Can gays raise kids right? U.S. marriage trial asks

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Children raised by gay and lesbian couples develop just as well as those brought up by traditional couples, a British child psychologist on Friday told a U.S. federal court considering whether a California ban on gay marriage denies constitutional rights.

Lawyer David Thompson, defending the ban, jousted with Michael Lamb, head of the Social and Developmental Psychology Department at Cambridge University, about whether a child growing up without a father or without a mother would face developmental problems.

Two gay men and two lesbian women are asking the federal court to rule the right to marry has no exceptions under the U.S. Constitution, a fight they hope to take all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a bid to overturn bans on same-sex marriage in 40 states.

A key question in the case is whether government, and U.S. voters, have a reasonable justification for denying same-sex couples the right to marry, such as promoting healthier families, or if the bans reflect discrimination and hate.

Read more at:

No, they cannot.


Here’s a link–social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html

I think a big part of the problem is that psychologists took homosexuality out of the DSM in 1973. In other words, they decided that homosexuality was no longer considered a psychological disorder. Thus, most psychologists nowadays consider homosexuality to be normal and natural. So it’s no surprise that this psychologist believes that children can grow up normal with homosexual parents.

But even if the children grow up to be heterosexual, that doesn’t mean they aren’t affected by their homosexual upbringing. What’s happening here is that children with homosexual parents will most likely grow up to believe homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. So homosexual parents will be able to advance their agenda by indoctrinating the children in their care.

“Children raised by gay and lesbian couples develop just as well as those brought up by traditional couples.”

:yawn: And in the news at 10: Water is still wet…

Kids lacking one parent from a gender - for example having only one father - turn out allright, but not with two with a man playing mother!

Of course they can. But those who already know the answer is yes, know it out of common sense and those who think its no won’t be convinced by anything…

“There is no evidence that gays or lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children,” he said. “This is one of those fairly old canards.”

And if people seriously don’t know the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile or ephebophile, they’re beyond help.

On the contrary, mature common sense realizes the answer is no. :slight_smile:


April 11, 2006
** **

Three years ago the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Joseph Ratzinger, [NOW POPE—Stan] held that homosexual couples should not be permitted to adopt children.

This year, on March 9, the new head of the congregation (and former Archbishop of San Francisco), William Levada, affirmed that adoption agencies run by Catholics should not place children with homosexual couples.

On March 17 the new Archbishop of San Francisco, George Niederauer, announced that Catholic Charities in San Francisco would cease placing children with homosexuals.

The San Francisco City Council (which doubles as the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Francisco, the City and County being coterminous) didn’t like this at all. In a March 21 resolution the Council said:

“It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City’s existing and established customs and traditions such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need.”

This is a “tradition”? How many weeks does a practice have to be around before it counts as a tradition? I wish there were a rule that nothing can count as a tradition until its instigators are dead for at least a century.

Ah, but I did like the part about “a foreign country, like the Vatican”–it reminded me of the good old days of nineteenth-century Know-Nothingism and those Thomas Nast cartoons that showed bishops drawn as mitered crocodiles.

Let’s continue with the Council’s resolution:

“The statements of Cardinal Levada and the Vatican” against adoptions by homosexuals “are absolutely unacceptable to the citizenry of San Francisco.”

Just as in Sodom there were a few good people, so in San Francisco there must be a few people, at least among the Catholics, who actually accept the Church’s position. Given this untidy outburst by the City Council, I can understand how such people would hesitate to acknowledge that they think the Church is right. Who wants an angry mob at his door? Anyway, the Council surely exaggerates when it claims to speak for all the citizens of the city.

The resolution continues:

“Same-sex couples are just as qualified to be parents as are heterosexual couples.”

No, they are not. Heterosexual couples have a distinct advantage: One of them is a man, and the other is a woman; one of them is the father, and the other is the mother. Besides, the issue is not so much about which couples are “qualified” as about which arrangement is better for the children. To say the arrangements are equally good for the children is to betray such a lack of common sense that one should be disqualified from further participation in the discussion.

The resolution then says:

“Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear.”

If so, then this is the highest commendation yet given to the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The next line of the resolution:

“The Board of Supervisors urges Archbishop Niederauer and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada.”

Hey, why don’t you Supervisors follow the principle you otherwise so ardently admire, the separation of church and state? In other words, butt out. If you don’t like the way the Catholic Church handles adoptions, make some other arrangement. Maybe the Metropolitan Community Church would be willing to take over …
Until next time,


Prior issue Next issue
Sign up

p.s., If you have a comment about anything appearing in this E-Letter, please do not hit your Reply button. Instead, go to Catholic Answers’ discussion forums at where you may post your comment in the forum dedicated to the E-Letter. You will find a thread devoted to this issue of the E-Letter. Feel free to add your comment in the form of a reply to that thread.

*Hard to say, because stats show that when kids grow up with an ‘‘absentee’’ parent, they are adversely affected in many cases. So, if two moms or two dads are raising a child/children…the question would be, would that child ‘miss’ the ‘other’ parent? It takes a man AND a woman to conceive. It will never be so between two men or two women. That said, that would mean that the child will naturally have a desire to know his bio mom and dad. I think that a gay couple could raise a child to be well adjusted and so forth. But, they will never be able to teach objective morality to that child–it will always be subjective. They can’t teach the child that God thinks homosexuality is wrong, if they are living that lifestyle. So, a child raised by a gay couple will always be taught subjective morality. Even children who have been adopted have an inherent desire in many cases, to ‘‘find’’ their bio parents who helped bring them into existence. Kind of built in to us (by God) to wish to know ‘‘where’’ and ‘‘who’’ we came from. A child can’t come from two moms or dads, so would that be confusing for a child? I don’t know.

Objective reality is what we’re rapidly losing in our society…anything goes, as long as ‘‘you’’ are ‘‘happy.’’ THAT DOESN’T MEAN that a gay couple can’t provide the love and care a heterosexual couple can…it just means that the child won’t be taught objective morality, because the couple isn’t living objective morality. Hard to teach something you don’t do as an adult, to a child. It would be like a chain smoking mother to tell her child…’‘don’t smoke when you grow up.’’ Kids learn from our examples…this isn’t to say a child will grow up to be gay. I don’t believe that. But, it does mean that (most likely) a child will grow up believing that homosexuality (the acts) are not sinful. That’s the rub, I think. Just my ramblings. *

S p e c i a l R e p o r t

Gay Marriage

Copyright © 2004 Catholic Answers, Inc. All rights reserved. Except for quotations, no part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any other means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, uploading to the Internet, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from Catholic Answers, Inc.

Couldn’t a same-sex couple adopt, just like a childless heterosexual couple, and commit themselves to each other exclusively, permanently, and unconditionally? In such a case, would it be fair to exclude them from marriage?

Even if it were possible for homosexuals to commit themselves to each other in the ways described, their relationships would still lack the orientation to procreation, the openness to life, that marriage is all about. This of itself means that any unions between homosexuals are not marriages, regardless of what people may wish to call them.

Further, if you wish to extend marriage to same-sex couples, you must look at the scientific evidence regarding the ability of male or female homosexuals to sustain such healthy relationships. This is unquestionably a sensitive subject, but it is important to the legalization debate. If homosexual “marriage” were to be legalized, and homosexuals were later found to be unable to create exclusive, permanent, unconditional marriages, their failure would reinforce the idea that marriage lacks these qualities and is just a matter of private happiness to be discarded on whim. That would be a great step backward for society, for it would increase divorce and all its associated pathology and create yet another impediment to the happiness and fulfillment of millions of people.

Statistics are against you. Same sex couple raising kids have a success rate so close to that of heterosexual couples that the difference between the two is illusory.

It is better for the kids to have two parent in the home. It is better for the kids to have parents of the same race. It is better for the kids to have parents about the same age. It is better for the kids to have rich parents.

Its better for kids to have heterosexual parents; but that’s not always what life provides.


What on earth are you talking about?

I echo this…I also wondered about the statement about parents ‘being rich.’ :confused: Could you elaborate, Beau?

There is less confusion if the parents are of the same race. There is less money pressure if the parents are rich.

But millions of families seem to muddle through, don’t they? Same thing with same sex parents.

Indeed, so polygamists can raise kids just as well as brother/sister couples, yes? Never judge a thing and all will be well. The more the merrier. Huzzah!

I don’t know where the polygamist riff came from; I said nothing like that. After working in child protection cases for twenty years, I can tell you that same sex couples can raise kids successfully just like heterosexual couples and about as frequently. Simple as that.

That’s what the statistics and social scientists say. Now, you can judge the results or you can judge your privately held opinions.


I am of Italian and Jewish extraction. The Italians are an Indo-European people, and Jews are a Semitic people, but both groups left Africa at about the same time before the Semitics settled in the Arabian Penninsula and the Indo Europeans set up shop between the Don and Dnieper Rivers in Central Europe. I guess this makes me “White”, along with other Semites such as Ethiopians and other Indo-Europeans such as Afghans.

My wife was born in Uganda and is of the Basoga tribe, who are Bantu and, thus, “Black.”

Our two children are neither “White” nor “Black”. They are human beings. We do not teach them to associate with individuals based on their mDNA or DNA haplotypes, their external physical characteristics, or any other superficial classification. We teach them to be decent, good, honest, moral people.

But apparently, it would have been just as well for them if we had left them on a doorstep of a gay couple, no?

C’mon, man; think a little before you hit that “Submit Reply” button.

*I think that the question is…if we took a well adjusted heterosexual couple, and homosexual couple…all things being equal otherwise…and placed them side by side…who would raise a child better? No disputing that a gay couple could very well love the child, and nurture him/her, etc…I don’t think that is the question. But when we speak of ‘‘right,’’ in my eyes, I liken that to teaching a child about sin and objective truth. It’s not enough to cloth, feed, educate, and nurture a child…that is all well and good, and necessary. But, teaching a child about God, and His laws, that is the most important thing to me, that a child can and will learn in a home. When a child learns that homosexuality is not a sin, he/she learns a half-truth. Subjective truth. God loves all sinners, but He hates our sin. If a child is being raised by a gay couple, he/she will obviously not learn that objectively speaking, God believes homosexuality to be sinful. I mean, how could he/she learn that if the environment is counter to that ‘‘lesson?’’

So, I do feel that a gay couple could love, educate, nurture and provide the necessities for a child…just like a hetero couple could. But, all things being equal, the child will miss out on nurturing for his soul, and objective truth. I have known gay people who go to church, etc…but, again, if they are ACTING OUT homosexuality, then they are sinning. Legal marriage doesn’t change God’s laws. So…a child will grow up perhaps with many things…but what he/she will miss out on is objective Truth.

Just my two cents. *

I really don’t understand what the argument is about; the answer is simple.

It is against the teachings of the Catholic Church; either your a Catholic that submits to the our Lord Jesus and the Holy See or you’re a small c catholic that don’t know what your talking about.

I don’t care what kind of secular studies or statistics anyone quotes—if you say it’s ok for give children to an intrinsic disordered couple that is contrary to the natural law—under no circumstances can this be approved.

You have to submit because GOD told you to do it!!!

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit