Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > In The News > World News
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old Jul 4, '12, 1:38 am
_Abyssinia _Abyssinia is offline
Veteran Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: May 20, 2011
Posts: 16,384
Religion: Catholic. Gender: Female
Default Re: My Three Daddies: California Eyes Multiple Parenting Law

Quote:
Originally Posted by OxygenMan View Post
I didn't meant it as a fallacy. I was genuine in what I said. Apologies if I failed to convey that. I have a history of using a poor choice of words.
Okay, I was not replying to you
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Jul 4, '12, 8:06 am
JonNC JonNC is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: December 15, 2007
Posts: 17,780
Religion: Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
Default Re: My Three Daddies: California Eyes Multiple Parenting Law

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance View Post
No. They're paving the way for polygamy, the arguements of which are going to exactly mimic the arguements of SSM.
If the state changes the definition of marriage for SSM, there is absolutely no justification any longer for prohibiting polygamy. One more reason for government to get out of the marriage business, as it ought to do under the progressives' definition of the 1st amendment - line of separation of Church and state.

Jon
__________________
“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’
"The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. "
Chemnitz
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Jul 4, '12, 8:31 am
eternalrest eternalrest is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 27, 2012
Posts: 313
Default Re: My Three Daddies: California Eyes Multiple Parenting Law

Quote:
Originally Posted by meltzerboy View Post
The change in the structure of the family unit is not only the result of gay unions and marriages, but, a long time before that, divorce and remarriage.
M. V. Lee Badgett wrote: "When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Gay Marriage": She was the inner of the 2010 Distinguished Book Award from the American Psychological Association's 44th Division (the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues). An excerpt from this book:In fact, high levels of tolerance and cohabitation appear to be "necessary" conditions for country-level change..... The most surprising finding is the apparent link between cohabitation by heterosexual couples and the legal recognition of gay couples. Perhaps those new heterosexual families constitute a political bloc pushing for change. The same country to legalize gay marriage, legalize abortion, and legalize no-fault divorce was Russia in 1917. Carrie Lukas, vice president and director of policy Independent Women's Forum, has stated that "no fault divorce... makes the marriage contract effectively no contract at all". The issue of gay unions/marriages is not separate from the issue of divorce, remarriage, and cohabitation.

Dawn Stefanowicz wrote "Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting" in 2007, a book about her experiences growing up as a child in the GLBT world.
Quote:
Stefanowicz: Many support it. Over 50 adult children raised in same-sex households contacted me, identifying with my experiences. Men in the gay lifestyle wrote to me looking for answers. How can I leave the gay community, they ask, without the family and broader community support I need? They are looking for love, compassion, and help. I tell them they don’t have to walk down the same road my father did.

These men also say that they never thought about anyone else when they were sexually involved with other men. They didn’t see their choices as hurting others. They were just enjoying the pleasure, and ignoring the consequences.
This statement "enjoying the pleasure and ignoring the consequences" encapsulates the approach to marriage of both those who see no problems with cohabitation, gay marriage, and normalization of divorce/remarriage. http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...-umbrella.aspx

Last edited by eternalrest; Jul 4, '12 at 8:44 am.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Jul 4, '12, 8:33 am
eternalrest eternalrest is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 27, 2012
Posts: 313
Default Re: My Three Daddies: California Eyes Multiple Parenting Law

Quote:
This law involves biological and adoptive parents as well as gay couples, and I think it is ultimately in the best interest of the children involved, as Sen. Mark Leno affirms. Why shouldn't children benefit from the psychological and materialistic support from all the parents who make up their family? After all, children become emotionally attached to both their biological and adoptive parents regardless of whether the parents are heterosexual or homosexual. The Focus on the Family group makes it seem as if this proposal is designed for the sole protection of the parents rather than, at the same time, the protection of the children. Moreover, the organization insinuates that people are intentionally going to form "radical families" due to the legal rights offered by the proposal.
Could you please explain how this law benefits well functioning biological parents or encourages biological parents to be responsible towards their children?

Children have a much higher likelihood of being sexually abused by adoptive parents and step-fathers than natural families. In some cases that are outside the norm due to dsyfunctional biological families, children potentially benefit more from non-biological families. Because these cases are an aberration and not the rule, law should be designed specifically to apply to these cases and not to all families. Since we already have laws relating to these issues, i.e. guardianship, it seems possible that the purpose of this law relates not so much to the protection of children but to growing societal approval. The law is sponsored by two groups, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the University of San Diego School of Law Children's Advocacy Institute, which despite its name, focuses almost solely on foster-care families and not the rights of ALL children. It does not look like any groups that focus predominantly on strengthening and making more healthy the nuclear family, which is under attack in America and its decline has been blamed for the woes of society by both conservatives, Charles Murray, and liberals, such as Nicholas Kristof support the law.

Last edited by eternalrest; Jul 4, '12 at 8:52 am.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Jul 4, '12, 8:47 am
eternalrest eternalrest is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 27, 2012
Posts: 313
Default Re: My Three Daddies: California Eyes Multiple Parenting Law

Quote:
I think what they're really concerned about is that the proposal is morally sanctioning non-traditional families whom they do not approve of by granting them legal rights. However, non-traditional families have been a presence in children's lives for quite a while, and this proposal may serve to help them better cope with the reality of their family situation. Face it, we're not returning to the 1950's anytime soon.
Why should people NOT be concerned about the growing normalization of dysfunctional families in our society? According to the government, 84% of prison inmates were abused as children. More than 80 percent of abusers are a parent or someone close to a child. We could decrease the number of prisons and reduce the number of homeless people by caring more about *children." The Asian community was recently surveyed about their opinions on America. Respondents rated their country of origin as being superior on just one of seven measures tested in the survey: strength of family ties....Their newborns are less likely than all U.S. newborns to have an unmarried mother (16% vs. 41%); and their children are more likely than all U.S. children to be raised in a household with two married parents (80% vs. 63%). No need to go back to the 1950s to have healthy traditional families. The number of children born to an unmarried mother for all Americans should look closer to 16% and farther away from 41%.

Last edited by eternalrest; Jul 4, '12 at 9:04 am.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old Jul 5, '12, 4:14 pm
meltzerboy meltzerboy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 10,318
Religion: Jewish
Default Re: My Three Daddies: California Eyes Multiple Parenting Law

Quote:
Originally Posted by eternalrest View Post
M. V. Lee Badgett wrote: "When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Gay Marriage": She was the inner of the 2010 Distinguished Book Award from the American Psychological Association's 44th Division (the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues). An excerpt from this book:In fact, high levels of tolerance and cohabitation appear to be "necessary" conditions for country-level change..... The most surprising finding is the apparent link between cohabitation by heterosexual couples and the legal recognition of gay couples. Perhaps those new heterosexual families constitute a political bloc pushing for change. The same country to legalize gay marriage, legalize abortion, and legalize no-fault divorce was Russia in 1917. Carrie Lukas, vice president and director of policy Independent Women's Forum, has stated that "no fault divorce... makes the marriage contract effectively no contract at all". The issue of gay unions/marriages is not separate from the issue of divorce, remarriage, and cohabitation.

Dawn Stefanowicz wrote "Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting" in 2007, a book about her experiences growing up as a child in the GLBT world. This statement "enjoying the pleasure and ignoring the consequences" encapsulates the approach to marriage of both those who see no problems with cohabitation, gay marriage, and normalization of divorce/remarriage. http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...-umbrella.aspx
So what would be a practical solution? Should the State not be involved with marriage, divorce, and remarriage at all, no civil ceremonies or marriage licenses required, and leave marriage, divorce, and remarriage to religious institutions according to each institution's beliefs, which differ from one another? Since no-fault divorce is not condoned by most religions, this kind of divorce would effectively be reduced. However, what about those people who don't have a specific religious identity, or who disagree with the beliefs of their own religion on this matter? With respect to cohabitation, should the State ban cohabitation, making it a punishable crime, or just leave the matter in the hands of individual religious practices as well? Now, I'm not advocating an increase in divorce and remarriage, and do realize the negative effects divorce and cohabitation may have on children, but how would you deal with the problem: a ban by the State or complete non-interference by the State? I'm not sure either of these measures would be so helpful to parents and children. In the case of gay unions and marriages, I understand the argument that claims why should the State legalize something which is immoral to begin with and only adds to the harm done to children that we already have plenty of in the way of no-fault divorce, remarriage, and cohabitation? But again, what is the solution: a State ban on gay unions or a policy of State non-interference? If the former, then why not also ban cohabitation, divorce, and remarriage since they have proven to be destructive to families and societies? If the latter, dependent on religious beliefs, then gays would be allowed to live together according to certain religions but not according to others. Never mind atheists and those who don't identify with religious views on this issue. I say let's deal as best we can with the reality of the present situation by protecting both parents and children, and I think the present proposal MAY be beneficial in this regard although those who disagree make some good points as well.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Jul 7, '12, 5:33 am
eternalrest eternalrest is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 27, 2012
Posts: 313
Default Re: My Three Daddies: California Eyes Multiple Parenting Law

Quote:
Originally Posted by meltzerboy View Post
I say let's deal as best we can with the reality of the present situation by protecting both parents and children, and I think the present proposal MAY be beneficial in this regard although those who disagree make some good points as well.
Why isn't it possible to change the law to give more rights to *biological* parents except in cases of fault? It seems that this proposal further blurs the distinction between biological parents and other people in the children's lives and the relationship between children and marriage; it was this lack of distinction that contributed to this problem in the first place as it is unclear to begin with why a *biological* father with whom she had a relationship should have fewer parental rights than an unrelated lesbian woman, especially one who is very ill or in jail.

Laws related to strengthening *biological* parents can help other children as well. Here is an example where the law does not protect a child: In the book, "Healing From Sexual Wounds with the Help of the Saints", Dawn Eden, a Jewish convert to Catholicism who was sexually abused as a child. Her mother refused to protect her from abuse due to selfishness and contempt for values such as those of modesty, etc. Her mother also shut her father out of her life and concealed her sexual abuse from her father. Dawn Eden believes if her father had known about the abuse, he would have demanded/fought for custody and removed her from this negligent environment. So it seems an underlying issue is that the biological parent needs to be taken as the "norm" for children instead of optional except for cases of fault. So that would be "my" practical solution: biological parents who have NOT been accused of significant harm against the other biological parent or children; these are "no-fault" cases and do not include "fault" cases should automatically have legal rights. Cases should be divided into fault vs. no-fault.

If that is not possible, rigorous investigation into the nature of people who would benefit from this proposal must be given. If someone is not a biological parent and does not seek to marry the person with the child where it seems from this case that their rights automatically trump biological parental rights (or was this surrogacy), why should it be possible for them to have parental rights? If the law will - de facto - generally only benefit biological parents, then considering it further would make sense. But it seems like the primary people to take advantage of the law could also be those who are seeking societal approval of radical families. It would be good to know what exactly is preventing the rights of biological parents without fault from being strengthened in foster care scenarios?

Last edited by eternalrest; Jul 7, '12 at 5:51 am.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Jul 7, '12, 5:49 am
eternalrest eternalrest is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 27, 2012
Posts: 313
Default Re: My Three Daddies: California Eyes Multiple Parenting Law

Quote:
So what would be a practical solution? Should the State not be involved with marriage, divorce, and remarriage at all, no civil ceremonies or marriage licenses required, and leave marriage, divorce, and remarriage to religious institutions according to each institution's beliefs, which differ from one another? Since no-fault divorce is not condoned by most religions, this kind of divorce would effectively be reduced. However, what about those people who don't have a specific religious identity, or who disagree with the beliefs of their own religion on this matter? With respect to cohabitation, should the State ban cohabitation, making it a punishable crime, or just leave the matter in the hands of individual religious practices as well? Now, I'm not advocating an increase in divorce and remarriage, and do realize the negative effects divorce and cohabitation may have on children, but how would you deal with the problem: a ban by the State or complete non-interference by the State? I'm not sure either of these measures would be so helpful to parents and children. In the case of gay unions and marriages, I understand the argument that claims why should the State legalize something which is immoral to begin with and only adds to the harm done to children that we already have plenty of in the way of no-fault divorce, remarriage, and cohabitation? But again, what is the solution: a State ban on gay unions or a policy of State non-interference? If the former, then why not also ban cohabitation, divorce, and remarriage since they have proven to be destructive to families and societies? If the latter, dependent on religious beliefs, then gays would be allowed to live together according to certain religions but not according to others. Never mind atheists and those who don't identify with religious views on this issue.
According to wikipedia, "many languages have words that can be translated as "religion", but they may use them in a very different way, and some have no word for religion at all. For example, the Sanskrit word dharma, sometimes translated as "religion", also means law. Throughout classical South Asia, the study of law consisted of concepts such as penance through piety and ceremonial as well as practical traditions. Medieval Japan at first had a similar union between "imperial law" and universal or "Buddha law", but these later became independent sources of power." Morality is a worldview that relates humanity to moral law, with morality being how things "ought" to be, in contrast to how they actually "are" and appropriate consequences/punishments for willful violation of moral law. Everyone has their own system of moral law due to human ignorance. Debate exists as to which is the best. However, only one system of moral law actually conforms to omniscience and will be ultimately fully congruent with the law of nature, and this is the correct system of moral law.

Free will exists. Hobbes is the founder of Western political philosophy. His idea of social contract theory, particularly in his book Leviathan (word comes from a sea-monster in Scripture) describes that government is better than the state of nature, which is a constant war of every man against every man, and where life is nasty, brutish, and short. Yet, people have perfect freedom to do whatever they please. Those who do not want to live in the state of nature can achieve a better state for themselves by mutually agreeing to give up some of their freedom in exchange for certain rights protected by the government. This is a "this world focus" akin to Catholic revelation, which promises a eternal happiness for humankind in exchange for the free will spent serving God in contrast to our natural destination after life, Hell.

Those who self-identify as non-religious in relationship to Catholicism, (encompasses the non-religious, believers of other religions, and Catholic dissenters) sometimes seek to promote some other form of moral law than that based on Catholic teaching. The Catholic church divides its teaching into infalliable and falliable. Most of the social teaching that is discussed is only, at the best, arguably infalliable, and at at the worst, falliable. Catholicism is not any different from natural law, in fact - Christ chose to explain himself through the terms of secular philosophy, see John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (logos). The Word comes from the Greek word from "logos" and is often left untranslated, which suggests that God thought the current prevailing secular philosophy was completely congruent with regards explaining supernatural revelation. The Jewish-Alexandrian Philo wrote "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated." Showing any falliable teaching to be untrue is much welcome in the Church so logical reason and criticism are welcome.

Last edited by eternalrest; Jul 7, '12 at 6:08 am.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > In The News > World News

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8569Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Kellyreneeomara
5241CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4436Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3895Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3876SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3463Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3318Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3237Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3171For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: eschator83



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:31 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.