Children Reared by 'Mom and Dad' Are Better Off Than Those in Same-Sex Couple Households

[Sparkythedog]

Originally Posted by sw85

OK, second attempt.

Thank you for taking the time to respond twice. I know how annoying that is when your thoughts, that you took the time to type out, vanish in a computer glitch.

I've read your post several times and it seems that your main concern is losing moral agency. By moral agency I'm going to assume that you mean "the ability to judge between right and wrong and take responsibility for that judgement". (If I'm not correct here please let me know)

You state that moral agency is diminished if the outcome is unknown, and I will agree with you to an extent. It is difficult to predict what effects a new technology or cultural change will have on our future society. I'm sure those who developed the internal combustion engine did not envision streets clogged with cars, accidents, urban sprawl, particulate pollution and global warming. And if they were still alive today I would not hold them accountable for not thinking of those things in advance. I would hold them accountable if they designed it poorly to save cost, knowing that cutting corners could cause injury to people. Evaluating consequences is a complicated process.

The "no win" scenarios that you describe with the police officer and the surgeon are overly simplified. The characters involved seem to exist in a vacuum and then are dropped into these situations without any foreknowledge of similar events, human empathy or cultural conditioning. We know what decisions they should make because we have prior experience with these scenarios.

We know from prior experience that the vigilante justice described in your first example is extremely error prone. What if the person the officer apprehended was the wrong guy. What if there is another aspect to his case that is unknown that would change his sentence. Killing people on the spot without a trial means that a lot of innocent people are going to die. We know this from our collective experience of prior consequences. We have decided, as a society, that we are uncomfortable with this kind of law. We want trials and courts (imperfect solutions in themselves but better) to decide with less bias the guilt or non-guilt of those charged with crimes. We know the consequences for these actions, as should a modern trained officer.

The same thing goes with the surgeon story. There have been times when cultural conditioning and lack of experience have led to stories like this happening. It tends to happen in societies based heavily on the idea of classes. It is easy to see a lower class as expendable. However we, as a group, have decided that we don't want this type of medicine. We can empathize and see ourselves in that horrible scenario of being put to sleep and killed for our organs. We know the consequences for these actions, as should a modern trained surgeon.

Evaluation of consequences is a messy thing. Very few outcomes are going to be 100% beneficial or harmful. But evaluating the consequences as best we can based on personal or collective experience is the only reasonable way to proceed.

Originally Posted by sw85

I can't explain to you why this is wrong because there is already a fundamental disconnect here. That's all. Sorry.

You don't want to state how you derive morality or evaluate it. You say that I just wouldn't understand, which, in turn, makes me think that you just can't back up your own beliefs. It's disingenuous to say there is a "fundamental disconnect" that you can cross but I cannot. Trust me, if you can do it, so can I.

It's neither here nor there, but you brought it up, so let me just state for the record that I am a methodological materialist not an ontological materialist.

I'm going to guess that if you don't weight the consequences, then you get your morality from an authority which, I'm again going to guess, would be the bible and tradition as interpreted by the Catholic Church. (Again, if I'm wrong please correct me)

In my opinion this is exactly the opposite of moral agency.

You have an authority saying that X action is bad. And your only moral obligation is to agree with the authority that X action is bad. If you disagree, then you are committing an immoral act. But how do you evaluate the action? How do you know that the authority is correct without weighing the consequences? This type of thinking strips you of your moral agency. You don't have to think about the consequences of your actions because you trust that someone has already done it for you. All you have to do is abide. This is a system that shelters the bigotry that drew me to this post in the first place.

If I have made a straw man of your convictions, I apologize in advance. But if you don't want that to happen in the future then have the courage to state them. (This isn't meant to sound too angry - just provocative )

[sw85]

Originally Posted by Sparkythedog

Thank you for taking the time to respond twice. I know how annoying that is when your thoughts, that you took the time to type out, vanish in a computer glitch.

I've read your post several times and it seems that your main concern is losing moral agency. By moral agency I'm going to assume that you mean "the ability to judge between right and wrong and take responsibility for that judgement". (If I'm not correct here please let me know)

Basically, yes, that sounds right.

Originally Posted by Sparkythedog

You state that moral agency is diminished if the outcome is unknown, and I will agree with you to an extent. It is difficult to predict what effects a new technology or cultural change will have on our future society. I'm sure those who developed the internal combustion engine did not envision streets clogged with cars, accidents, urban sprawl, particulate pollution and global warming. And if they were still alive today I would not hold them accountable for not thinking of those things in advance. I would hold them accountable if they designed it poorly to save cost, knowing that cutting corners could cause injury to people. Evaluating consequences is a complicated process.

The "no win" scenarios that you describe with the police officer and the surgeon are overly simplified. The characters involved seem to exist in a vacuum and then are dropped into these situations without any foreknowledge of similar events, human empathy or cultural conditioning. We know what decisions they should make because we have prior experience with these scenarios.

We know from prior experience that the vigilante justice described in your first example is extremely error prone. What if the person the officer apprehended was the wrong guy. What if there is another aspect to his case that is unknown that would change his sentence. Killing people on the spot without a trial means that a lot of innocent people are going to die. We know this from our collective experience of prior consequences. We have decided, as a society, that we are uncomfortable with this kind of law. We want trials and courts (imperfect solutions in themselves but better) to decide with less bias the guilt or non-guilt of those charged with crimes. We know the consequences for these actions, as should a modern trained officer.

This is what is called "rule consequentialism," which runs afoul of a different set of problems, outlined extensively by David Oderberg here.
To wit:

The rule consequentialist is generally right about the consequences of such a rule. But is he always right? Could there not be a society ordered by a system of rules that included rules allowing or requiring punishment of the innocent, torture of the innocent, oppression of minorities, slavery, theft, bribery, and so on? Haven’t such societies actually existed throughout history? But, says the rule consequentialist, value is never maximized in societies abiding by such systems. Yet how can he be so sure? On the one hand, he could say that the injustices in such societies are themselves so horrendous that no good consequences could outweigh them. But then the rule consequentialist would himself be operating with a non-consequentialist conception of what is good and bad: for that is just what the non-consequentialist holds, namely that certain acts are so wrong that no amount of good consequences can outweigh them.

On the other hand, the rule consequentialist could take such a society at face value: it could be a well ordered, highly stable society offering the best situation for the vast majority of its citizens, and as such the system of moral rules they obeyed would maximize value even though a minority of innocent people – maybe a tiny minority – were subject to the harshest, most unjust treatment imaginable, treated perhaps as nothing more than human cattle by the majority. Now such societies are clearly realistic, very arguably historical, and at least easily conceivable. This is why some rule consequentialists insist that you have to build into rule consequentialism extra principles protecting, say, liberty, or fairness, or justice. To do so, in my view, is to give the game away: it is effectively to abandon consequentialism. Furthermore it is ad hoc. Why stop at justice or liberty? Why not introduce many more non-consequentialist rules, rules against certain kinds of action that, if performed, might nevertheless maximize value?

Originally Posted by Sparkythedog

The same thing goes with the surgeon story. There have been times when cultural conditioning and lack of experience have led to stories like this happening. It tends to happen in societies based heavily on the idea of classes. It is easy to see a lower class as expendable. However we, as a group, have decided that we don't want this type of medicine.

The question, though, is why? Why have we reached this determination? Unless you're prepared to argue that it's an arbitrary assertion of will you must acknowledge we are reaching for some higher moral principle than mere value-maximization. And unless you are prepared to argue that group consensus is absolutely binding and ironclad, one has to wonder why we would react with such visceral horror to the idea of this murderous doctor, whose primary sin, under a consequentialist framework, would, after all, be simply that he violated an arbitrary social arrangement.

Again, the problem here is that consequentialism doesn't explain our moral intuitions, and that's exactly what an ethical system is supposed to: not only to explain it but to extrapolate broader principles to apply in grayer areas. In this case, it leaves you in the awkward position of believing that our prohibition on doctors murdering patients for instrumental reasons is just an arbitrary social construct that in no way corresponds to a real and objective sense of moral evil.

Originally Posted by Sparkythedog

We can empathize and see ourselves in that horrible scenario of being put to sleep and killed for our organs. We know the consequences for these actions, as should a modern trained surgeon.

And we don't want it to happen to us, yes. But why? Consequentialism tells us this would be a good thing. But clearly, it wouldn't be; we instinctively recognize it as a revolting course of action. So clearly consequentialism lacks explanatory value in terms of our moral intuitions.

Originally Posted by Sparkythedog

You don't want to state how you derive morality or evaluate it. You say that I just wouldn't understand, which, in turn, makes me think that you just can't back up your own beliefs. It's disingenuous to say there is a "fundamental disconnect" that you can cross but I cannot. Trust me, if you can do it, so can I.

My purpose here is polemical, not apologetical. There's a reason for that. I'm a natural law ethicist. Natural law ethics is a tradition that goes back 2,500 years and has lots of supporting distinctions and nuances. I can't possibly do it justice in a single forum post. I'm working on a book on the topic, for Heaven's sake.

I recently posted a list of references for interested readers earlier here. These include some readings by Ed Feser and David Oderberg. If you're genuinely interested in learning more, I encourage you to check them out and PM me with questions.

[cathoichelp]

You have taken all this philosophy and never heard of Michael Sandal huh? Interesting! I was not really meaning to accuse you of plagiarism -- I was more suggesting that if your examples were coming from Sandal you should mention it. But apparently where you learn moral reasoning one of the most influential modern philosophers is not discussed??
here you go ....
I have not played this entire lecture I am working .. but I believe your examples are in here...
http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/03/episode-01/#watch

And then you also quoted H. J. McCloskey--without giving credit.
with the Sheriff example ....

You have given their direct examples of Utility and not heard of them.. that is odd-

Gays being parents would fall under the principal of utility if the action caused more harm or more good to society or even the person(s) involved ...
What studies show is the effects are neutral .. there are of course differences and different challenges for children who are adopted -- in ANY family --

Another words there is no way to apply the principal of utility unless you can prove it is benefiting society -
or not benefiting society
And your only argument is it goes against my religion -- which I do understand you completely believe to be the only truth ....

so --

In order for what you are saying to be correct no one but Catholics should have children. Because you are saying that unless "gods law" is taught and upheld in a home it is damaging ....
So any other person, other than a Catholic Family or one teaching such ethics to children, would, according to you, only be having children based on Utilitarian ethics--which gives us at least one point we can agree on .... utilitarianism is problematic -

[sw85]

Originally Posted by cathoichelp

You have taken all this philosophy and never heard of Michael Sandal huh? Interesting! I was not really meaning to accuse you of plagiarism -- I was more suggesting that if your examples were coming from Sandal you should mention it. But apparently where you learn moral reasoning one of the most influential modern philosophers is not discussed??
here you go ....
I have not played this entire lecture I am working .. but I believe your examples are in here...
http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/03/episode-01/#watch

And then you also quoted H. J. McCloskey--without giving credit.
with the Sheriff example ....

I have been reading/studying/writing about philosophy for the better part of a decade now, when I first picked up Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals at a used bookstore for $1.25 when I was 17 or so. It is very possible I have come across these sorts of examples before and simply don't remember when/where (though, again, neither the names Sandal or McCloskey ring any bells for me). If not, well, they are intuitively very useful examples, so it's hardly impossible that they occurred to two or more people at different times with no contact with one another.

Originally Posted by cathoichelp

Gays being parents would fall under the principal of utility if the action caused more harm or more good to society or even the person(s) involved ...
What studies show is the effects are neutral .. there are of course differences and different challenges for children who are adopted -- in ANY family --

What I am saying is that the argument that material indicators alone justifies claims re: the moral goodness of homosexual parenting is itself a utilitarian argument. I'm rejecting this claim. There are higher goods than health and prosperity.

Originally Posted by cathoichelp

In order for what you are saying to be correct no one but Catholics should have children. Because you are saying that unless "gods law" is taught and upheld in a home it is damaging ....

To be clear, I'm talking about natural law here, not divine positive law. But yes, I agree it is in fact very damaging for children not to be raised in such a manner that their sensibilities are trained toward obedience to the good. But it's also irrelevant to the immediate discussion.

Originally Posted by cathoichelp

So any other person, other than a Catholic Family or one teaching such ethics to children, would, according to you, only be having children based on Utilitarian ethics--which gives us at least one point we can agree on .... utilitarianism is problematic -

Surely you can see why a Catholic would think non-Catholic families are disadvantaged in the quest for salvation?

[He Man]

Originally Posted by Gorillaman

Yeah I agree with you...that's a good point. How long have same sex couples been around? Like in retro spect don't you think it's like comparing a little kid to an old man? Same sex households have only been around for a blink of an eye compared to hetero...

Does secular evidence matter when God has already spoken? I don't care if you could produce a survery taken of 6 Billion people with 100% certainty showing that same-sex households produce "better" children, I'd say the same thing - not according to the Lord and the Holy Father.

That's all we should care about when forming our personal beliefs as Catholics. This sort of study is nice for non-believers who refuse to submit to the will of God.

[He Man]

Originally Posted by AndreaG1979

Yay lying with statistics to bash gay people!

Come on, of course in tact families fare better than divided families that have gone through a lot of upheaval. That's true for heterosexually reared kids as well.

To me, what this study shows is the danger of trying to pretend to be something you're not (straight). To try and live a false life will likely crumble, at great detriment to yourself and your family. Better to be who you are from the start, rather than setting yourself and your family up for great strife.

Thank you for posting this. It has made me even more convinced how important it is to make homosexuals feel accepted in our society so they don't feel the need to "fake it" and harm their children by doing so.

This is true, assuming you place the "happiness" of the parents above what is best for the children.

If you place the child's welfare first, then that becomes you driving premise in looking at these sort of studies, and renders the happiness of the parents moot.

[cathoichelp]

Originally Posted by sw85

I have been reading/studying/writing about philosophy for the better part of a decade now, when I first picked up Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals at a used bookstore for $1.25 when I was 17 or so. It is very possible I have come across these sorts of examples before and simply don't remember when/where (though, again, neither the names Sandal or McCloskey ring any bells for me). If not, well, they are intuitively very useful examples, so it's hardly impossible that they occurred to two or more people at different times with no contact with one another.

Those are pretty big names to not remember ....regardless my apologies I would not want to accuse anyone of something .. I found it odd you were pulling out examples from very well known individuals and not citing them .... you would not find any of this in Metaphysics of Morals hahahahaha.... McCloskey's famous Sheriff example that you quoted - i believe was in the 1960s .... Unless Kant was also omnipresent lol /
What I am saying is that the argument that material indicators alone justifies claims re: the moral goodness of homosexual parenting is itself a utilitarian argument. I'm rejecting this claim. There are higher goods than health and prosperity.

No this is not being said .. what is being said is there is no harm -- the only harm you site is your religious view--and again I know you believe it is the only truth--But many many people believe the only truth is something entirely different.

To be clear, I'm talking about natural law here, not divine positive law. But yes, I agree it is in fact very damaging for children not to be raised in such a manner that their sensibilities are trained toward obedience to the good. But it's also irrelevant to the immediate discussion.

so you are not arguing against gay parenting as much as secular parenting? lol


Surely you can see why a Catholic would think non-Catholic families are disadvantaged in the quest for salvation?

Not according to the teachings of your church --- in which you could not possibly know the intent - or culpability or chance for salvation of any other person. Especially since you can't really be guilty of violating "moral law"or committing mortal sins without having an understanding of them. So a child who was never taught any of this -- has no less of a chance for salvation than you --

[Sparkythedog]

Originally Posted by sw85

My purpose here is polemical, not apologetical. There's a reason for that. I'm a natural law ethicist. Natural law ethics is a tradition that goes back 2,500 years and has lots of supporting distinctions and nuances. I can't possibly do it justice in a single forum post. I'm working on a book on the topic, for Heaven's sake.

I recently posted a list of references for interested readers earlier here. These include some readings by Ed Feser and David Oderberg. If you're genuinely interested in learning more, I encourage you to check them out and PM me with questions.

I'll read Feser's essay and get back to you in a few days.

[Bradski]

Originally Posted by Sparkythedog

You have an authority saying that X action is bad. And your only moral obligation is to agree with the authority that X action is bad. If you disagree, then you are committing an immoral act. But how do you evaluate the action? How do you know that the authority is correct without weighing the consequences? This type of thinking strips you of your moral agency. You don't have to think about the consequences of your actions because you trust that someone has already done it for you. All you have to do is abide.

This just about cuts to the core of the discussion.

The Church says that homosexuality is wrong. Is it possible for a Catholic to consider this question and decide whether it is correct or not (and remain a Catholic)? Are you allowed to question it? If not then any arguments you use in support of the premise are based on what has already been decided by others as opposed to what you have come to believe yourself.

My position on homosexuality has changed. I have listened to all sides of the debate and have met with and talked to homosexuals. I have family members and friends who are gay whereas before I didn’t know any. I found that the arguments against homosexuality were based on lack of knowledge, fear, homophobia and religious beliefs.

Now I have more knowledge, I realise I have no need to fear it, I am no longer homophobic and I am not constrained by any particular religious beliefs. I can now admit that I was wrong. It can be quite humbling to do so, but also quite liberating. A lot of Catholics are in the process of doing the same thing – admitting that what they believed, or what the church was telling them what they needed to believe, was wrong. Does that mean they’re no longer Catholic? That’s not for me to say.

But you don’t become a member of the faith by ticking a certain number of boxes to be allowed in. You don’t get to choose which Catholic beliefs you can skip. If you’re a true Catholic, then you must argue against homosexuality. Whether you would have come to that belief yourself or not.

[fix]

Originally Posted by Bradski

This just about cuts to the core of the discussion.

The Church says that homosexuality is wrong. Is it possible for a Catholic to consider this question and decide whether it is correct or not (and remain a Catholic)? Are you allowed to question it? If not then any arguments you use in support of the premise are based on what has already been decided by others as opposed to what you have come to believe yourself.

My position on homosexuality has changed. I have listened to all sides of the debate and have met with and talked to homosexuals. I have family members and friends who are gay whereas before I didn’t know any. I found that the arguments against homosexuality were based on lack of knowledge, fear, homophobia and religious beliefs.

Now I have more knowledge, I realise I have no need to fear it, I am no longer homophobic and I am not constrained by any particular religious beliefs. I can now admit that I was wrong. It can be quite humbling to do so, but also quite liberating. A lot of Catholics are in the process of doing the same thing – admitting that what they believed, or what the church was telling them what they needed to believe, was wrong. Does that mean they’re no longer Catholic? That’s not for me to say.

But you don’t become a member of the faith by ticking a certain number of boxes to be allowed in. You don’t get to choose which Catholic beliefs you can skip. If you’re a true Catholic, then you must argue against homosexuality. Whether you would have come to that belief yourself or not.

Why is your position correct?

[Bradski]

Originally Posted by fix

Why is your position correct?

Why is it correct? Well, I think that I’m right. I’ve been prepared to talk to as many people, to read and listen to as many views on the matter and to take on the thoughts and considerations of people I think are worth listening to (on both sides of the debate).

I’ve thought about it for many years and I’ve come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality or gay marriage. I may be wrong. I may be wrong about lots of things. But I’m the one that has to make the decision. I’m the one that has to live with my conscience. God forbid that I should let someone else make those decisions for me.

How about you? Is it a personal decision?