSA, is able not to struggle with Church teachings, while simultaneously still embracing these relatives, having compassion for them, showing great concern and (in my case) even worry & anxiety about them (about their emotional needs). It’s a completely false premise that supporting Church teachings = lack of compassion, reduced charity, reduced empathy, coldness, “hate” (some of this the language of the secular world, but some of it assimilated by Catholics, including on this forum). And an equally false premise (the counterpart) is that love and loyalty to such family members compromises adherence to these Church teachings.

 

[cornbread_r2]

karoleck #121:

Re: The usefulness of Dr. Rekers’s research.

"In 2008, Rekers was an expert witness in In re: Gill, a case defending Florida’s gay adoption ban. He presented testimony asserting that homosexuals are more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, and emotional problems…]

Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled against the state. In her decision, she said; “Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court cannot consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.”

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, stated in the decision: "*Dr. Cochran (Professor of Epidemiology and Statistics at the University of California in Los Angeles) also testified about errors in scientific methodology and reporting in Dr. Rekers’ study, stating that Dr. Rekers had failed to present an objective review of the evidence on those subjects. Cochran concluded that Dr. Rekers’ work did not meet established standards in the field. Another expert, Dr. Peplau (Professor of Psychology at the University of California in Los Angeles), testified that Dr. Rekers had omitted in his review of the scientific literature ‘other published, widely cited studies on the stability of actual relationships over time.’ *”

 

[John21652]

karoleck #121:

Re: The usefulness of Dr. Rekers’s research.

"In 2008, Rekers was an expert witness in In re: Gill, a case defending Florida’s gay adoption ban. He presented testimony asserting that homosexuals are more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, and emotional problems…]

Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled against the state. In her decision, she said; “Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court cannot consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.”

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, stated in the decision: "*Dr. Cochran (Professor of Epidemiology and Statistics at the University of California in Los Angeles) also testified about errors in scientific methodology and reporting in Dr. Rekers’ study, stating that Dr. Rekers had failed to present an objective review of the evidence on those subjects. Cochran concluded that Dr. Rekers’ work did not meet established standards in the field. Another expert, Dr. Peplau (Professor of Psychology at the University of California in Los Angeles), testified that Dr. Rekers had omitted in his review of the scientific literature ‘other published, widely cited studies on the stability of actual relationships over time.’ *”

A Wikipedia hatchet job.

Too funny.