There’s much, much more research out there that proves kids who grow up without fathers present are at a disadvantage. But one doesn’t need to read studies to realize this—it can be observed and experienced.
That doesn’t follow. It would cause confusion for the child.
When a heterosexual father leaves the heterosexual mother of his child, that creates a problem. When two gay men attempt to fill the role of parents of a child who may not be old enough to understand what homosexual means then another problem.
From the NCR article linked above—
‘’Pope Francis on Sunday stressed the importance of children having heterosexual parents, just a day after Rome’s gay pride march demonstrated the changing attitudes about same-sex couples outside the Vatican walls.
Addressing around 25,000 followers from the diocese of Rome, the pope said the differences between men and women are fundamental and “an integral part of being human.” ‘’
Someone please tell the Holy Father he can’t say stuff like that without citing at least 10 peer-reviewed studies.
Or 20 peer-reviewed studies.
I know same-sex couples who have children and none of the children seem confused to me.
Gently and respectfully - I wouldn’t use Catholic sources in trying to convince other folks to your cause. The probability that they’re Catholic (and thus recognize the authority of your source) is pretty low.
The greatest and best argument against Homosexual Marriage is and forever will be these two facts in unison:
- On a raw biological level, the “Meaning of Life” is to perpetuate your genes.
- Ours is a sexually reproducing species.
As such - homosexual relationships are anomalous. Now, they may be a systemic anomaly that our species consistently produces as an error term (and could thus be considered “natural”), but they are anomalous none-the-less.
But you folks have a bigger problem. When government uses the concept of “marriage” in its policies, it must define “marriage” for its own purposes. A state that must…
- “make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
- operate under the premise that all men [read: people] are created equal
… has no real basis on which to deny the right of homosexual marriage.
That it offends your religion is irrelevant. They may not share your religion and the US is not a Catholic, or even Christian theocracy.
I see the best solution as the total removal of policies that involve marriage from all local, state and federal law. Then the state is no longer involved in marriage.
I would hope that people here understand that the arguements used here from Catholic sources do not work outside of Catholic circles. I used a Catholic article above and understand that it would be a useless gesture in non-Catholic circles.
I have always found the argument from evolution rather compelling, which is similar to what you are saying. Those who are homosexual have no chance of passing on their genes (except when they are not), yet we still see this here today.
Another solution that I heard (from a priest nonetheless) is that the day may come when ministers of all sorts can no longer act on behalf of the state, making marriage strictly a civil affair, and the Sacrament of Matrimony a separate act conducted by clergy. A couple would have to get civilly married, the day, the day before or some such, then live as man and wife after the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
As Harvard biologist, Edward O. Wilson, has pointed out in his book, On Human Nature, the genes of gay people can be perpetuated through their siblings and in fact, they can play a supportive role in a family that makes it more likely that their siblings’ genes will be perpetuated.
Sure. I’m a big fan of his work.
In eusocial species like ants and termites where your sibling is practically identical to you genetically, you’ve a great point. In fact, one should probably consider the entire colony as the organism rather than the individual ants and termites - especially given that most of the population cannot reproduce by design.
Not the case in people. You are not genetically identical to your sibling. Some traits you share, some you don’t.
Of course, this possibility does little to dispel the obvious anomalous quality of homosexuality in a sexually reproducing species. As such, it expresses itself only to be destroyed via failure to perpetuate.
The fact that it resurfaces means that the error is systemic. A genetic malady we just can’t shake as a species. Ergo systemic.
Someone’s life is hardly a failure if they don’t perpetuate their genes. If that were the case, then most Catholic priests would be considered failures.
Yes, it’s true that a person is not identical to their siblings and so all their genes will not be perpetuated through their siblings offspring. But neither will all a person’s genes be perpetuated through their own offspring. A person passes only about half of their DNA to a child.
Why do self professed Catholics always and openly try and call out others as not being “Catholic”? Have you not read Paul’s epistles on how the church leaders should behave? How do you know you’re not making a false accusation? If you ever wonder why people our leaving the Church look no further than the ‘planks in your eyes’.
I’m in a relationship with the Holy Trinity and with my Holy Mother Mary. I am never alone.
The Catholic Church has a very narrow view regarding “the good” of human existence. If what you claim is real, then the Catholic Church should stick with that.
The problem arises when the Catholic Church claims “the good” is an objective concept. In your previous post, you ask do we believe that it is “good to be alive”, as the Church teaches. I am sure many Catholics believe it is. I am sure many believe it isn’t. Depends on what their “aliveness” affords them. Illness, squalor, poverty, disease? Most probably don’t believe it is that great of a thing to be alive.
As the previous poster stated, all of this reasoning by the Catholic Church as to why gay marriage is evil is window dressing. If the Catholic Church feels its stance is the correct one, there is no need to prop it up by making so many of the false and unsubstantiated claims it does about what gay marriage is and isn’t.
The married homosexuals I know have kids. Some have a lot of kids. They live like any other family I know. Two parents, and kids.
As has been pointed out, many gay couples do have kids. But I’m surprised that this kind of reasoning is brought up in a Catholic forum. If it’s against nature not to have kids, then what about those Catholics who purposely don’t have kids, including most priests? It is possible to live a fulfilling life without kids.
I was addressing the question as a matter of biology.
Biologically, if you fail to pass on your genes then that’s a failure. Hive organisms where the vast majority of constituents don’t breed get around this by virtually every member of their hive being effectively their twin. But then there’s substantial debate that the entire colony of termites is really the organism, rather than the individual termite.
As far as “failure” goes from other standards, there’s plenty of opportunity to have a successful existence without successfully reproducing.
I’d argue that in my eldest daughter, way more than 50% of her expressed genes come from her daddy. She’s essentially me with girl-parts.
But I digress, biology isn’t concerned with aspects of the human condition.
Biologically, your best shot at immortality is to have offspring. If they continue in-turn, then there will be a kid somewhere on this planet 2000 years from now that has your nose because you successfully reproduced. If you didn’t, it’s your sibling’s nose they have - even if it’s the same nose. The gene didn’t physically come from you.
Did I accuse someone of not being “Catholic”? If you’re saying I did that, where did I do it???
I am not certain how all of this concern about passing on genetic material relates to any issue around gay marriage. I know several gay couples who have children. None of them adopted. They all became parents through artificial insemination and/or surrogacy. Their genetic material has been passed along just fine.
Sure, the counter there is that it requires artifice in order to do so.
The animal that evolved representing kingdom animalia, phylum chordata, class mammalia, order primata, family hominidae, genus homo, species sapiens is one that is sexually dimorphic and thus requires sexual intercourse in order to perpetuate itself. As such, the existence of homosexuality, even if systemically natural, is anomalous.
Shortened, “It ain’t natural”.