Why not gay marriage?

[ksmith224]

It is crazy to see that people today are so judgmental. I have experienced one of my close friends almost killing himself because hes gay. He is so afraid of not being accepted by the Church and his family he considered taking his own life. I grew up Catholic and still consider myself one but to think my friend has to be judged for something he dosent want to be is ridiculous, It is not a lifestyle choice. He is entitled to marriage and children and to be happy. My mom works in a maternity ward at a hospital and trust me some people having children are completely incapable of taking care of the children but wait thats ok because the are straight. My friends an amazing person that deserves love how can people say its a choice when he considered taking his own life over it?

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

There’s an article on Catholic Answers with citation to studies that establish the health of a child is significantly impacted by the lack of both father and mother figures - which is significatly absent in the same-sex couple. The link is here.

Hey Robert, thanks for linking me something interesting. There are some studies on here that may seem relevant, but they unfortunately aren’t. The paragraph “What does the scientific evidence show about homosexuality?” is seriously flawed. It actually reads like a White Supremacist website that lists why blacks are inherently more violent and so should be segregated away from healthy communities. Blacks do commit a disproportionate number of crimes.

Since adoption to gay couples is a relatively new phenomenon, it is interesting that there are already studies out there discussing it. I’ll look into them and get back to you.

Here’s the footnote:

“R. Green et al., “Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison With Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 15 (1986): 167-83; P. A. Belcastro et al., “A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Effects of Homosexual Parenting on Children’s Sexual and Social Functioning,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 20 (1993): 105-22; B. Hoeffer, “Lesbian and Heterosexual Single Mothers: Influence of Their Child’s Acquisition of Sex-Role Traits and Behavior,” (dissertation, University of California), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1979; D. L. Puryear, “Familial Experiences: A Comparison Between Children of Lesbian Mothers and the Children of Heterosexual Mothers,” (Dissertation, University of California), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1983; J. D. Kunin, “Predictors of Psychosocial and Behavioral Adjustment of Children: A Study Comparing Children Raised by Lesbian Parents to Children Raised by Heterosexual Parents,” Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (1998): (6-B), 3094; G. A. Javaid, “The Children of Homosexual and Heterosexual Single Mothers,” Child Psychiatry and Human Development 23 (1993): 235-48; K. Lewis, “The Children of Lesbians: Their Point of View,” Social Work 23 (1980): 198-203
P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” 757-66; P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents: A Comparative Forensic Study of Character and Harms to Children” Psychological Reports 82 (1998): 1155-91.”

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

The definitive study of this subject (in terms of citations, over 500), is Patterson, Child Development 63:5, 1025 (1992), and finds that, “to date … there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances.” This study addresses the results of other studies.

In my opinion, all of these results so far, on either side, can be explained by statistical fluctuations, given the very small sample-size, and inability to correct well for extra variables. Anyway, what this means is that we can consider any publication before 1992 as having failed to provide good evidence of a difference in development.

So we look at the articles after this point. Current research shows incest and abuse issues with gay couples to be either the result of problems with the data, or in the case of non-biological parenting, a risk that is not significantly higher than the same risk heterosexual non-biological parenting imposes on a child.

This leaves P. Cameron and K. Cameron, Psychological Reports 82 (1998) 1155. This article has been cited only 16 times, includes a very small sample, and is in my opinion a statistical fluctuation. Despite Cameron’s own stake in this issue, I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and will assume he performed his research honestly and with carefully chosen population samples.

Why do I think this is a statistical anomoly, and simple data-interpretation? Because researchers who have stake in the other side of the issue (Bos, Balen, van den Boom American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77:1, 38, 2007) had this to say, based on the exact same available data, and different statistical samplings and analysis:

“With regard to parental characteristics, there is an agreement in empirical studies that there are some differences between lesbian parents and heterosexual families. Evidence suggests, for example, that social mothers (nonbiological mothers) spend significantly more time performing family and childcare activities than do heterosexual fathers. Lesbian couples share household tasks more equally than heterosexual couples do (Patterson, 2002). The fact that the division of family tasks and childcare activities seems to be more equal in lesbian-parent families (Brewaeys et al., 1997; Patterson, Sutfin, & Fulcher, 2004) might be the reason why lesbian parents are more satisfied with their partner as a coparent. It was also found that lesbian and heterosexual-parent families differ as regards the intensity of the desire to have children, with lesbian parents having a much stronger desire (Bos, van Balen, & van den Boom, 2003).”

It’s a completely different result!

So the best conclusion I can reach is that I don’t want to make a conclusion. There’s no good evidence that gay couples provide a better or worse environment for children than straight couples at this time.

When there is good conclusive data, I’ll base my position about gay adoption on that data.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

So the best conclusion I can reach is that I don’t want to make a conclusion. There’s no good evidence that gay couples provide a better or worse environment for children than straight couples at this time.

When there is good conclusive data, I’ll base my position about gay adoption on that data.

When in doubt, don’t.

~Benjamin Franklin

Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.

~G. K. Chesterton
,

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

When in doubt, don’t.

~Benjamin Franklin
,

Boring.

My motto:
When in doubt, do it again.

Maybe something different will happen the second time.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hey Robert, thanks for linking me something interesting. There are some studies on here that may seem relevant, but they unfortunately aren’t. The paragraph “What does the scientific evidence show about homosexuality?” is seriously flawed. It actually reads like a White Supremacist website that lists why blacks are inherently more violent and so should be segregated away from healthy communities. Blacks do commit a disproportionate number of crimes.

Gee, thanks for the ad hominem attack. Read the studies and provide some examples of how they studies are not relevant? Calling the arguments racist and offensive - even if you actually believe them to be such - adds nothing to a sincere discussion about different points of view.

 

[John21652]

Boring.

My motto:
When in doubt, do it again.

Maybe something different will happen the second time.

So, if you survive a death defying escapade, you’d do it again…to see if something different will happen?

Gee, that’s sensible.

Not.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Gee, thanks for the ad hominem attack. Read the studies and provide some examples of how they studies are not relevant? Calling the arguments racist and offensive - even if you actually believe them to be such - adds nothing to a sincere discussion about different points of view.

That’s a fair point. I apologize for poisoning the discourse.

Sadly, I think both sides play these sorts of rhetorical games, even in the research.

Hopefully in our future discussions, I can be better than that.

What do you think about my more detailed response, #94?

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Edited for better accuracy:

So, if you try an experiment and get mixed results, suggesting a potential great risk and reward for repeating the experiment, would you try it again?

In a heartbeat. If this is not sensible, then I am not sensible. But I think that almost always, the risk is worth the reward. At least we learn something deeper about reality and about our own nature.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The definitive study of this subject (in terms of citations, over 500), is Patterson, Child Development 63:5, 1025 (1992), and finds that, “to date … there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances.” This study addresses the results of other studies.

Hmm? Definitive? Here are just a few of Ms. Patterson’s credits…

In recognition of her research, teaching and service, Patterson has been the recipient of numerous awards. She won the Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award from APA’s Division 44 (the Society for Psychological Study of Lesbian and Gay Issues), she was given an Outstanding Achievement Award from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns, and she was awarded the Carolyn Attneave Diversity Award from APA’s Division 43 (Family Psychology) for contributions that advance the understanding and integration of diversity into family psychology. She has served as President of APA’s Division 44, and is a fellow of both APA (Divisions 7, 9, 43, and 44) and the Association for Psychological Science (APS).

SM:

In my opinion, all of these results so far, on either side, can be explained by statistical fluctuations, given the very small sample-size, and inability to correct well for extra variables. Anyway, what this means is that we can consider any publication before 1992 as having failed to provide good evidence of a difference in development.

In my opinion, the results are quite clearly in favor of heterosexual committed marriages as the best place for raising a child. Everything else is lacking in some way. That’s not to say that children raised outside of a committed heterosexual marriage are doomed to misery. Quite the contrary in many cases. But statistically speaking, marriage wins, hands down.
SM:

So we look at the articles after this point. Current research shows incest and abuse issues with gay couples to be either the result of problems with the data, or in the case of non-biological parenting, a risk that is not significantly higher than the same risk heterosexual non-biological parenting imposes on a child.

This is another argument in favor of heterosexual committed marriage as the best environment for raising children. If your point is that step-parents are more likely to engage in abuse, then you are implicitly agreeing with the argument against adoption to gay couples - which by definition will always include at least one non-related “parent.”
SM:

So the best conclusion I can reach is that I don’t want to make a conclusion. There’s no good evidence that gay couples provide a better or worse environment for children than straight couples at this time.

The evidence is there to support the Catholic position. The studies boil down to this: Statistically, the best place to raise a child is within a committed heterosexual marriage, where the parents are the natural parents of the child. I’m pretty certain that future studies will show all the more clearly that this is the case.

Peace,
Robert

 

[John21652]

Boring.

My motto:
When in doubt, do it again.

Maybe something different will happen the second time.

So, if you survive a death defying escapade, you’d do it again…to see if something different will happen?

Gee, that’s sensible.

Not.

Edited for better accuracy:

In a heartbeat. If this is not sensible, then I am not sensible. But I think that almost always, the risk is worth the reward. At least we learn something deeper about reality and about our own nature.

Note the difference between the two posts, supposedly both written by me.

Your “editing for better accuracy” involved totally changing what I wrote and then pretending that I wrote it.

That is not “editing for better accuracy”. It is total dishonesty. :dts:

Just imagine if University students totally “edited for better accuracy” the questions on their exam papers. No doubt the pass rate would go through the roof, but the levels of homour and honesty would have gone through the floor.

Because you can’t answer a question doesn’t mean you have the right to change it to suit yourself.

I take it the “editing for better accuracy” is a true reflection of your character?

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Well, Robert, I don’t know what else to add except that I disagree with your interpretation of the data. Maybe I do not understand it as well as you do, but from my understanding, I see nothing definitive either way.

The researchers who actually do the work seem to favor the idea that gay couples are just as healthy as straight couples, and this is borne out by the vast number of citations Patterson’s articles have received compared to articles supporting the other side.

But this isn’t an argument about who has the most researchers, citations, or even the best data at this time, because even the best data isn’t very good. Samples are poor; they are not well-controlled, and it is hard to know what to make of them.

Many more children are now being adopted to gay couples, and the number is likely to increase over the next decade. That means there will eventually be ample data. And when there is better data, I will make up my mind based on the simplest interpretation of that data.

Until that point, I cannot agree with you. I cannot disagree.

I can only say that I don’t know what will happen.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

John21652,

You can think what you like about my honesty. People can see your version of the question and mine.

Whatever you may think of my honesty, I’ll keep editing your questions until you learn to ask them correctly.

Change the way you ask questions, expect me to change the questions for you, or stop asking questions.

 

[John21652]

John21652,

You can think what you like about my honesty. People can see your version of the question and mine.

Whatever you may think of my honesty, I’ll keep editing your questions until you learn to ask them correctly.

Change the way you ask questions, expect me to change the questions for you, or stop asking questions.

You are admitting you can’t anser my questions.
And making it publicly obvious.
If they are too complicated for you, just say so and I’ll use little words for you.

Other than that, you alter any of my posts again and I’ll report you to the Mods in a blink.
Get over yourself

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Learn how to ask questions, and you’ll have nothing to worry about from me.

 

[John21652]

Learn how to ask questions, and you’ll have nothing to worry about from me.

Learn to put your grey matter to proper use and answer whatever questions are raised.
If you can’t, then just say so.

 

[michelleds]

John21652,

You can think what you like about my honesty. People can see your version of the question and mine.

Whatever you may think of my honesty, I’ll keep editing your questions until you learn to ask them correctly.

Change the way you ask questions, expect me to change the questions for you, or stop asking questions.

I would suggest that what you change is your label from agnostic to arrogant. It was a horrible breach of forum etiquette to do what you did. if you want to not answer the question posed and pose your own instead, at least be honest enough to do so without falsely attributing something to another poster.

Sheesh, where do these people come from?

John was very kind in saying that if you changed a post of his again he’d report you. I’ve already reported you for this breach.

 

[Gidras05]

‘StFrancis’ makes good points.

I would say I can see the argument, or at least parts thereof.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of sexual activity between same-gender partners, I don’t have a particular problem with two same-gender persons committing themselves to a legally recognised ‘monogamous’ relationship in that it doesn’t actually harm me in any way. Likewise, it is not harmful to me, or my family, if such a couple were to be allowed certain legal rights in respect of their partner - ie. in the case of hospitalisation, guaranteed visitation if gravely ill, automatic inheritance rights (rather than having to specifically codify them in a will, which of course anyone can do at any time), automatic tenancy inheritance, joint insurance cover, etc. It would codify in law that which two parties can pretty much do already, but more simply.

I do not like the description of such a civil arrangement as being a ‘marriage’ though. Quite rightly a marriage is the joining together of affectively AND sexually complementary parties for the purpose of creating a family. Two same-gender persons in a partnership do not create a family unit in the way opposite-gender couples do (at least potentially). They simply create a social unit. Give it a name if you must, but don’t call it ‘marriage’ since that is a concept that is fundamentally un-co-optable.

Everyone makes great points- but seriously this guy hits the nail on the head for me.

Also, if two same-gender persons are in a partnership and want to adopt, I think in some sense we should be aware that there’s a great chance that these two people are not Catholic (mainly because they are not living a Catholic lifestyle, at least under most circumstances), and as such will not be raising the adopted child in the Catholic faith. I mean, they MIGHT, but…

I hope you see the logic here. Catholics who are homosexual by nature (although this can be argued by some) are called to chastity. I understand that this may be difficult, but I doubt it’s even possible to remain “like siblings” in a committed relationship that is officially recognized by the government.

Overall, it could very well be detrimental to a Catholic society, although it might not necessarily be detrimental to a society in general. However, this is important because we are called to help save the souls of our brethren and sisters, and as such, should take this into consideration.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

This was one of the highlights of the thread for me as well.

Everyone makes great points- but seriously this guy hits the nail on the head for me.

Also, if two same-gender persons are in a partnership and want to adopt, I think in some sense we should be aware that there’s a great chance that these two people are not Catholic (mainly because they are not living a Catholic lifestyle, at least under most circumstances), and as such will not be raising the adopted child in the Catholic faith. I mean, they MIGHT, but…

I hope you see the logic here. Catholics who are homosexual by nature (although this can be argued by some) are called to chastity. I understand that this may be difficult, but I doubt it’s even possible to remain “like siblings” in a committed relationship that is officially recognized by the government.

Overall, it could very well be detrimental to a Catholic society, although it might not necessarily be detrimental to a society in general. However, this is important because we are called to help save the souls of our brethren and sisters, and as such, should take this into consideration.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

John was very kind in saying that if you changed a post of his again he’d report you. I’ve already reported you for this breach.

If he keeps asking bad questions, I’m sure he’ll get his chance.