Why the fuss?

[EasterJoy]

So, are you saying that same sex relations should be illegal too?

Does it ever occur to you that, whether you like it or not, (AFAIK anyway) the US isn’t and has never been a theocracy?

Ah, yes…suggest that society might decide what is and is not deemed to be moral personal behavior, and all of sudden we’re asking for a theocracy!

An awareness that God exists is not a necessary prerequisite for a societal moral code.

 

[kategarbino]

Franken shows that nuclear families which are defined as two parent families without regard for those parents sexuality are more beneficial for a child than single parent families.

Hello!

May if you can give me the link for this study? I’d like to see it and would like to understand its context.

And since you’d like to post links on youtube, here are some that talks about why two parents of the same sex are harmful to the child:

youtu.be/0UJ1ekB–Fo
drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html

Thanks and God Bless.

 

[EasterJoy]

Nothing unnatural about the love this boy feels from both of his moms. heck, they raised an eagle scout, how is that bad for society?

youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

I don’t buy the argument that it is natural for a mother to care nothing about whether her sons and daughters grow up in the same house with their dad. I don’t think it is natural for a child not to care, either. I don’t think that showing it doesn’t hurt the children’s SAT scores or how many merit badges they can earn changes that.

I keep hearing that gay marriage meets the need of raising children who don’t have parents. Yet we all know that gay couples do not confine themselves to raising orphans. Rather, they look outside their same-sex relationship to find someone who will give them the biological means to have their own biological child. It will be the enshrinement of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, arranged to meet the satisfaction of the parents.

If gay marriage is institutionalized, the practice of purposefully raising children away from at least one of their biological parents, parents who are neither dead nor unfit, is going to be institutionalized right along with it.

This is becoming increasingly accepted, both inside the gay movement and among singles who don’t care to be tied to a marriage partner. Children are becoming a commodity, not people who are loved regardless of how they were conceived, but rather people who were brought into being in order to fulfill the desires of adults. It takes neither a bigot nor a theocrat to see something wrong with that.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Nothing unnatural about the love this boy feels from both of his moms. heck, they raised an eagle scout, how is that bad for society?

youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

Useful presentation with emotional appeal, but anecdotal at best. Do you have longitudinal studies that can pass scrutiny, i.e., sampling requirements, source of funding, unbiased design / presentation, meaning not beholden or connected to LGBT organizations or influential homosexual activists?
,

 

[EasterJoy]

Useful presentation with emotional appeal, but anecdotal at best. Do you have longitudinal studies that can pass scrutiny, i.e., sampling requirements, source of funding, unbiased design / presentation, meaning not beholden or connected to LGBT organizations or influential homosexual activists?
,

I don’t care how they run it…Why would I care what their “study” shows? If someone did a study showing that kids scored better in academic, social, and psychogical testing if they were taken away from their mothers and/or fathers from birth, I still wouldn’t go for it. Yet this is what people do when they hire surrogate mothers. This is what people do when they use sperm donors. When the ends do not justify the means, why should some study showing “as good an outcome” or even a “better outcome” make a difference?

 

[Bezant]

You’re ignoring the fact that violating the moral standards of God have negative ramifications for our society. The idea that marraige is not a sacred institution to be guarded has led to a massive divorce rate, as well as a ridiculous number of children being born out of wedlock.

In turn, we must note that these children are VASTLY more likely to be poor, commit crimes, and have children out of wedlock themselves… in other words, the death of marraige as a sacred and vital institution in our culture is feeding a cycle of degeneration because Christian morality is not just about what God wants, but about what is good for us (both as individuals and as society).

So we’re going to have homosexual “marraiges” (civil shams that are somehow given secular-moral equivalancy with sacred marraiges), more children raised without the balance of a mother/father, and more degeneration of the absolute NEED of a society for a strong family structure which produces well rounded children.

It’s not that homosexuality alone is the gunshot that’s going to kill traditional marraige: it’s that it’s just another nail in the coffin of our culture due to the degeneration of the traditional values and sacred institutions that made us strong to begin with.

In that case, maybe there oughtn’t be a civil marriage at all. How can we properly perserve the integrity of marriage’s sanctity where God’s not in the picture?

 

[Bezant]

No its a fact according to the study done in the video i posted.

Very few things are facts.

 

[Bezant]

If gay marriage is institutionalized, the practice of purposefully raising children away from at least one of their biological parents, parents who are neither dead nor unfit, is going to be institutionalized right along with it.

Good observation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t care how they run it…Why would I care what their “study” shows? If someone did a study showing that kids scored better in academic, social, and psychogical testing if they were taken away from their mothers and/or fathers from birth, I still wouldn’t go for it. Yet this is what people do when they hire surrogate mothers. This is what people do when they use sperm donors. When the ends do not justify the means, why should some study showing “as good an outcome” or even a “better outcome” make a difference?

No disagreement from me! (although I am reasonably sure that InSearchofGrace agrees with you as well; she was probably challenging the “study” aspect of that post. )

Or, to paraphrase some other posters who have previously discussed this topic with simple wisdom: long live common sense!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

EasterJoy;8146325:

I don’t care how they run it…Why would I care what their “study” shows? …

:thumbsup:No disagreement from me! (although I am reasonably sure that InSearchofGrace agrees with you as well; she was probably challenging the “study” aspect of that post. )

Or, to paraphrase some other posters who have previously discussed this topic with simple wisdom: long live common sense!

Elizabeth correctly read the direction where my post was going. The challenge I posed to Birdpreacher is not to read an excuse to accept same sex ‘marriage,’ adoption or ‘parenting,’ but to challenge if (s)he can even give any worthwhile independent, agenda-free evidence that placement with same sex adoptive parents have been generally proven to be in the interest of children. I have yet to come across such a study.

For the pro-traditional family side to win the debate, to claim back true marriage and the best family structure for society, the faulty and selfish reasoning of the pro-gay cause crowd need to be exposed, no matter if or especially when the advocate is wearing the Catholic label. What better way to sow confusion?

Homosexualists are good at packaging their causes, utilizing what biased professionals, the free market and open legal system offer, to come up with what passes as research, study or proof.

Nothing unnatural about the love this boy feels from both of his moms. heck, they raised an eagle scout, how is that bad for society?

youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

You offer the testimony of Zach Wahls to the Iowa House of Representatives as ‘proof’ that homosexual ‘parenting’ can’t be bad. Zach Wahls testified that he and his sister came from the same anonymous sperm donor and “it was cool.”

Let me ask you this: should we transform society based on Zach’s subjective experience?

I suggest you read this.

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

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

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

The Other Duke Case (Little Boy Blue Devil)
*
The story should speak for itself as well, should it not. EasterJoy is right. This is what happens when children become a commodity. Something is very wrong when having a family by donation of a gamete, womb for hire, or adoption, is about filling adult desires, instead of about children.
,

 

[EasterJoy]

This is what happens when children become a commodity. Something is very wrong when having a family by donation of a gamete, womb for hire, or adoption, is about filling adult desires, instead of about children.

Yep. Just so long as one can find numbers that argue that the kid will “turn out OK” by some measurement, then depriving them of a living parent becomes OK.

If you can defend the ends, then the means become automatically moral, and whoever doesn’t like it is a rabid advocate of “theocracy”.

“Lunocracy”…“Nutocracy”…“Rule of fools”…any of those in the lexicon yet?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Post 30:
Eloquent, ISOG. Nothing short of eloquent.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Better two parents than one. There really is no argument other than its against the bible an all 'hell will break lose.- Talk about passing the buck. I am pretty sure ALCOHOL ends more marriages than homosexual influences.

Link to Al Franken dropping some knowledge on conservative in DOMA hearing:
thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/07/20/274032/franken-destoys-focus-on-the-family-witness-exposes-misuse-of-hhs-study/

No its a fact according to the study done in the video i posted.

Look at video in my previous post. It shows a congressional hearing going over a report that homosexual families are more beneficial to society than single parent families. Go on look,

The news video link, all of 2 minutes 19 seconds, you provided was reported with the heading ‘Al Franken Destroys Focus on the Family Winess,’ as titled by the site ThinkProgress LGBT. A sensationalized caption could not hurt, right? Especially by an organization which would not be ashamed of putting such spin. Btw, it was a senate not a congressional hearing. You’ll have to pardon many in this forum who would not agree that homosexual families are beneficial to society, nor would they share your glee that is unmistakable in your posting about the senate moving this country to a direction it would not want to go at the bidding of the President and a minority interest that is harmful to the majority.

Your link is a snip from the U.S. Senate Judiciary hearing, held today Wednesday, July 20, 2011, which focused on repealing DOMA. To no one’s surprise, it was convened by the Democrats, with a President who strategically announced a day before that he was for the repeal of DOMA.

To set the record straight and so that posters following this thread know the full context, I have provided the news link on said Senate hearing: Senate Hearing Focuses on Repealing Marriage Law citizenlink.com/2011/07/20/senate-hearing-focuses-on-repealing-marriage-law/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Citizenlink+%28CitizenLink%29.

*Although the witness panels were stacked in opposition to DOMA, a few supporters of marriage were able to testify. Focus on the Family Senior Vice President Tom Minnery faced hostile senators on the committee.

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., attempted to corner Minnery with a narrow question and would not allow him to complete his answer – finally insisting on either a “Yes” or “No.”

Leahy: “If you have parents legally married under the laws of the state. One set of parents are entitled to certain financial benefits for their children. The other set of parents are denied those same financial benefits for their children. Are not those children – at least in that aspect of finances – children of the second family, are they not at a disadvantage, yes or no?”

Minnery: “That would be “Yes,” as you have asked the question narrowly, senator.”

Leahy: “Yes, and I was asking narrowly.”

Later, Minnery said that if he had been allowed to answer fully, he would have told the committee: “There are any number of domestic situations that put children at a relative financial advantage. Those circumstances should not be manipulated to redefine marriage.”

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., focused on Minnery’s written testimony, targeting one of more than 60 academic citations concerning the positive impact when children have a married mother and father in the home. Franken said he interprets one study’s definition of “nuclear family” as one that would include same-sex married couples with children.

Minnery replied after the hearing, “A careful reading of the study gives no indication that same-sex couples were included; it’s simply silent on the subject. Based on the actual text of the report, a realistic assessment is that silence means absence. This study is one small part the mountain of solid data that demonstrates kids do best with a married mother and father.”*

For those interested, at the bottom of the news article, there is a link to the whole 173 minute Senate hearing. Mr. Minnery’s testimony is at 62:00 minutes for five minutes. Mr. Franken’s interrogation is at 109 minutes for 2 minutes 19 seconds.

The OP asks, why the fuss? The future of the American family and the welfare of America’s future children are at stake. That’s why.
,

 

[belorg]

Ah, yes…suggest that society might decide what is and is not deemed to be moral personal behavior, and all of sudden we’re asking for a theocracy!

An awareness that God exists is not a necessary prerequisite for a societal moral code.

Never said that it was.Let pme just remind me what I was replying to

It’s not just the “civil union” aspect. It is the fact that in granting civil unions to homosexuals, society is encouraging homsexual activity, which is gravely sinful, not just in the Catholic Church, but in any Christian religion that adheres to Sacred Scripture.

Granting these same-sex unions is inviting people with a same-sex attraction to engage in an act that can lead them into Hell. That’s what the fuss is about.

ahs

This type of thing, IMHO, can only be said by someone who likes a theocracy.

 

[John21652]

Better two parents than one. There really is no argument other than its against the bible an all 'hell will break lose.- Talk about passing the buck. I am pretty sure ALCOHOL ends more marriages than homosexual influences.

Link to Al Franken dropping some knowledge on conservative in DOMA hearing:
thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/07/20/274032/franken-destoys-focus-on-the-family-witness-exposes-misuse-of-hhs-study/

All that was done in the link you gave was the notion of “nuclear family” was redefined by the Democrat you seem to think did a hatchet job on the “conservative”. I’d say you have attempted to carry out the same slight of hand you would have us believe was carried out by the “conservative”.

It is also another slight of hand to link the supposed causes of marriahe failure to a debate on homosexuality. Then again, I suppose someone who doesn’t value a common morality will just use the excuses for marriage failures as a trojan horse for arguing for the erosion of even more moral standards and values. Maybe as a Catholic you should try a little harder to support that morality and you certainly should know that there is a lot more to the argument than the immature “…its against the bible an all 'hell will break lose…” line.

 

[ahs]

This type of thing, IMHO, can only be said by someone who likes a theocracy.

No, that type of thing was said by someone who loves every person and recognizes that we all called to holiness. It was said by a person who fears for the souls of persons who obstinately engage in sin because that person realizes the reality of the end of life:

1 - We will all die someday
2 - We will be judged
3 - We will EITHER go to Heaven (with cleansing/purging first)
4 - OR be cast into Hell

To say to my same-sex-attracted friends that I support their legal right to marriage is to tell them I support the homosexual lifestyle…a lifestyle condemned by God…which could cause them the loss of eternal life in Heaven. I prefer to encourage them to seek happiness in chaste living, in finding happiness in ways that do not endanger their immortal souls…because I love them…not because of this “theocracy” idea that you have.

You can put whatever label you want on that.

God love you,
ahs

 

[InSearchofGrace]

All that was done in the link you gave was the notion of “nuclear family” was redefined by the Democrat you seem to think did a hatchet job on the “conservative”. I’d say you have attempted to carry out the same slight of hand you would have us believe was carried out by the “conservative”.

It is also another slight of hand to link the supposed causes of marriahe failure to a debate on homosexuality. Then again, I suppose someone who doesn’t value a common morality will just use the excuses for marriage failures as a trojan horse for arguing for the erosion of even more moral standards and values. Maybe as a Catholic you should try a little harder to support that morality and you certainly should know that there is a lot more to the argument than the immature “…its against the bible an all 'hell will break lose…” line.

Big deal, eh, the slicing of the word ‘nuclear family’? The senator from Minnesota should not feel that he is expressing the will of the people or what’s good for the people, nor can Birdpreacher conclude that the ‘putdown’ on the witness is something to crow about.

Until some homosexualist changes it, even wiki currently has the following for a meaning:

*A nuclear family is defined as a family group consisting of a father and mother and their children, all exclusively sharing living quarters. This is in contrast to the smaller single-parent family, and to the larger extended family. Nuclear families may have any number of children. There are slight differences in definition among observers; some definitions allow only biological children that are full-blood siblings, while others allow for a stepparent and any mix of dependent children including stepchildren and adopted children.

Merriam-Webster dates the term back to 1947, whilst the Oxford English Dictionary has a reference to the term from 1924; thus it is relatively new, although nuclear family structures themselves date back thousands of years. The term nuclear is used in its general meaning referring to a central entity or “nucleus” around which others collect.

In its most common usage, the term nuclear family refers to a household consisting of a father, a mother and their children all in one household dwelling. George Murdock, an early and influential observer of families, describes the term in this way:

The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It contains adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults.

Many individuals are part of two nuclear families in their lives: the family of origin in which they are offspring, and the family of procreation in which they are a parent.*

Nowhere does the meaning have it that the nuclear family is a family unit of two same-sex parents and children with whom one or both do not have a biological connection, or of two same-sex parents who happen to be successful in adopting children! So, Mr. Franken and the gay crowd now think they can re-define the nuclear family, like marriage has already been re-defined in their world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W.H._Shumard_family,_circa_1955.jpg

 

[promethius]

In that case, maybe there oughtn’t be a civil marriage at all. How can we properly perserve the integrity of marriage’s sanctity where God’s not in the picture?

Actually, you’re quite correct. I’m entirely against the idea of state marraiges precisely because legal recognition of marraige came about as a means of taxation in England. When America was formed, it sought to do away with state establishment of religion, but it never did away with one key thing: that the state was now embroiled in legally recognizing what throughout history was always a religious rite (not just christian, but religious all the same). As such, state marraige is a violation of the US Constitution insofar as it sets a legally recognized sacramental bond.

I’d be quite happy if the state only handed out legal recognition of “civil unions” for couples, who could then take this legal recognition of a non-sacramental bond to any church they like to get married (sacramentally).

 

[michelleds]

The US supreme court has always found that parents have constitutionally protected libery and right to the custody and control of their children, the right to rear his or her children without state interference. This is a fundamental liberty intereste protected by the 14th amendment. there must be “severe harm” in order to justify the state’s interference with the parent’s right.

Let’s say Harry and Sally are married and have 2 children. They get a divorce. Sally is opposed to her children being exposed to Harry’s same sex partner(s). She is not saying that he can’t have visitation, but she doesn’t want the gay partner at the home when her children are. now that same sex unions are being recognized in some states, that request can now be denied on the same grounds that those requests are denied when an ex-spouse re-marries.

Now you have two competing (allegedly) Constitutional arguments. the fundamental right of a parent to decide how to raise his/her children vs the homosexual rights being created.

[in the middle part of the country, I have seen family law cases where the court entered orders that a boyfriend/girlfriend was not to be engaged in visitations or custody arrangements due to allegations of unsuitability; once a marriage takes place tho, those orders are nearly impossible to get without some overt harmful behavior]

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ A powerful and rational, moderated argument, Michelle. It’s the kind of intellectual clarity that I wish the supporters of Prop 8 had brought to the bench during their case, but unfortunately I think the choice of counsel & argument got sidetracked due to a combination of poor judgment, underestimating the opposition, and over-confidence.

Too bad you hadn’t submitted an amicus brief.