Archbishop Gomez Says Marriage Debate Ignores Children's Needs

[Califman831]

Originally Posted by Rence

It's not that I idealize same-sex couples, at all. A child growing up with same-sex parents isn't all that much different than growing up with traditional parents who very likely will be separated, divorced or fighting like they were living in a warzone. Over half of marriages end in divorce. So to me, the environment is no more or less stable depending on the parent's sexual orientation. As to the above mentioning of IVF, sperm banks, surrogacy....all that happens with hetero couples too.

I think you are confusing modern heterosexual families with traditional families. Modern day families have indeed become very much like the Bundies and the Simpsons, but that does not mean we should let things break down even worse by allowing homosexuals to adopt.

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by JimG

Humans have practiced polygamy. However, I don't think that the human race has propagated itself through homosexual relations.

There is also evidence that we have evolved for polygamy based on the shape of our reproductive organs and certain properties of sperm.

That homosexuals can't reproduce is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they can effectively raise a child.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

There is also evidence that we have evolved for polygamy based on the shape of our reproductive organs and certain properties of sperm.

That homosexuals can't reproduce is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they can effectively raise a child.

They can only become parents at all through the active involvement of someone of the opposite sex. In the natural world, homosexual relations can never lead to parenthood. And they can never engage in marital relations.

[TheTrueCentrist]

Originally Posted by JimG

They can only become parents at all through the active involvement of someone of the opposite sex. In the natural world, homosexual relations can never lead to parenthood. And they can never engage in marital relations.

Again, irrelevant to the question of whether or not they can raise a child. Gomez claimed that gay marriage would be harmful to children because children need a mother and a father. If, as you claim, gay couples don't have children, then they can't raise them poorly and Gomez is wrong.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

In an orphanage, a child has 0 parents, only a set of caretakers doing their jobs. In households of divorce, or single parent adoption, a child only has one parent. It seems to me that having 2 parents would be preferable to either of those situations.

Not an excuse for having same-sex households. If by two parents you mean a father and a mother, it's all good since mothers and fathers have different parenting styles. If not, then the arguments for supporting homosexual adoption would fall apart.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

Even in the old testament bible? I think not, polygamy is fairly widespread in many cultures.

Yes.
Polygamy though, is not that easily excusable as far as parenthood is concerned. Suppose you have a polygamous man. He has three wives. The first wife had a child whereas the other two did not. They may become envious of the first wife.

Also, there are polygamous relations in the Old Testament, but hardly one in the New Testament.

[Lokabrenna]

Originally Posted by TheTrueCentrist

Actually, there is pretty solid biological evidence that monogamy is not natural for humans.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-and-monogamy

This is one of the first things my biology teacher said when we were discussing animals and the nature of their relationships:

"Some animals mate for life--humans are not one of them."

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

Not an excuse for having same-sex households. If by two parents you mean a father and a mother, it's all good since mothers and fathers have different parenting styles. If not, then the arguments for supporting homosexual adoption would fall apart.

This is just silly. People have different parenting styles, gender has nothing to do with it. Women can be harsh disciplinarians, men can be nurturing (just ask my dad). My lesbian professor is the stricter parent, her partner is the easygoing one, having a penis or a vulva has nothing to do with parenting styles, it has everything to do with stereotyping.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by Lokabrenna

This is just silly. People have different parenting styles, gender has nothing to do with it. Women can be harsh disciplinarians, men can be nurturing (just ask my dad). My lesbian professor is the stricter parent, her partner is the easygoing one, having a penis or a vulva has nothing to do with parenting styles, it has everything to do with stereotyping.

Love is essential in parenting, but it is not enough! Saying that it is enough proves that the notion is simplistic.
Mothers and fathers bring diversity in parenting. That is something which same-sex parental figures can never do. Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable, since each has their unique contributions.
Now, shall I invoke science against your argument?

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by He Man

Herein lies the problem with this sort of argument.

When the Church uses theology and Church teaching, based on the word of God and revelations of the Holy Spirit to defend its position, detractors ask for real-world, statistical examples to support that position.

When the Church looks to the real world to supports its teachings, detractors point to anecdotes or flaws in the examples to support their position, when at the end of the day, real world and societal examples are irrelevant to God's will and the Church's teachings, and lead us back to step 1.

An yet anecdotal "evidence" will be used to foster the church's position all day.

[He Man]

Originally Posted by Publisher

An yet anecdotal "evidence" will be used to foster the church's position all day.

Ummm, you probably need to reread the posts next time. That's the point, and you're making it for me. People like you are ones who ask for "anecdotal evidence" when none should be needed. Don't want it to be used? Submit to God's will and become Catholic.

The Church teaches from the authority of God. Some people who question God's authority or the Church demand "real life" examples (which can always be countered with other anecdotes). God shouldn't have to justify his teachings for you with statistics or behavioral analyses of society, but people like you continue to ask for that sort of thing. And those sorts of things are never conclusive proof for either your cases or mine, because there is no way to prove anything on human terms. One can't say that touching fire will burn you 100% of the time because it is impossible to every test 100% of the time, and each successive test "could" fail. And people who defy God's will hang their hat on that notion.

Humans have a tendency to hold to a belief if there is even a .0001% chance it "could" still be true, because they care more about their belief being right than they do acknowledging truth or actually *gasp* doing the right thing for others.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Publisher

An yet anecdotal "evidence" will be used to foster the church's position all day.

Yes, anecdotal evidence like 4,000 years of human history in which homosexual couplings have never been accepted as marriage. That's a lot of anecdotes.

[He Man]

Originally Posted by JimG

Yes, anecdotal evidence like 4,000 years of human history in which homosexual couplings have never been accepted as marriage. That's a lot of anecdotes.

But if there is a record of 2 possibly-gay-though-they-were-probably-straight-but-could-have-been-gay Neanderthals who might have cohabited happily for a two-day period 12 million years ago, we have to assume homosexual couplings are normal and healthy for adults and children, and are even more successful in families that recycle and/or support higher tax rates for neanderthals making over $250k, per cave.

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by He Man

Ummm, you probably need to reread the posts next time. That's the point, and you're making it for me. People like you are ones who ask for "anecdotal evidence" when none should be needed. Don't want it to be used? Submit to God's will and become Catholic.

The Church teaches from the authority of God. Some people who question God's authority or the Church demand "real life" examples (which can always be countered with other anecdotes). God shouldn't have to justify his teachings for you with statistics or behavioral analyses of society, but people like you continue to ask for that sort of thing. And those sorts of things are never conclusive proof for either your cases or mine, because there is no way to prove anything on human terms. One can't say that touching fire will burn you 100% of the time because it is impossible to every test 100% of the time, and each successive test "could" fail. And people who defy God's will hang their hat on that notion.

Humans have a tendency to hold to a belief if there is even a .0001% chance it "could" still be true, because they care more about their belief being right than they do acknowledging truth or actually *gasp* doing the right thing for others.

"People like me"....big assumption you're making friend about "people like me."

[He Man]

Originally Posted by Publisher

"People like me"....big assumption you're making friend about "people like me."

I always use the "if I had to bet my paycheck..." rule when dealing with anonymous people on the internet. Since I have only your post history to judge you, if I had to bet my pay check, I'd be comfortable with my beliefs about you. Heck, you have stated them repeatedly in many topics.

Most of us aren't that hard to peg, dude.

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by He Man

I always use the "if I had to bet my paycheck..." rule when dealing with anonymous people on the internet. Since I have only your post history to judge you, if I had to bet my pay check, I'd be comfortable with my beliefs about you. Heck, you have stated them repeatedly in many topics.

Most of us aren't that hard to peg, dude.

No...they are not friend.