Why not gay marriage?

[Samuel_Monosov]

yes, the statistics show that children in a two parent family have a higher income than when their parents divorce and the children end up living in a single parent home. Divorce promotes poverty. Single mothers also promote poverty.

Or maybe poverty contributes to the number of single mothers? I suspect it works both ways. American subcultures that do not value marriage as highly are also those subcultures that suffer from poverty; both are probably at least partially a result of a lack of effective sex education and ethics that is far more common in wealthier segments of the population.

When it comes to child care we should be setting our standards high, not lowering them.

A very healthy gay couple may be a much better standard for the child than a less healthy straight couple. Time will tell whether gay-straight distinction matters for the adoption environment. I do not assume any result; any result is possible. We will find out in the next few decades. Until then, there is no evidence that healthy gay couples will provide worse environments than healthy straight couples, so there is no reason not to experiment.

If we can show that the effects of being raised in an institution/foster home is roughly the same then we should continue to raise children in institutions/foster homes?

If it could be established that institutions made better homes than the homes of adoptive parents, then children shouldn’t be adopted out to parents. They should all be kept in institutions. As you have already said, this isn’t about the parents. This is about the child.

It turns out, however, that both institutions and single parents provide on average worse environments than the environment a straight couple can provide. This has been established by multiple studies (although it is open for review). The results suggest that institutions are the worst environments for children of the three options. Some states believe that single parents are not sufficiently worse than straight couples to forbid adopting to them.

They can’t possibly be equal since a gay couple can’t provide the same experience that a heterosexual couple can.

I see no evidence that this will be the case.

If this is true, then the studies will show it. Adoption to gays can be discontinued at this time.

 

[vsedriver]

I see no evidence that this will be the case.

If this is true, then the studies will show it. Adoption to gays can be discontinued at this time.

explain to me how two gay men can provide a child the experience of having a mommy. Or are you saying that having the experience of a mommy is not important to a child? Does it have any intrinsic relevance or value in human child rearing or human experience?

If a rich, healthy gay couple want to adopt an infant should they be chosen over a poor, healthy straight couple?

 

[vsedriver]

I will also support the closing of Catholic adoption agencies that refuse to adopt to gays, because all the evidence presented in this forums and elsewhere suggests that refusal to adopt to gays is simple prejudice, and is not rationally supported by Catholic religious tenets.
.

Not rationally supported by Catholic religious tenets? or are you saying Catholic religious tenets aren’t rational? They may not be ‘rational’ to you but they are very rational to Catholics. The fact that they aren’t rational to you is mind boggling.

So Catholics and other religions are to be marginalized in their religious freedom even though the Constitution sets protections? Outlawing Catholic adoption agencies is against religious freedom to minister to the public need. Catholics are bound by a command of Jesus to minister to the needy not just minister to Catholics. Being an orphan means you are needy.

This is another example of the loss of religious freedom in the US today.

 

[Nate13]

Check divorce and abortion stats prior to the development of the Barbie doll.

I think your Barbie Doll example is somewhat weak considering there are very few reasons to believe that would break up a marriage. Contraception has to do with sex which most people would consider an essential part of making their marriage work. Your point however is that you only see this as a correlation, and your not seeing how its a cause.

Let me ask you this first though. Do you believe the man in a marriage being addicted to porn and masturbation can cause a great many problems in a marriage?

Contraception was used as an excuse for abortion in Roe vs Wade, but the effective strategy in the case was the privacy afforded by a woman’s body. It would seem to make more sense to blame privacy and Barbie dolls for abortion than to blame contraception.

I am unaware of even a superficial connection between contraception and divorce rates.

Its actually not that hard to show there is something to the correlation. All you have to do is look at multiple countries and see the trend repeated. The more prevalent contraception is in a country you can count on three things occurring:

1. Less men and women get married and wait longer to get married if they do
2. Higher divorce rates
3. Fertility rates quickly dropping below replacement level

You also have to compare divorce rate to marriage rate in a country to see the trend. Some countries appear to have lower divorce rates only because they have so many fewer people actually even getting married to begin with. That is the situation in much of Western Europe.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Are you saying that having the experience of a mommy is not important to a child?

I don’t know how important a straight couple is to the health of a child. We will soon have some insight into this question, because statistics will become available in the next decade or so.

If a rich, healthy gay couple want to adopt an infant should they be chosen over a poor, healthy straight couple?

How poor?

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Do you believe the man in a marriage being addicted to porn and masturbation can cause a great many problems in a marriage?

Is it possible to be addicted to pornography or masturbation? This is something I know very little about.

Would pornography or masturbation have a bad influence on a marriage? I don’t know.

Do you know if there have been any studies on these topics? What have these studies shown?

I have no idea what the results will be

Its actually not that hard to show there is something to the correlation. All you have to do is look at multiple countries and see the trend repeated. The more prevalent contraception is in a country you can count on three things occurring:

1. Less men and women get married and wait longer to get married if they do
2. Higher divorce rates
3. Fertility rates quickly dropping below replacement level

I’m not sure (3) is a bad thing.

But is this true? To compare, we consider current statistics (Statistics provided by Google Statistics Software and World Bank Database)

(1) There is no correlation between marriage rate and fertility/contraception rate. There is a weak correlation between contraception and age people wait to get married.

(2) There is no correlation between divorce rates and fertility rates or contraception rates. Since 1960, fertility rates dropped, and contraception rates rose. For most countries divorce rates also rose. But there is no correlation to proportionality. For example, in the EU the nation with the highest divorce rate (Lithuania) has an average fertility/contraception rate. The nation with the lowest contraception rate, Iceland, has an above-average divorce rate. These trends are fairly stable over time, with the exception of Portugal, which had an explosion in its divorce rate, and then a strong decrease in fertility, suggesting that divorce caused wider use of contraception in that case (and not the other way around).

(Note: Divorce rates and marriage rates were also placed in relation, to see if one is being masked by the other, by taking divorce rate divided by marriage rate and comparing this to contraceptive use rate and fertility rate each. The results above were not affected.)

(3) Among all the nations where contraception and fertility rate information are both available, there is a weak correlation between contraception and fertility. Half of the countries with very high contraception rates have above replacement level fertility rates.

---

Alhough there is a correlation between the advent of contraception and an increase in divorce rate, and decrease in marriage rate, there is no proportionality relation between the contraception rate and divorce/marriage rate over time, and the timing would suggest that both of these things are caused by a third unknown factor (or possibly that, for Portugal, increased divorce rates cause increased contraception).

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Why should you care if other religions want to recognize gay marriage?

I think that it is difficult to speak about the marriage issue when the two sides (gay v. traditional) are coming at it from fundamentally different understandings about what is a “marriage” in the first place. The traditional definition of marriage is that it is the public recognition of the coming together of a man and a woman for the purpose of mutual and exclusive support and the procreation and rearing of their offspring. Although stated in different ways in different cultures, marriage always included the intention of the parties to not only support each other, but rear the offspring that result from the union. This definition - by its nature - must include at least one man and at least one woman. With some exceptions, “one man and one woman” has always been the rule. The institution was publicly acknowledged and protected because society has a vested interest in the safety and rearing of children. The law surrounding marriage, dissolution, and child custody reflect the state’s interest in protecting the family… not the personal happiness of the individuals.

But in modern western culture, the popular conception of marriage has shifted (for many reasons) away from the procreative aspect so that now it is recognized by many (including Judge Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) to be simply, “the public recognition of a committed relationship between adults.” (Let’s set aside what “committed” means for the time being.) This definition cares nothing about the children produced by the marriage. It looks only to the feelings of two adult individuals who cannot produce children. What is the governmental interest in protecting such a union?

If this popular understanding is all that a marriage is, as the “gay marriage proponents advocate” then there’s no basis (aside from prejudice) for denying gay couples, or polygamous groups, or consanguinous pairings the public recognition of their union as a “marriage.” On the other hand, if marriage is more than just a committed relationship - as has been the case traditionally - then the proponents of “gay marriage” are seeking to completely redefine marriage to remove a fundamental principle from its nature - i.e. the coming together in mutual support for the procreation and rearing of children. This is what many believe to be the heart of the issue. (Note, also, that this is not really a gay/straight issue)

I believe that if marriage is redefined to exclude the familial aspect, as is the case in California (just today affirmed by the 9th Circuit), it will significantly weaken the very institution that the “gay marriage” proponents believe to be the emancipator of their lifestyle choice. By judicially redefining marriage so that same-sex couples can be shoe-horned in, the courts are cutting off the very branch on which the gay community is trying to sit. Redefining marriage in the name of “civil rights” will not accomplish the acceptance the gay community seeks. Indeed, I think it will be a very tragic case of the “emperor’s new clothes.” This is because marriage is part of the natural law. Marriage is what it is, and it will remain what it is whether or not the State tries to say it is something less.

The strongest argument in favor of gay marriage is that to a large extent, western culture has already excised the familial components from the marital institution; thus, recognition of gay marriage is simply recognizing the state to which the institution has “evolved.” Sadly, the argument has momentum. Marriage has ceased as a responsibility and solemn obligation. It is instead, a political tool for obtaining certain legal “rights” and “privileges.”

Peace,
Robert

 

[cformosa4]

The income of a person regarding their upbringing is a simple argument of correlation vs causation.

Please refer to this example: Statistics show that as the consumption of ice cream increases, so does the rate of deaths caused by drowning… Therefore, the consumption of ice cream is correlated with the rate of deaths by drowning… This; however, doesn’t say that ice cream consumption causes deaths by drowning… Anyone knows that the consumption of ice cream and the desire to go swimming BOTH increase in the summer… thus the rate of deaths by drowning is increased…
Same goes here… you can’t really know or say what causes income level exactly… you can only know what is statistically correlated. Please note that correlation and causation are very different. You can’t really say that someone growing up without a father, or mother has something to do with income… maybe you can because the child was born in home with a single income-- therefore not having the money to pay for college, or the realization that a higher income can be a reality for them… my point is that you can speculate many things… doesn’t mean its actually correct.

Many children grow up perfectly fine without a father present (single mom) – my best friend grew up without a father and she is now a dentist… a medical professional (that is just one personal example)… It goes without saying that many people grow up perfectly without a father present. What ACTUALLY may have something to do with the development of a persons morals/etc is an upbringing with family values. I agree, a single parent may have a harder time instilling family values. But, wether the couple is male/female, male/male, or female/female is irrelevant… humans regardless of gender are capable of nurturing and providing a good home.
Saying someone can’t grow up without a mommy is just as outdated and prejudice as saying that a women cannot think for themselves, vote or enter the workforce… men and women and seen a equal - they should also be seen as equal in the family.

The argument and demand of equal marriage comes up because there are many civil rights that come along with marriage: tax breaks, visitations in hospitals, citizenship eligibility, etc… the list goes on. Sure any jack and joe can get ‘married in their heart/mind’ , but the fight is for the country to recognize it… I don’t think that ones religion should stop or hinder the civil/government rights of these people.

 

[John21652]

My conclusions based on your arguments and answers to my questions.

From a Catholic framework:

It is rational for Catholics to consider contraception a sin.
It is rational for Catholics to consider gay relationships sinful.
It is rational for Catholics to oppose gay marriage for Catholics

It is irrational for Catholics to oppose gay marriage and adoption for non-Catholics at this time.

Thank you for helping me reach these conclusions. These also help inform my political perspective and activity. Based on the results of my questions so far, I will add my name to petitions to oppose HHS contraception mandates because these violate Catholic religious freedom.

I will also support the closing of Catholic adoption agencies that refuse to adopt to gays, because all the evidence presented in this forums and elsewhere suggests that refusal to adopt to gays is simple prejudice, and is not rationally supported by Catholic religious tenets.

Thank you again for your help in this, and please, feel free to continue the conversation. It may be of some help to others.

Wow, that’s some of the craziest logic I’ve come across on CAF.

It is rational for Catholics to consider contraception a sin.
It is rational for Catholics to consider gay relationships sinful.
It is rational for Catholics to oppose gay marriage for Catholics

Therefore Catholic beliefs are rational.

Irrational people don’t accept Catholic rational beliefs.

There.

Fixed.

You want Catholic adoption agencies closed. Despite Catholic beliefs being rational.

That’s pretty illogical.

The refusal to adopt to gays is because there is ample evidence from around the world that two parent families, where there is a mummy and a daddy, serve the interests of the child the best. I also submit that homosexual adoption is in breach of the U.N. Declaration on the rights of the child, section 6 and possibly section 9.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I also submit that homosexual adoption is in breach of the U.N. Declaration on the rights of the child, section 6 and possibly section 9.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

]You want Catholic adoption agencies closed…

I want them to be denied government funding if they will not adopt to healthy gay couples.

If the KKK wanted to open an adoption agency, and it was established they were responsible with their adoptions, but refused to adopt out to blacks, Catholics and Jews, at least they would be doing some good in the world through their adoptions. But for good reason they should not receive any federal funds.

Not all Catholic adoption agencies refuse to adopt out to gay couples.

So let’s fix your statement:

You want adoption agencies that refuse adopting to gays to be denied all federal funds…

Because currently their policies are motivated by mindless bigotry. The answers already provided in this thread have established as much.

The refusal to adopt to gays is because there is ample evidence from around the world that two parent families, where there is a mummy and a daddy, serve the interests of the child the best.

Is this really evidence, or is this simple prejudice and anecdote?

If it is evidence, where is this evidence?

I also submit that homosexual adoption is in breach of the U.N. Declaration on the rights of the child, section 6 and possibly section 9.

Section 6 of the document you cite:

The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support. Payment of State and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable.

Contains zero mention of gay or straight couples.

There is no reason currently to think that gay couples cannot provide this. Indeed, it may be the case that many gay couples provide a better atmosphere and moral and material security than many straight couples who can adopt.

Future statistical studies will reveal whether this is the case.

 

[John21652]

I want them to be denied government funding if they will not adopt to healthy gay couples.

You wish to discriminate against a Catholic adoption agency, yet you condemn a Catholic adoption agency for being discriminatory. You have double standards.

If the KKK wanted to open an adoption agency, and it was established they were responsible with their adoptions, but refused to adopt out to blacks, Catholics and Jews, at least they would be doing some good in the world through their adoptions. But for good reason they should not receive any federal funds.

Mere opinion and a silly analogy.

Not all Catholic adoption agencies refuse to adopt out to gay couples.

They will not unless forced to.

So let’s fix your statement:

You want adoption agencies that refuse adopting to gays to be denied all federal funds…

I never made that statement. Stop making things up.

Because currently their policies are motivated by mindless bigotry. The answers already provided in this thread have established as much.

The bigotry is yours. You are so morally blind you can’t tell that moral values are an objective standard that are required for mankind and human societies to flourish. Civilisation was built on the moral values that you now call “mindless bigotry”. You want to allow homosexuals to do what they want, but you wont allow the Catholic Church to do what it wants. You are hypocritical.

Is this really evidence, or is this simple prejudice and anecdote?

If it is evidence, where is this evidence?

It’s all over the Internet. Just Google it and don’t be lazy.

Section 6 of the document you cite:

Contains zero mention of gay or straight couples.

Why would it? It’s about kids, not adults.

There is no reason currently to think that gay couples cannot provide this. Indeed, it may be the case that many gay couples provide a better atmosphere and moral and material security than many straight couples who can adopt.

That’s pure fantasy. Catholic adoption agencies only allow the very best of married couples to adopt. The child gets a loving mummy and daddy that way, you see. Homosexuals can’t offer that at all.

Future statistical studies will reveal whether this is the case.

And you’d be willing to sacrifice children on the alter of statistical interpretation. That is also in breach of the U.N. Declaration on the rights of the child. It is also a massive breach of common sense.

 

[Elizabeth502]

healthy gay couples.

= oxymoron

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Hey, John! I think you should be happy with me! I’ll support Catholics with the HHS thing. That’s clearly a religious problem.

And I’ll oppose giving federal funding to any adoption agency that refuses at this time to adopt out to gays. It’s not about the Catholics. It’s about policies that I’d oppose if it was Protestants, Jews or Muslims enacting them. In fact, there are some Muslim schools that have policies I’d be very-much against.

Some Catholic Charities are willing to adopt to gays: sanfrancisco-catholic.com/cccyo_fba.htm

Some are not.

I’m not discriminating against Catholics. I’m discriminating against bigots. Clearly many Catholic charities aren’t bigoted.

One more thing, if it’s so easy for you to google the evidence, do it. Send it to me. Because I can’t find it.

If there’s good evidence that adopting to gays would be bad for children, I’ll change my position. If the evidence ends up supporting adoption to gays, would you change yours?

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

healthy gay couples = oxymoron

Well, the government seems to have found some healthy gay couples to adopt to. If they turn out not to be healthy, that will be revealed in the statistical results of their parenting, and I’ll oppose adopting to gay couples in the future.

Until then, there’s no good evidence (of which I’m aware; John’s apparently using google).

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well, the government seems to have found some healthy gay couples to adopt to. If they turn out not to be healthy…

(If the planet turns out not be spherically shaped…)

“The government” also thinks it’s a perfectly “healthy” activity to distribute contraceptives to underage teenagers in public schools without parental knowledge, let alone consent.

“The government” has an amoral code. Consider the source.

 

[John21652]

Hey, John! I think you should be happy with me! I’ll support Catholics with the HHS thing. That’s clearly a religious problem.

And I’ll oppose giving federal funding to any adoption agency that refuses at this time to adopt out to gays. It’s not about the Catholics. It’s about policies that I’d oppose if it was Protestants, Jews or Muslims enacting them. In fact, there are some Muslim schools that have policies I’d be very-much against.

So, on the one hand you will support the Church in its fight to be not forced to go against its principles, yet on the other hand you wont support the catholic church for not wanting to go against its principles.

Your attitude reeks to high heaven of a moral inconsistency, a double standard and intellectual confusion.

Some Catholic Charities are willing to adopt to gays: sanfrancisco-catholic.com/cccyo_fba.htm

You gave a link to a site which is highlighting the massive influence the gay activists have had in the San Francisco area. It is a problem for the Church that its policies have been broken and ignored by a board comprised of mainly homosexuals. You have dishonstly used that to paint a picture that is false.your example is a condemnation of homosexual activism.

You forgot to post this from the front page of that web site -

On June 30, 2009, the Catholic Charities/Family Builders by Adoption partnership was dissolved.

And what is worse, you failed to mention what the entire web site was about -

This is a report on the infiltration of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco by homosexual activists.

And the fact that the infiltration by gay activists was to such an extent that gay adoptions started to take place, the Church then had to take action.

Your use of that website is misleading and dishonest.

I’m not discriminating against Catholics. I’m discriminating against bigots. Clearly many Catholic charities aren’t bigoted.

No Catholic charities are bigoted.

One more thing, if it’s so easy for you to google the evidence, do it. Send it to me. Because I can’t find it.

You are lazy as well and yet you base your assumptions on the homework you haven’t done.

If there’s good evidence that adopting to gays would be bad for children, I’ll change my position. If the evidence ends up supporting adoption to gays, would you change yours?

The evidence is already there. And shame on you for being willing to make kids the guinea pigs of statistical gathering. That’s in breach of the U.N. declaration of the rights of the child. You really need to kick your common sense back into gear.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

More accusations of laziness. No evidence offered. Maybe because the evidence does not exist?

I will wait to see how John responds. Otherwise, this isn’t really my job. I have more important things to work on than this.

My interest is in figuring out how to make some political decisions in the future, and to find out why Catholics do what they do. That’s been accomplished. And, at least for one thing you care about, you’ve gained one more ally.

Evidence that adopting to gay couples would be bad for children would be a welcome surprise. If it’s good quality evidence, I will change my position.

Can John produce some evidence?

Or is his content merely bluster?

 

[John21652]

More accusations of laziness. No evidence offered. Maybe because the evidence does not exist?

I will wait to see how John responds. Otherwise, this isn’t really my job. I have more important things to work on than this.

My interest is in figuring out how to make some political decisions in the future, and to find out why Catholics do what they do. That’s been accomplished. And, at least for one thing you care about, you’ve gained one more ally.

Evidence that adopting to gay couples would be bad for children would be a welcome surprise. If it’s good quality evidence, I will change my position.

Can John produce some evidence?

Or is his content merely bluster?

And let’s stay tuned for the next exciting display of Samuel Monosov’s ability to make statements on the basis of evidence he hasn’t got and, when challenged, pretends he can’t find any!

And then demands someone else do his homework for him!!

Too funny.

 

[SwissGuard25]

Alright, the contraception question I asked you answered. That made some sense, so I can imagine why you don’t like gay activity or why you don’t do gay marriage.

But what about people who aren’t Catholic? They get divorced and do all kinds of other things that you don’t agree with. Why can’t two men get together and the state can call it marriage or whatever else they like? They do this sort of thing anyway about divorce, with a lot less arguments and protests from you guys.

Why should you care if other religions want to recognize gay marriage?

What about gay adoption? Why not allow it for limited cases, to see what effect it has, and if its a good idea overall, or not?

Well it is a touchy situation but we must address it none the less.

It as an argument Gay “marriage” supporters bring up all the time. “It’s Natural” Even if it is Natural we Catholics call it original sin, that is the tendency inborn in us, due to the Fall of our first parents, to choose sin and disordered actions. That does not make it right. What is natural is what supports and defines nature as God created the natural world, and what can be known by observing the natural world. It amazes me how those who use Evolution as a benchmark by which they criticize religion and morality, and argue in favor of humans engaging in unnatural actions, do not seem to see the irony in that it is Evolution that gives is the explanation of the natural law on Species Preservation, which argues against homosexual activity or any other disordered activity that threatens survival of the species.