Why don't Catholics fight for a law agianst non-believers recieving communion?

[eagle_eye222001]

I thought the criticism of the AAP study was so trivial as to be dismissed. Here is the link again, just to make sure we are talking about the same thing (2006 report commissioned by the American Academy of Pediatrics):
pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349#SEC5

It is good that they compared children of homosexuals to all possible alternatives. They found for example:
“Lesbian mothers strongly endorse child-centered attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles and have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers.”
How could they have found this if they did not make that comparison? Moreover, the AAP’s work was a literature review that compared the results of many studies. It is true that some of those studies compared homosexuals to single parent households, as I mentioned. However there were also many studies that compared 2 parent households and found no differences in child development.

Religious affiliation is relevant as it clearly affects the conclusions of their work. Several of the link you provided, including the works of Cameron and Cameron and the book by Gallager, are not peer reviewed and do not therefore constitute strong evidence.

Edit
Here are the meeting minuites in which the ASA condemned Paul Cameron’s work (far right hand column)
asanet.org/footnotes/1987/ASA.02.1987.pdf#page=14

It begins: “The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.”

Apparently A’s and P’s are running together tonight…my point still stands that supposed neutral organizations can and do have a political agenda. It is unfair and illogical to discard religious back studies simply because they are related religious. One must criticize the study. I don’t care what the ASA said about Cameron. I care about the critique of his study.

The fact that homosexual advocating studies compare at all to single parent homes is atrocious to science and undermines their findings.

Footnotes 26, are 28 are gone right away because of this.
Footnote 30 is actually a study but does not come across as a reliable one.
marriagelaw.cua.edu/publications/nobasis.pdf
Footnote 36 is dealt with above.

37 just compares current research up until that point…so its really pointless for using as evidence for a cause when it only rehashes what it wants…

38 does not qualify as legit for reasons mentioned in* No Basis.*

If I may guess, are studies linked in your pamphlet peer reviewed? And do they stand up as reliable studies?

For if the APA is going to rubber-stamp homosexuality as not a disorder…and we find studies that upon examination show signs of shoddiness…you cannot automatically count peer-reviewed studies as a solid standard. You should examine the study itself.

It is illogical to just trivialize complaints about a study and ignore it. It shows one has an agenda.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Isn’t it the same thing as gay marriage? We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married.

Funny that you think the way a church defines words should exclude people from the freedom that others embrace.

Shouldn’t the state therefore also deny certain people access to communion on the grounds that our definition of that sacrament does not allow them to receive communion?

Why should the state listen to the church? If the church does not wish to give communion, then that is their prerogative but by no means should the state be under any guidelines set down by a church.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Apparently A’s and P’s are running together tonight…my point still stands that supposed neutral organizations can and do have a political agenda. It is unfair and illogical to discard religious back studies simply because they are related religious. One must criticize the study. I don’t care what the ASA said about Cameron. I care about the critique of his study.

Certainly, take his 1998 study. You cannot be a scientist and think this paper has any validity. He uses an inappropriate significance test (none) for the type of study he was performing (case controlled.) Moreover, his methods for scoring the “character” of homosexuals is highly susceptible to the biases of those involved in the trials. That may be controlled for, however no attempt is made to do so; indeed the trials before and after the declassification of homosexuality as a mental health problem are considered equally.

Lets also look at “Homosexual parents.” published in 1996. His methodology is identical to his previous publications that caused his expulsion from the ASA. For example, the article says “The details of the sampling are summarized by Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, and Cameron (1986).” and “the methodology is detailed in Cameron, Cameron, and Proctor, 1988.” Once again, he attempts neither tests for statistical significance, nor controls.

The fact that homosexual advocating studies compare at all to single parent homes is atrocious to science and undermines their findings.

That is silly. Based on a comparison of single parent and homosexual households, they found the homosexual households superior to single parent households in various measures of child well being. A perfectly reasonable conclusion given the groups studied. They did not say: since homosexual households are better than single parent households, they are the same as heterosexual households.

For if the APA is going to rubber-stamp homosexuality as not a disorder…and we find studies that upon examination show signs of shoddiness…you cannot automatically count peer-reviewed studies as a solid standard. You should examine the study itself.

The AAP and many other major medical organizations have examined the studies. In fact, you cited one of the only medical organizations that disagrees, the American College of Pediatricians. The founder claims the group has “Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group’s core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.” Unfortunately, science does not fare well in an organization where the conclusions are made before the research is done.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I don’t care what the ASA said about Cameron. I care about the critique of his study.

See also:
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html

"A critical review of the Cameron group’s sampling techniques, survey methodology, and interpretation of results reveals at least six serious errors in their study. The presence of even one of these flaws would be sufficient to cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of any study’s results. In combination, they make the data virtually meaningless. "

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why?

Because G-d said so. He also rejected bestiality, necrophilia, incest, adultery, interfamilial sex (mothers and daughters), or sex with the in-laws.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

See my first post in this thread.

I cannot believe you do not see the sophistry in this topic.

"You mean a civil law, right? Since there is already a canon law in place which prohibits non-Catholics (and even Catholics in mortal sin) from partaking in Holy Communion. You must see why your objection is sophistical. Holy Communion is not a secular matter. Marriage is. "

So if marriage is a secular matter, then why should religion have any say in its definition? Certainly there exists cannon law against homosexual marriage and sacrilege, why is the cannon law adequate in the case of Eucharist, but not in the case of marriage?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Because G-d said so. He also rejected bestiality, necrophilia, incest, adultery, interfamilial sex (mothers and daughters), or sex with the in-laws.

So ought we to codify all of God’s commandments into our laws as in a theocracy?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Because G-d said so.

Apparently but it seems people often disagree on what “G-d” did or did not say, I don’t see why I should trust these claims any more than others.

He also rejected bestiality, necrophilia, incest, adultery, interfamilial sex (mothers and daughters), or sex with the in-laws.

Why do you call this “G-d” a he? Does it have a penis?

Is there anyway to verify these claims or should I take your word for it? Or perhaps the words of people long since passed out of documents that have had thousands of years to have alterations put in and may not have even been written around the times of the events they claim. Even so, you would expect to finally generally agreeable material in religious promotional literature, whether it is true or false due to the whole ‘religious promotion’ bit.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So ought we to codify all of God’s commandments into our laws…

All these things are codified. I would be happy to see Christian morality codified to a greater degree in my society.

…as in a theocracy?

Yes, I would be happy with a theocratic state. Eventually we will have to be. Secular society has birth rates below the replacement rate of the population. In a few hundred years secular societies will abort and contracept themselves out of existence.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

All these things are codified. I would be happy to see Christian morality codified to a greater degree in my society.

I would most certainly disagree, a would many many others. Let me just ask, would you be content to see a humanist morality codified to a greater degree in society? What about an Islamic or Hindu Code? If you would not willingly receive any of these moral codes, why would you expect them to receive your moral system?

Yes, I would be happy with a theocratic state. Eventually we will have to be. Secular society has birth rates below the replacement rate of the population. In a few hundred years secular societies will abort and contracept themselves out of existence.

To be honest, that is extremely unlikely, right now humans are overpopulated so he decrease in population size is greatly beneficial. It is also extremely unlikely that the human race would go extinct based on not enough reproduction, if it ever got too bad an increase would be requested and I’m sure many would be willing to take up the challenge.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Apparently but it seems people often disagree on what “G-d” did or did not say, I don’t see why I should trust these claims any more than others.

Its been documented for thousands of years. There is no real question in mainstream Christianity about the issue.

Why do you call this “G-d” a he? Does it have a penis?

He claims to be a He.

Is there anyway to verify these claims or should I tak Or perhaps the words of people long since passed out of documents that have had thousands of years to have alterations put in and may not have even been written around the times of the events they claim. Even so, you would expect to finally generally agreeable material in religious promotional literature, whether it is true or false due to the whole ‘religious promotion’ bite your word for it?..Yes. We collected all the documents written throughout the centuries that detail G-ds relationship to man. We call that collection the Bible. It was written by many different Authors over the course of many centuries. Each book is an independent work that verifies the veracity of the others. They all tell essentially the same story. Documenting events is how we proved they occurred. So you don’t have to take my word for it, we have alot of documented evidence. Further, the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy provides a mathematical guarantee of the validity of Christianity and therefore the entire Judeo/Christian Tradition.

Unless you have something that disproves the veracity of the documentation, which no one has ever produced, Then you really have no rational basis to reject it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Going to DMV, back in a couple hours.

 

[MtnDwellar]

My understanding of the reasons why the Catholic Church opposed gay marriage is somewhat different than other posters. The reasons are that homosexuality is against natural and divine laws. Although homosexuality may have a negative impact upon society, it is not the reason for opposition.

Christ chose not to live on the earth and govern. He left us to govern. We have to construct our governance in the way that Christ would. Christ and his representatives are the authorities on matters of faith and morals.

The bit about comparing homosexual marriage and the Eucharist is an obvious red herring. The Church has many laws that are not enforceable by the government. That’s one of them.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Its been documented for thousands of years. There is no real question in mainstream Christianity about the issue.

I gather that within the community that believes this book detailing the supernatural would not find much conflict.

He claims to be a He.

I would change that to, “The Bible claims it calls itself a he.” Because after all, we only have the claims made in the Bible rather than this being making these claims personally.

Yes. We collected all the documents written throughout the centuries that detail G-d’s relationship to man. We call that collection the Bible. It was written by many different Authors over the course of many centuries.

I am well aware of this. However the presumption that this document has anything to do with an actual God seems a bit far fetched, do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

Each book is an independent work that verifies the veracity of the others. They all tell essentially the same story.

Given the books in the Bible were individually chosen, you would expect that the ones chosen would be the ones that generally line up with the others.

Documenting events is how we proved they occurred. So you don’t have to take my word for it, we have alot of documented evidence.

That ‘evidence’ appears to be conjecture and unsubstantiated assertions. As far as I’m aware there is ‘documented evidence’ within Aesop’s fables, and the Bhagavad Gita and almost every religious promotional literature, and even some stories not even intended to be taken literally.

Further, the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy provides a mathematical guarantee of the validity of Christianity and therefore the entire Judeo/Christian Tradition.

I am unaware of these fulfilled prophecies, perhaps I could start a new thread and we can get into the thick of it. I will of course have certain criteria met before I can consider it a ‘fulfilled prophecy’ though. I have been through this a few times and most people agree to my conditions.

Unless you have something that disproves the veracity of the documentation, which no one has ever produced, Then you really have no rational basis to reject it.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of ‘the burden of proof’. See when one makes a claim, such as, “The supernatural is real, but not all claims of it, just the claims in the religious promotional literature that I believe in.” Then one has to reinforce this claim with evidence, not wait for someone to show that it is wrong. Until evidence is presented that confirms the Bible, I will fill free to disregard it as “religious promotional literature” as I do the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita and every other ancient story that makes unverifiable claims of the supernatural.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I would most certainly disagree, a would many many others. Let me just ask, would you be content to see a humanist morality codified to a greater degree in society? What about an Islamic or Hindu Code? If you would not willingly receive any of these moral codes, why would you expect them to receive your moral system?

Of course not. Those are false religions and philosophies. The Truth of Christianity is mathematically verifiable by way of Messianic Prophecy. Its the very reason we accept that Christ was the Messiah. The schools of thought you mention have no such way to be verified. Christianity is as certain as gravity.

To be honest, that is extremely unlikely, right now humans are overpopulated so he decrease in population size is greatly beneficial. It is also extremely unlikely that the human race would go extinct based on not enough reproduction, if it ever got too bad an increase would be requested and I’m sure many would be willing to take up the challenge.

Humans are not over populated, everybody could have a nice house and big yard and only cover Texas. I don’t think it is reasonable to say that the entire world is over populated. Nor do I mean human society will go extinct, just secular societies. Nor have attempts to increase the population in places like Russia been successful. Secular societies, Russia, after generations of religious suppression, having an extremely high percentage of unbelievers is just the most obvious example. Communities that tend to contracept less, mostly religious, will continue to grow and thrive. While those who tend to contracept more will decline. It seems an inexorable path. It may take centuries but I think it is unstoppable.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

See also:
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html

"A critical review of the Cameron group’s sampling techniques, survey methodology, and interpretation of results reveals at least six serious errors in their study. The presence of even one of these flaws would be sufficient to cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of any study’s results. In combination, they make the data virtually meaningless. "

Certainly, take his 1998 study. You cannot be a scientist and think this paper has any validity. He uses an inappropriate significance test (none) for the type of study he was performing (case controlled.) Moreover, his methods for scoring the “character” of homosexuals is highly susceptible to the biases of those involved in the trials. That may be controlled for, however no attempt is made to do so; indeed the trials before and after the declassification of homosexuality as a mental health problem are considered equally.

Lets also look at “Homosexual parents.” published in 1996. His methodology is identical to his previous publications that caused his expulsion from the ASA. For example, the article says “The details of the sampling are summarized by Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, and Cameron (1986).” and “the methodology is detailed in Cameron, Cameron, and Proctor, 1988.” Once again, he attempts neither tests for statistical significance, nor controls.

That is silly. Based on a comparison of single parent and homosexual households, they found the homosexual households superior to single parent households in various measures of child well being. A perfectly reasonable conclusion given the groups studied. They did not say: since homosexual households are better than single parent households, they are the same as heterosexual households.

The AAP and many other major medical organizations have examined the studies. In fact, you cited one of the only medical organizations that disagrees, the American College of Pediatricians. The founder claims the group has “Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group’s core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.” Unfortunately, science does not fare well in an organization where the conclusions are made before the research is done.

Saying

This is silly

is an attempt to just pretend something is ridiculous. I disagree as several of those studies have been mis-cited to prove homosexual parenting is the same as same-sex parenting…when in reality it was only saying it was marginally better than the status of kids in single parent homes. If advocates of same-sex parenting really wanted to make a case…why compare against something that is already deficient?

Cameron’s study does appear to have its weaknesses. it seems we have found problems with studies on both sides…of course that still leaves the homosexual side to prove their lifestyle is not harmful to society…and gay activists cannot scream a denial of rights when they have yet to prove they exist.

Science does not fare well when political agendas are placed before it. The true religion will not contradict science. However be careful in comparing religion and science as both deal with very different realms of life. Science can try to explain and do many things, but it will not tell us what is morally right or wrong. The true religion will compliment science…and science will compliment it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I gather that within the community that believes this book detailing the supernatural would not find much conflict.

The natural/supernatural dichotomy is nonsensical. There is no reason of logic to reject the notion of the immaterial.

I would change that to, “The Bible claims it calls itself a he.” Because after all, we only have the claims made in the Bible rather than this being making these claims personally.

The Bible is a collection of documents. We have several dozen of these documents, that testify to G-d referring to Himself as a He. Documentation is all you have to prove any historical event. Our documentation is no different.

I am well aware of this. However the presumption that this document has anything to do with an actual God seems a bit far fetched, do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

Yes, all the documents refer to G-d as an actual entity.

Given the books in the Bible were individually chosen, you would expect that the ones chosen would be the ones that generally line up with the others.

They generally do.

That ‘evidence’ appears to be conjecture and unsubstantiated assertions…

It appears to be what it is, documentation. All documentation of events make an assertion by definition. I have no idea where you get the idea that they are conjecture however.

I am unaware of these fulfilled prophecies, perhaps I could start a new thread and we can get into the thick of it. I will of course have certain criteria met before I can consider it a ‘fulfilled prophecy’ though. I have been through this a few times and most people agree to my conditions.

If you have been through this several times, than you are not unaware of the fulfilled prophecies. And no, I don’t agree to precondtions. They can either be discussed or not.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of ‘the burden of proof’.

I understand what it means and we have more than met the burden of proof.

See when one makes a claim, such as, “The supernatural is real, but not all claims of it, just the claims in the religious promotional literature that I believe in.” Then one has to reinforce this claim with evidence, not wait for someone to show that it is wrong. Until evidence is presented that confirms the Bible, I will fill free to disregard it as “religious promotional literature” as I do the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita and every other ancient story that makes unverifiable claims of the supernatural.

If you feel free to disregard the evidence, than why are you asking for evidence? We met the burden of proof, we have given you the evidence. If you assert it is in some way insufficient, then the burden of proof for that assertion falls on you.

 

[Windfish]

So if marriage is a secular matter, then why should religion have any say in its definition? Certainly there exists cannon law against homosexual marriage and sacrilege, why is the cannon law adequate in the case of Eucharist, but not in the case of marriage?

Because the State is not going to be consecrating bread and wine to give out to non-Catholics. If that were the case, then, yeah, this topic would cease being sophistry and we would fight for such a law (or, more likely, fight for the State not to do that).

But the State IS going to be consecrating “marriages,” so to speak, that are wrong. If marriage were completely out of the power of the State, than canon law would be adequate.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Of course not. Those are false religions and philosophies. The Truth of Christianity is mathematically verifiable by way of Messianic Prophecy. Its the very reason we accept that Christ was the Messiah. The schools of thought you mention have no such way to be verified. Christianity is as certain as gravity.

According to you of course.

Humans are not over populated, everybody could have a nice house and big yard and only cover Texas. I don’t think it is reasonable to say that the entire world is over populated.

Almost seven billion people can’t fit into Texas alone let alone including living space. The human population is most certainly overpopulated, since 1960 the hum an population has more than doubled. If we continue producing the amount of children that we do we will require to many resources to keep the human race and many many other species alive.

Nor do I mean human society will go extinct, just secular societies.

Where did you get the data you used to reach this conclusion? May I examine it?

Nor have attempts to increase the population in places like Russia been successful.

Well yeah, Russia is a harsh place to live, as far as I’m aware it has a very high emigration rate. Most of the country is completely unlivable and the areas that are are still pretty bad, their terrain and weather are insane.

Secular societies, Russia, after generations of religious suppression, having an extremely high percentage of unbelievers is just the most obvious example.

It is also an example that can much more easily be explained by the horrible conditions.

Communities that tend to contracept less, mostly religious, will continue to grow and thrive. While those who tend to contracept more will decline. It seems an inexorable path. It may take centuries but I think it is unstoppable.

You’d be surprised the amount of religious people that do use contraception. Your conclusion appears to be nothing more than bias rather than a insightful look into the topic.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

According to you of course.

Not just to me, but to billions others as well. People may have other beliefs. But none of them are verified with the mathematical certainty that Christianity is. None of them have anything like it.

Almost seven billion people can’t fit into Texas alone let alone including living space. The human population is most certainly overpopulated, since 1960 the hum an population has more than doubled. If we continue producing the amount of children that we do we will require to many resources to keep the human race and many many other species alive.

That is called the Myth of Overpopulation. 266,853 square miles in Texas, 6.9 billion people. giving you a population density of 25,856 to the square mile. Slightly less than New York City. I live in Kansas, Trust me, there is plenty of space for people. I trust in science to carry us into the future. Fusion, AI, and Nanotech. These are the tools that will take us into the future. there is no overpopulation problem.