S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Representative sampling is EVERYTHING when it comes to studies on this issue.
- Status
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Mary,
Are you saying here…
that someone that does not care, someone that says none of this will affect anyone and why should we care is reading and quoting propaganda that promotes an agenda?
Is this what you are saying here?
M
marymary1975
Guest
Exactly, and these people are smart they get the sample convenient to achieve the result they want, get the desired result and know that 90% of the population are not going to read the paper and are just going to believe what the media says, which in this case is children are better without fathers and lesbians are the ideal parenting situation.
In fact, and on the same topic I kkow there is only one study, that was impartial, with an appropriate representative sample and well.conducted and had follow the ideal steps for a study of its kind with regard to children of homosexuals, the result was that they are prone to suffer from depression and they tend to do quite bad emotionally. The people who conducted the study were killed by the media, and I think the main guy of the study was fired for doing that study. I am on my phone so I don’t have the link but I will try to post it later.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Mary,
Is this like the voting to remove Homosexuality from the DSM, then saying that this society says Homosexuality is not a disorder? Is this what you are saying here?
M
marymary1975
Guest
exactly, he is using a quote from agenda that is promoting lesbians as superior parents.
M
markeverett49
Guest
Right, and in those days “pre-marital” assumed that the couple was formally engaged. This was called “advancing the wedding night.”
M
marymary1975
Guest
Very similar, if you ask me all falls into the same agenda
D
DexUK
Guest
I can honestly say, with my hand on my heart and the other on a Bible that I cannot recall EVER having heard this proposition being made before you posted it on this forum today.
And since I am politically involved with the world and clearly have in interest in this topic, I would have expected to have been exposed to at least a hint of this proposition, and I cannot relate a single occurrence of it. Therefore, in the absence of ANY concrete evidence, I will have to assume that this is simply a hysterical scare story being put around by people who are prejudiced and will do or say anything to demonise various people.
As for the media, if you believe that the majority of the population are THAT credulous that they would exchange their instinctive sexual orientation for that which is opposite simply because of some impression given by the media, then I have to wonder just how credulous you are yourself. Again, this is just another scare story to demonise people who aren’t part of ‘our tribe’. It’s disingenuous, genuinely scandalous (that a Catholic would either believe such tosh or bandy it about) and outright offensive to the vast majority of sensible ordinary people.
D
DexUK
Guest
I’m getting my conclusion on that from the children concerned - I can promise you there are no lesbians in sight and none mediating the answers.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Dex,
Pray tell, how is it that you have access to children. I have 5 children. I am involved with parents and here you say that there are no lesbians in sight…now if there are no lesbians in sight…then how is it you say below…
Now you, having no children, without any lesbians in sight, are able to conclude from children, and I may add that were adopted, that these children are less judgemental.
Where on earth are you encoutnering children that were adopted by lesbians that you say you have no contact with and how is it you determined from these children that they were less judgemental?
M
marymary1975
Guest
Maybe there is no lesbian in sight but given that your statement is exactly the one that was originally proposed by the study, the evidence points that you got that statement from Studies published from organisms with an agenda.
M
marymary1975
Guest
You just clearly said you have an interest in this topic so if you have an interest then you are promoting gay marriage, so of course you are going to say is a scare tactic. You have an interest in convincing people is Ok and nothing is going to happen. In a few words, you are biased towards gays.
If it is only a scare tactic then why all this:
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/341.full
psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201006/25-year-long-study-finds-children-lesbian-parents-may-be-better-adj
nllfs.org/publications/
time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
In fact just go to google and write children of lesbians fare better. I cannot believe that you haven’t seen any of this little less if you are political involved in it. You are just promoting gay marriage and obviously trying to cover the sun with one finger so people don’t realize what the movement is really about.
M
markeverett49
Guest
I hear this often, ‘no skin off of my nose’, or ‘none of my business,’ or ‘none of your business.’ If I may ask, what IS your business, and what do you assume to be the business of other people?
For example, if you’re a Gentile, is anti-semitism none of your business? If you’re single, is domestic violence none of your business? If you have no children, is public education none of your business?
I think these things (and many others) are “my business” even though I’m a Gentile and never subjected to anti-semitism, and I’m a lifelong bachelor and childless to boot.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Very well put
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Mary,
In my experience with children when in the Boy Scouts, I was an Eagle Scout and of course there were always younger kids, while working at the Boys Club, teaching Judo to children, as a Physician, as a parent being involved with many children, Church, volunteering…for the life of me I could not in any way draw any conclusion about judgement or non-judgement concerning children from many walks of life…and I had and have access to many children…they would think I was nuts…asking them question that would then cause me to be able to say anything meaningful about their ability to judge or not judge and their parents would think I was a nut case…gotta wonder?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Mary,
Here is a quote from one of Dex’s many posts…
It appears that Dex is open to logic and reason. You have provided information that any intelligent, logical reasonable person would understand. He says he is open to change his mind and as yet no one has been able to do that as yet…so knowing that logic alone is not the issue as there are facts and reason involved a logical and reasonable approach would be to explain to Dex what these sites have that may allow Dex to reasonably understand that logic alone will not suffice.
I will read these and you may as well aid in demonstrating what you find relevant that would aid the intelligent, reasonable mind that would logically be able to conclude that there are many points of view and some that have an agenda.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Mary,
I appreciate this information and ask you to discuss it on this thread…and put any (name removed by moderator)ut you can to aid the Reformation of thinking so that the Catholic arsenal of truth can be available for the agenda.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=769113
The Reformation for Secular Homosexual Thinking
D
DexUK
Guest
Please - if you’re going to address the points I raise, talk TO me, not ABOUT me. It’s rude to talk about someone behind their back. It’s even ruder to talk about them in front of their face.
Now, as for:
Take then domestic violence: since violence causes harm to people asking for assistance from the State, it is demonstrably society’s business to legislate against that harm taking place.
The lack of SSM provision for people who don’t share our religious convictions results, in certain circumstances, from harm befalling people in same sex relationships. If they want to seek legislative protection against that harm, then it is not my job to oppose it, since I am not involved in it. And, if I did actively oppose the legislation, I would be involving myself in the private lives of other people and materially obstructing the removal of harmful situations to those people.
And if people suggest that I as a Catholic should not support same-sex marriage, then they’d be right: as a Catholic I don’t want to be same-sex ‘married’ - and if I did then contract a civil same-sex ‘marriage’, I’d no longer be a Catholic anyway.
The opposition to SSM for non-Catholic non-religious people is stupid. It is analogous to white people opposing the right of ethnic minority people marrying - which has happened in the past, when non-white people were considered to be less than human. To me it appears to many that by our opposition we give the impression that we think that people who are homosexual are also less than human.
We have no right interposing ourselves between people who are not of our beliefs in the first place.
A compassionate humble Church does not seek to throw its weight around. If it wants to encourage people to think the way it thinks, it does it by example. It shows the world what it is like to love people and where the joy is in that. It doesn’t beat them over the head with accusations of being evil or insult their humanity. It follows the example of our Holy Father in reaching out and embracing ALL people, not just those of our own faith.
To those who say denying civil rights to others is somehow a ‘loving’ thing to do, then I say that’s balderdash. I say it’s obstructive and that it will push people away from God, not attract them to Him. I say that people who are suffering and grieving the loss of loved ones will perceive that we are the same as the people who caused them that pain and suffering. If we want to be agreed with, we won’t do it by hurting or insulting people. My whole purpose in these discussions is to illustrate how closed-minded many in the Church have become and, indeed, how pharisaical they are. And remember, the Pharisees were not at all popular with Christ… I definitely do not want to be counted among that number…
Now, as for:
The point there is that it is no business of mine because this is activity between two people of the same type. It is clearly NOT the same thing as anti-semitism which is an inhuman action by one or more ‘types’ of people against another ‘type’ of person. In the case of anti-semitism, it would be Gentiles against Jews: at which point it IS my business, since I would be a Gentile. I would be speaking out against it to my own people.
Take then domestic violence: since violence causes harm to people asking for assistance from the State, it is demonstrably society’s business to legislate against that harm taking place.
The lack of SSM provision for people who don’t share our religious convictions results, in certain circumstances, from harm befalling people in same sex relationships. If they want to seek legislative protection against that harm, then it is not my job to oppose it, since I am not involved in it. And, if I did actively oppose the legislation, I would be involving myself in the private lives of other people and materially obstructing the removal of harmful situations to those people.
And if people suggest that I as a Catholic should not support same-sex marriage, then they’d be right: as a Catholic I don’t want to be same-sex ‘married’ - and if I did then contract a civil same-sex ‘marriage’, I’d no longer be a Catholic anyway.
The opposition to SSM for non-Catholic non-religious people is stupid. It is analogous to white people opposing the right of ethnic minority people marrying - which has happened in the past, when non-white people were considered to be less than human. To me it appears to many that by our opposition we give the impression that we think that people who are homosexual are also less than human.
We have no right interposing ourselves between people who are not of our beliefs in the first place.
A compassionate humble Church does not seek to throw its weight around. If it wants to encourage people to think the way it thinks, it does it by example. It shows the world what it is like to love people and where the joy is in that. It doesn’t beat them over the head with accusations of being evil or insult their humanity. It follows the example of our Holy Father in reaching out and embracing ALL people, not just those of our own faith.
To those who say denying civil rights to others is somehow a ‘loving’ thing to do, then I say that’s balderdash. I say it’s obstructive and that it will push people away from God, not attract them to Him. I say that people who are suffering and grieving the loss of loved ones will perceive that we are the same as the people who caused them that pain and suffering. If we want to be agreed with, we won’t do it by hurting or insulting people. My whole purpose in these discussions is to illustrate how closed-minded many in the Church have become and, indeed, how pharisaical they are. And remember, the Pharisees were not at all popular with Christ… I definitely do not want to be counted among that number…
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
I understand your sentiments, Dex, but can’t agree. As Catholics, it is our obligation to stand up for the truth of the Gospel, which entails the union of man and woman in marriage. If it were solely a matter of religious law, for instance, attending Mass on Sundays, that would be different: we cannot legislate that people who are not Catholics attend Mass. However, this is a matter of natural law.
Any nitwit without a prejudicial axe to grind can see quite clearly that biologically, psychologically and socially women and men are complementary and that marriage is an institution that should respect this complementarity. To pretend otherwise is, frankly, to pretend that 1+1=3. Now, I guess, the state could legislate that 1+1=3 in the schools and perhaps, with this change, there might not seem to be any adverse effects, yet the presentation of a lie as truth is always wrong.
Moreover, I think same-sex marriage will most certainly harm children. How? It will be the ultimate demonstration to children and society as a whole that marriage is not for them; that their parents union and love has nothing to do with them, they were just fortunate to come along. If the union of man and woman in marriage is legally equivalent to that of man and man, or woman and woman, then children have nothing to do with marriage. They are an “optional extra”, as it were.
As an addition to this, it will further cement in society the belief that homosexuality and same-sex partnerships are natural and good. This will mean that (i) children being raised in our society will come to accept homosexuality as a genuine expression of the human spirit; (ii) themselves be more likely to engage in homosexual relationships; (iii) the Church continue to be seen as antiquated (at best) or retrograde for calling homosexual acts disordered and sinful; and finally (iv) the Church and her faithful are in for more persecution.
I don’t see how this is harmless at all.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Sorry Dex, it sounds like you’re living in fairy-tale land and seem oblivious to the stranglehold Satan has on this world.
Let’s review the list of “civil rights” that have not been denied but encouraged in Western society over the last century and see how this has drawn people to God:
- more relaxed divorce laws, leading to the break-up of families, neglected children (especially when it comes to education in the faith), a rise in single-parent households, and a steep rise in de facto relationships and sex outside of marriage;
- laws allowing easy and to-birth access to abortion, resulting in hundreds of millions of unborn human beings being killed;
- laws allowing easy and cheap contraception (and now, in the US, having to be provided for by Catholic business owners under insurance too), resulting in the rise of casual sex, STIs, infidelity, etc.
- laws allowing easy access to pornography (especially over the internet), resulting in an earlier sexualisation in children and sexualisation of persons, greater abuse of persons, probably more masturbation (and who knows what personal and relation affects this has), etc.
- laws allowing homosexual civil unions and same-sex marriage, resulting in the normalisation (with the aid of the media) of homosexual activities and lifestyles…
- with all this, belief in God and Christianity in particular, has reduced radically in the West.
The Church needs to make a very vocal stand to serve as a witness to truth and as an alternative. Yes, we should do so in love, but we need to do so. This will require all the faithful to stand up and do the same. I don’t think we can acquiesce on this issue as a matter of “separation of Church and State”. This is a natural law issue.
- Status