(VIDEO) Listen to the Lives of Ordinary Catholics


This article was originally published by Below the Waist.

Richard Doerflinger, speaking for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, responded to a Wall Street Journal article about Wisconsin’s Medicaid Family Planning expansion saying: “It reflects a view of women which is extremely dismissive . . .” Mr. Doerflinger goes on to recommend that the expansion be rejected because family planning advocates are only interested in a woman’s reproductive function and making sure it isn’t used.

Jon O’Brien Interview from Family Planning Health Services on Vimeo.

Family Planning Health Services, Inc. and the Wisconsin Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association are very proud to release this engaging video interview with Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. Mr. O’Brien explores themes of political power and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. He establishes a clear three-question structure within which legislators and the public can evaluate lobbying efforts and policy recommendations like Mr. Doerflinger’s:

  1. Is it factually correct?
  2. Who does the speaker represent?
  3. What are the consequences to ordinary working people?

Mr. O’Brien says that good Catholics can support contraception. He describes the history of the Vatican’s Birth Control Commission which was: “far less than divine inspiration. It was a matter of stacking the deck!” Even though the outcome was pre-determined to oppose use of the birth control pill, according to O’Brien, education and dialogue . . . “changed the hearts and minds of the bishops” on the Commission. “Can you imagine how many lives could have been saved,” O’Brien asks, “if the Pope had enough faith in Catholics to accept the Commission’s recommendations?”

Mr. O’Brien’s emphasis throughout the interview is that the bishops and legislators must “Listen to the lives of ordinary Catholics. He says: “We are the ones who go to the ballot box.”  On reproductive health issues, according to O’Brien, “The bishops have failed to convince Catholics not to use contraception. So what do they do? They go off to Capitol Hill or to your state assembly and behind the doors they try to pressure legislators into not allowing access to family planning.” With no equivocation he says: “There’s something that’s downright wrong and un-American about that!

O’Brien states that the information that the hierarchy gives on contraception and condoms is inaccurate and that the bishops do not speak for Catholic voters. But to make his most important point on testing the validity of lobbying by the bishops against family planning, Mr. O’Brien praises the courage and example of Bishop Kevin Dowling from South Africa. Paraphrasing Bishop Dowling, who has differed with Church teachings on the use of condoms to prevent HIV/Aids, O’Brien says:  “Using condoms to prevent AIDs is not about preventing the transmission of life. It is about preventing the transmission of death.”

If we apply the test to Mr. Doerflinger’s statement regarding Medicaid family planning, it is factually incorrect, it represents the view of some (but not all) of the 350 U.S. Catholic Bishops, and the consequence would be to reduce access to health care for thousands of American women. 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with Lon Newman please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • kevin-rahe

    Catholics for Choice has about as much connection to the Catholic Church and respect for its teachings as Penn & Teller.  The members of its Board of Directors (http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/board/default.asp) that have any kind of religious background at all were associated with Protestant, not Catholic, institutions.  True Catholics believe it means something to be Catholic.  Mr. O’Brien wants it to mean nothing.

  • julie-watkins

    Jon O’Brien oberves the Catholic hierarchy hasn’t convinces ordinary Catholics about contraception. (Earlier in the interview, he observes Catholics and non-Catholics use contraception, abortion, etc., at about the same % rate — it’s individual decsions. At about minute 20 he observes there isn’t preaching in the pulpit any more trying to convince the cogregation to agree with the hierarchy about contraception. Rather, behind closed doors, the hierarchy tries to convince legislators to follow what the hierarchy wants. What he describes sounds like typical entitlement beharvior to me & I’m not surprised so many extreme conservitive bishops are trying to exert influence on the U.S.A. democratic prosess disproportionate to their numbers.

  • invalid-0

    Our sermon the week before last was on contraception.

  • julie-watkins

    The church that Jon O’Brien goes to doesn’t appear to have sermons against contraception. Here’s an article

    http://www.national-coalition.org/marriage/contrace.html

    complaining about non-compliance & it notes:

    In the July 16 issue of America Magazine Fr. Andrew Greely reported the results of two studies, which reveal among other things that most American priests do not support Humanae vitae. One study, which was conducted for the National Federation of Priest Councils by the Life Cycle Institute of Catholic University of America, was based on 1,186 respondents. The other, which was conducted by the Los Angeles Times, was based on 2,061 respondents. Only 25 percent of these priests disapproved of contraception.

    I don’t know what year that was or the year of the above, this is what I found when I googled “not preaching against contraception”, … anyway, it seems there’s a lot of priest and congrication disagreement with the hierarchy. So it doesn’t sound unlikely to me.

  • kevin-rahe

    A tremendous number of the priests who went through the seminary in the 60s, 70s and 80s ended up being very liberal on social issues.  Not only did many of them reject Humanae Vitae, but there was also a pro-homosexuality element present in many seminaries during that time.  Perhaps not coincidentally, the priests educated in that era also ended up being responsible for the bulk of the cases of sexual abuse against minors that have received so much press in recent years.

     

    It would be interesting to see the results of such a survey broken down by the decade in which a priest was ordained.  I’d bet that a greater percentage of priests ordained in recent years would support Humanae Vitae than be against it.

  • squirrely-girl

    but there was also a pro-homosexuality element present in many seminaries during that time.  

     

    As somebody who teaches and researches human sexuality, I really think it’s important to distinguish between homosexuality and pedophilia. The two are NOT synonymous with one another being sexually attracted to the same sex doesn’t mean you’re sexually attracted to children. To quite the contrary, pedophiles are more likely to report a heterosexual orientation than homosexual. The conflating of these two concepts only serves to further stigmatize alternate sexual orientations and it’s ignorant. 

  • julie-watkins

    pro-homosexuality element

    Are you one of those conservatives who think homosexuals are “intrinsically disordered” or “evil” or possessed? Yuck. 

    .

    The thing about being homosexual, it’s not evident at birth. A baby (unless intersex) gets assigned “boy” or “girl” at birth. Likewise, pink skin doesn’t suddenly turn brown. OtOH, homosexuality manifests later, after relationships have been formed with family and community. What happens to gay kids in homophobic households & communities is evil. These are children that were (mostly) loved by their families, accepted by their families — then suddenly the love is gone and they’re pariahs & thrown out.  

    .

    A girl kid or a poor kid or a minority kid gets taught from birth. But gay kids — with support from church teaching (various flavors of homophobic reactionary sects) — suddenly get disowned, or kill themselves rather than be disowned. It’s evil, evil, and all the self-important “religious persecution” wailing and moaning of the Mormon hierarchy, the Vatican, LifeNews, Alliance Defense Fund, Focus on the Family, etc., etc., — EVIL. I have a net friend closeted gay when a teenager and his best friend suicided rather than get thrown out and the attitude of the family at the funeral was BETTER DEAD THAN GAY.

    .

    Yuck again. I hope that’s not your attitude. I have some empathy with anti-elective-abortion people because I can see how a world view that includes “things happen for a reason” would have expectations of how unexpectedly pregnant women should act. But, hello, God (if there is a god) made gay people, too. There’s NO religious argument against homosexuality that isn’t evil. I cry, and I will continue to cry, for the taunting, bullying, beatings and lonely suicides of gay teens and pre-teens and every death and injury I lay at the door of Bigot Religions.

  • kevin-rahe

    pedophiles are more likely to report a heterosexual orientation than homosexual

     

    I actually noted the “pro-homosexuality element” more to emphasize the liberal leanings of seminaries rather than point the finger at those confused about their gender.  But nonetheless, 80-90% of sexual abuse by priests has been against boys aged 11-17.

  • squirrely-girl

    I’d be very interested in where you’re getting those percentages and ages.

     

    Quite frankly, the organization most likely to have those numbers has been absolutely uncooperative with regard to the acknowledgement or dissemination of them. Similarly, basing your numbers off of official police complaints is still limited to those cases where the individual(s) came forward. 

     

    My guess is that you’re basing these numbers off of highly politicized cases that made it to the national news and media circuit, an example of the availability heuristic. The national media tend to get excited about the “exceptional” cases… bigger is better… shock and awe! Little boys being molested fits that bill. In other words, sexual molestation of little girls is culturally widespread and thus rather mundane… but as soon as we can start talking about anal sex or the rape of little boys… well that’s news. I’m of the personal belief that if the molestation had been limited to girls or nuns, we’d be hearing nothing of it… kind of like how we treat rape and sexual assault in society now. But when it happens to a group not typically at as great of a risk, society tends to take notice. 

  • kevin-rahe
  • colleen

    Despite the fact that it’s been an ongoing scandal for a decade now,  we’ve barely scraped the surface of the Church’s global child abuse ring, it’s way too early to count.

    Besides it’s deeply creepy to include boys as young as 11 ior 12 and pretend that raping them isn’t pedophilia. Also, in your eagerness to blame the church scandals on gay men (rather the nominally heterosexual men who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of rapes of all sorts) you left out mention of all the little girls who were raped by priests.

    Rather than spend all your time demeaning pro-choice women on blogs why not read this site:

    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

    or this:

    http://www.snapnetwork.org/

    or this:

    http://www.philadelphiadistrictattorney.com/pages/1/index.htm

    or this

    http://www.childabusecommission.ie/

    These are, of course, just some of the reports and only speak to municipalities in the US and Ireland. The Church has been engaged in the systematic physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children in their care, the cover-up of these crimes and the protection and enabling of the criminals for generations and all over the world. How fortunate for justice and human rights that we have the internet and that many people all over the world are willing to hold the church accountable.

     

  • crowepps

    I’d bet that a greater percentage of priests ordained in recent years would support Humanae Vitae than be against it.

    I’d bet it would be really difficult to be accepted at a seminary if your intake interview included your disagreement with Humanae Vitae.

     

    The thing you don’t seem to grasp is that to the majority of the people in this country, those who are NOT Catholic, the philosophy of the Pope, or the Church for that matter, is totally irrelevant.  People who are Catholic can have any opinion of ‘artificial contraception’ that comports with their theology – in a country with freedom of conscience, the rest of us should be able to ignore that minority viewpoint and get on with our lives.  It is not the role of civil law to force Catholics to follow the teachings of their religious leaders.

  • squirrely-girl

    So your stats are coming from a single report… which only addressed the issue between 1950 and 2002 in the United States. By the way, yay for using Wikipedia as a primary source :/

     

    Granted, it’s not the whole report, but you can read the executive summary here https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/exec.pdf

     

    It is impossible to determine from our surveys what percent of all actual cases of abuse that occurred between 1950 and 2002 have been reported to the Church and are therefore in our dataset. Allegations of child sexual abuse are made gradually over an extended time period and it is likely that further allegations will be made with respect to recent time periods covered in our surveys. Less than 13% of allegations were made in the year in which the abuse allegedly began, and more than 25% of the allegations were made more than 30 years after the alleged abuse began.

    (emphasis mine)

     

     

     

    To date, the police have been contacted about 1,021 priests with allegations of abuse, or 24% of our total. Nearly all of these reports have led to investigations, and 384 instances have led to criminal charges. Of those priests for whom information about dispositions is available, 252 were convicted and at least 100 of those served time in prison. Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences to date.

     

    Wow, those numbers make me want to file a report or accuse that upstanding member of my religious community – how ’bout you?!

     

    Half of the allegations that were made (49.9%) were reported by the victim. In one-fifth of the cases (20.3%), the allegation of sexual abuse was made by the alleged victim’s attorney. The third most common way in which the abuse was reported was by the parent or guardian of the victim (13.6%).

     

     

    The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17…

    On a side note, pedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescent children, of which a sizable portion of the victims are not. The sexual attraction to pubescent teens, sometimes referred to as plebophilia, is somewhat more socially accepted in many cultures (see: Britney Spears half naked on Rolling Stone at 15; most pop singers) and tends to follow traditional sexual orientations. While plebophiles generally display reduced social skills they’re not usually mentally disturbed as are pedophiles. These are rather important distinctions.

     

    What’s more? Even the report you’re citing didn’t think homosexuality was to blame.

    The John Jay report identified the following factors contributing to the sexual abuse problem:

     

    • Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem.
    • Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal.
    • Use of unqualified treatment centers.
    • Misguided willingness to forgive.
    • Insufficient accountability.

     

  • kevin-rahe

    in your eagerness to blame the church scandals on gay men…you left out mention of all the little girls who were raped by priests.

     

    Go back and read my original comments on the subject.  I said, “priests who went through the seminary in the 60s, 70s and 80s ended up being very liberal on social issues.  Not only did many of them reject Humanae Vitae, but there was also a pro-homosexuality element present in many seminaries during that time.” and that, “Perhaps not coincidentally, the priests educated in that era also ended up being responsible for the bulk of the cases of sexual abuse against minors that have received so much press in recent years.”  Are you suggesting that all the “priests educated in that era” were homosexuals, or are you reading something into my statements that I didn’t actually say?

     

    why not read this site:

    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

    or this:

    http://www.snapnetwork.org/

     

    I actually have.  In fact, I took issue with statements that a couple representatives of SNAP made against my bishop that were quoted in a local newspaper article.  I challenged them to substantiate their assertions with facts – which were absent from the article – but they never responded to me.

  • kevin-rahe

    By the way, yay for using Wikipedia as a primary source :/

     

    There isn’t a source in the world that someone somewhere wouldn’t take issue with.

     

    While plebophiles generally display reduced social skills they’re not usually mentally disturbed as are pedophiles.

     

    And how is it that we can say that pedophiles are “mentally disturbed?”

  • invalid-0

    It is not the role of civil law to force Catholics to follow the teachings of their religious leaders.

    I’m sure you’re misunderstanding someone if that’s what you think anyone here is advocating.  When you here someone like myself, or 84 or Kevin talk about what a Catholic can or cannot believe, we’re not referring to their license to believe whatever they wish.  Of course they can.  

     

    What we have on this web site are a lot of attempts to undermine the Catholic Church and her teachings.  For instance, propagation of the idea that one can be “Catholic” but still believe abortion, artificial contraception, women priests, or disrespect for the Magisterium are ‘a-ok’.  In my experience, this is generally accomplished by the posting of an article from someone who supposedly attends Catholic Mass, probably has been Confirmed in the faith, but disagrees with its teachings.

     

    There are two things going on here:

    1. If you want to attend Catholic Mass, but disagree on certain issues like whether women should be priests, or the recognition of certain apparitions, that’s nothing horrible.  What you may not do and I think offends people like myself is the insinuation that because someone disagrees with a minor teaching, there is no problem.  There is.  There is no ‘version’ of Catholicism where those people are right.  You may be Catholic, but you’re wrong about something.

    2. Certain disagreements, particularly on grave moral issues such as abortion or artificial contraception, but also other core teachings such as transubstantiation or the leadership of the Pope, cannot lead to a conclusion that you are a Catholic.  Jon O’Brien does not follow the same religion I do; just as the 9/11 terrorists do not follow the same faith as my Muslim friends.

  • julie-watkins

    What we have on this web site are a lot of attempts to undermine the Catholic Church and her teachings.  For instance, propagation of the idea that one can be “Catholic” but still believe abortion, artificial contraception, women priests, or disrespect for the Magisterium are ‘a-ok’.

    I don’t think being in a Church exempts one’s opinions from examination, if those beliefs result in discrimination. I don’t have any issue with issues such as “transubstantiation”. But when the Catholic hierarchy is going to try to influence secular law, yes, I’m going to object. And if what you call “core beliefs” I call “discrimination”, yeah, there’s going to be a problem. The problem, with me, isn’t the Catholic faith, it’s the discriminatory doctrines.

    I was raised Catholic. I lapsed because I realized I probably didn’t believe in a higher power, and the topic of “afterlife” wasn’t of importance to me when I was in my 20s. So I put the question in the back of my mind to consider later. When I started reading official vatican documents about homosexuality, that lead me to also look at doctrines about women. I now say “former Catholic” not “lapsed”.

    Kevin missed my question, can I ask you? I ask because you mention above that disagreement with a “minor” issue should be a problem for faithful Catholics. What is your opinion of gay rights? The Vatican documents I’ve read (and statements by Pope Benedict quoted in the press) that say that say it’s a major issue and Catholics should in no way cooperate with laws and policies that imply homosexual behavior is licit. So I’m wondering why homosexuality wasn’t on your list.

  • colleen

    Try to be clear, Kevin. Simply reiterating your previous statements is not helpful if you actually wish to communicate who and what you hold responsible.

    You seem to be implying that liberal and ‘pro-homosexual’ elements in your church hierarchy are responsible for the longstanding institutional policies which encouraged, protected and enabled employees who spent their entire careers physically, emotionally and sexually abusing children in their care. Do I understand your meaning now? And what’s a ‘pro-homosexuality’ element’, pray tell? Or, for that matter, what are’liberal elements’ Folks more interested in feeding the poor and caring for the sick than forcing women to live as if we are some sort of breeding livestock? We were talking about policies which encourage and protect men who prefer to have sex with children and adolescents in their care and if you see a connection between them and the church’s enabling and protection of them and ‘pro-homosexual and liberal elements’ you’re going to have to do a better job of connecting those dots if you wish to actually communicate something.

    I actually have.

    Then why are you pretending that the Church’s institutionalized abuse of children is limited to just 3 decades when it’s ongoing and has been happening for generations. That said, I hope that in your quest for “facts” you will read all all four sites. After that, if you are interested, I have many more.

  • prochoiceferret

    1. If you want to attend Catholic Mass, but disagree on certain issues like whether women should be priests, or the recognition of certain apparitions, that’s nothing horrible.  What you may not do and I think offends people like myself is the insinuation that because someone disagrees with a minor teaching, there is no problem.  There is.  There is no ‘version’ of Catholicism where those people are right.  You may be Catholic, but you’re wrong about something.

     

    You seem to follow the “version” of Catholicism where the current tenancy of a large estate in Rome determines what is “correct” Catholic doctrine, as opposed to actual faithfulness to Jesus’s teachings.

  • kevin-rahe

    You seem to be implying that liberal and ‘pro-homosexual’ elements in your church hierarchy are responsible for the longstanding institutional policies which encouraged, protected and enabled employees who spent their entire careers physically, emotionally and sexually abusing children in their care.

     

    The sins of the priests who did the abusing and those of the bishops who failed to deal with them as they should (or in some cases naively believed secular psychologists’ assertions that such priests could be “cured”), while both serious, are of two very different types.  My assertions about the liberal and pro-homosexuality elements in seminaries in recent decades being a factor in this scandal had to do with abusive priests, not the bishops who only failed to protect the faithful from them.

     

    And what’s a ‘pro-homosexuality’ element’, pray tell?

     

    The web site religioustolerance.org is a bit of a mixed bag and I find myself more often taking issue than agreeing with it, but even though I don’t agree with all the conclusions in their page on this topic, it should at least give you a good idea of what I’m talking about:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc1.htm

     

    The more important question, however, is how much of an effect did the pro-homosexuality element in seminaries have on the amount and types of abuse that was perpetrated by priests who were trained in them at that time?  squirrely-girl noted that, “pedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescent children, of which a sizable portion of the victims are not.”  She also said that the “sexual attraction to pubescent teens, sometimes referred to as plebophilia, is somewhat more socially accepted in many cultures (see: Britney Spears half naked on Rolling Stone at 15; most pop singers)…”  We know that organizations such as NAMBLA (http://nambla.org/) seek to make homosexual plebophilia more acceptable in our society.  We also know that Paul Shanley, one of the most notorious of the abusive priests, was involved in NAMBLA.  While I can’t say there is a definite causation involved, clearly there is a strong correlation between the ideas espoused by NAMBLA and the majority of the abuse perpetrated by priests in recent decades.  To suggest that the pro-homosexual atmosphere in the seminaries at the time these priests were trained may have contributed to the amount and types of abuse that have occurred is not at all a stretch.

     

  • kevin-rahe

    the current tenancy of a large estate in Rome determines what is “correct” Catholic doctrine, as opposed to actual faithfulness to Jesus’s teachings.

     

    You’re welcome to show how Catholic doctrine contradicts Jesus’ teachings.  I haven’t seen it done.

  • prochoiceferret

    You’re welcome to show how Catholic doctrine contradicts Jesus’ teachings.  I haven’t seen it done.

     

    Probably because everyday, upstanding gay people are invisible to you.

  • kevin-rahe

    everyday, upstanding gay people are invisible to you.

     

    Actually, what’s invisible in the public debate on this topic is the authentic Catholic position, which is that while homosexual activity and relationships cannot be accommodated and those with homosexual attractions are called to chastity, they are not be unjustly discriminated against.  The demagogues promoting gay rights are so intolerant of this position that they won’t even acknowledge it exists.

  • ack

    What do you mean by this?

  • ack

    What do you mean by this?

  • ack

     

    “Of course, the key word in that sentence is “unjust,” because there are forms of differential treatment the church defends. In its July 1992 document “Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons,” for example, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith upheld discrimination against gays in adoption, in hiring teachers and coaches, and in military recruiting, on the grounds that society has the right not to foster behavior that evokes “moral concern,” especially with regard to the formation of young people. The congregation asserted, “There is no right to homosexuality,” and hence the prerogatives of homosexuals in certain areas may be curtailed for the common good.”

     

    http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/religious-opposition-homosexuality-increasingly-question-law

  • prochoiceferret

    Actually, what’s invisible in the public debate on this topic is the authentic Catholic position, which is that while homosexual activity and relationships cannot be accommodated and those with homosexual attractions are called to chastity,

     

    No wonder that “authentic Catholic” position is invisible—it’s so repugnant and immoral that no upstanding Catholic would follow it.

     

    The demagogues promoting gay rights are so intolerant of this position that they won’t even acknowledge it exists.

     

    I think they acknowledge it pretty well when they refer to the deep-seated hatred and bigotry that they are working against.

  • kevin-rahe

    Certainly it’s reasonable to decide that a homosexual person may not be suitable for positions that may be gender-sensitive, such as coaching.  And any person who openly lives in violation of any Church teaching or publicly advocates for causes that go against Church teaching probably should not be employed in teaching children in any capacity.  That said, there are several people I’ve known or strongly suspected to be homosexual who have taught in Catholic schools or other Church institutions.  The Church doesn’t even categorically exclude homosexuals from becoming priests.

     

    And the Church doesn’t say that homosexuals must be discriminated against in these capacities, only that it’s “not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account.”  For example, while a Catholic adoption agency could not place a child with a same-sex couple, it could place one with a single person who is homosexual, especially if they were convinced that the person is committed to chastity and not expected to expose the child to behaviors and relationships in the home that violate Church teaching.

  • kevin-rahe

    Thank you PCF for demonstrating my point precisely.

  • julie-watkins

    I don’t know why such a heavy moral burden is put on teens & pre-teens that they are “objectively disordered”, that love and marriage is barred from them, all the anti-gay rhetoric can lead (often leads) to pain large enough to cause suicide, and causes families to turn on their children & throw them out of households.

    I don’t understand the beliefs that homosexual love is so awful that it’s better to risk such abuse and death of homosexual youth rather than accepting them as they are. 

    Quotes from CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

     

    Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

     

    The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

     

     Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case. [emphasis added]

  • prochoiceferret

    Certainly it’s reasonable to decide that a homosexual person may not be suitable for positions that may be gender-sensitive, such as coaching.

     

     

    Why would they be any less suitable than a heterosexual person?

     

    And any person who openly lives in violation of any Church teaching or publicly advocates for causes that go against Church teaching probably should not be employed in teaching children in any capacity.

     

    Actually, anyone who openly advocates for Church teachings on sexual orientation, gender identity, and womens’ role in society probably should not be employed in teaching children in any capacity.

     

    That said, there are several people I’ve known or strongly suspected to be homosexual who have taught in Catholic schools or other Church institutions.

     

    So you have a well-tuned gaydar, I see. That must come in handy on weekend nights.

     

    And the Church doesn’t say that homosexuals must be discriminated against in these capacities, only that it’s “not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account.”  For example, while a Catholic adoption agency could not place a child with a same-sex couple, it could place one with a single person who is homosexual, especially if they were convinced that the person is committed to chastity and not expected to expose the child to behaviors and relationships in the home that violate Church teaching.

     

    At least racists don’t bother with the charade that they are only “following their church’s teachings.”

  • beenthere72

    My high school tennis coach was a lesbian.  Nice woman, great coach, never made a pass at anybody. 

     

    My college tennis coach was a heterosexual:

     

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/1999/01/25/tennis_suit/

     

     

  • julie-watkins

    Of course, you keep making comments about gay adults & why they shouldn’t have certain jobs or adopt children unless they’re celebate. What are your thoughts about gay youth? These are already born children, already part of families, and too often their families turn against them.

  • prochoiceferret

    Thank you PCF for demonstrating my point precisely.

     

    I didn’t know you were intentionally arguing that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is corrupt and morally fallen.

     

    But you did it very well nonetheless!

  • kevin-rahe

    I don’t know why such a heavy moral burden is put on teens & pre-teens that they are “objectively disordered”

     

    Families are the foundation of our civilization.  In fact, there is nothing we humans do that is more important to our future than create families.  If the form of intimate relationships is ordered to the creation of families – which as a rule of nature it is – then intimate relationships of forms that could not possibly be ordered to the creation of a family are objectively disordered.

     

    As far as teens and pre-teens go, that time of one’s life is marked by a lot of hormonal and other changes resulting in feelings and urges of varying strength and types, which often race ahead of the emotional maturity needed to deal with them.  About the only thing for sure about the feelings and urges teens experience is that they’re probably going to change at some point.  If there’s anything teens ought not to be burdened with it’s the expectation that they should express their feelings and attractions physically, or worse, decide at a time when they’re experiencing such fickle emotions and attractions what form those emotions and attractions should take for the rest of their life.  That’s not to say that homosexual feelings will always go away, but there’s certainly much less of a chance of that if they’re reinforced by one’s environment.  And even if they persist, there’s hope:  http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0011.html

     

    the anti-gay rhetoric can lead (often leads) to pain large enough to cause suicide, and causes families to turn on their children & throw them out of households.

     

    That’s pretty sad, and I would say that those who would do such things are forgetting that none of us is perfect and we’ve all got traits that make living a virtuous life challenging in one way or another.

     

    Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.

     

    Children lie.  Pretty much any parent will tell you that, and it’s also one of the most critical habits to break a child of if he or she is going to be a successful and productive adult.  After all, in this country at least, our whole system of commerce and government depends on trust.  Children learn most from the example of their parents, however, so when parents themselves lie, that makes it particularly challenging – if not impossible – to break a child of the same habit.

     

    Unlike a family headed by heterosexual parents – even adoptive ones – a “family” with same-sex “parents” is in its very essence and form a lie.  Living such a lie will have one of two possible effects on a child.  Either they will reject it once they realize what it is, or they will not, in which case they will have accepted and gotten comfortable with a lie.  From my perspective, one is no less horrible than the other, and neither bodes well for the future of the child.  As far as the Church’s comments go, if we can’t get to the point where we can reject a lie simply because it’s not true, then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that we’re not a fully developed human being.

  • prochoiceferret

    Families are the foundation of our civilization.  In fact, there is nothing we humans do that is more important to our future than create families.  If the form of intimate relationships is ordered to the creation of families – which as a rule of nature it is – then intimate relationships of forms that could not possibly be ordered to the creation of a family are objectively disordered.

     

    Many same-sex couples adopt and raise healthy, well-adjusted children, so I guess they make “objectively ordered” families by your standard.

     

    About the only thing for sure about the feelings and urges teens experience is that they’re probably going to change at some point.  If there’s anything teens ought not to be burdened with it’s the expectation that they should express their feelings and attractions physically, or worse, decide at a time when they’re experiencing such fickle emotions and attractions what form those emotions and attractions should take for the rest of their life.  That’s not to say that homosexual feelings will always go away, but there’s certainly much less of a chance of that if they’re reinforced by one’s environment.

     

    Or heterosexual feelings, for that matter. I agree that young people should be given the time and space they need to discover their own gender and sexual identities, without personal or social pressure brought to bear on them.

     

    That’s pretty sad, and I would say that those who would do such things are forgetting that none of us is perfect and we’ve all got traits that make living a virtuous life challenging in one way or another.

     

    Like, say, holding morally disordered religious beliefs.

     

    Unlike a family headed by heterosexual parents – even adoptive ones – a “family” with same-sex “parents” is in its very essence and form a lie.

     

    Why is it any more a lie than any other kind of family?

     

    (Is this a Portal reference?)

  • colleen

    At least racists don’t bother with the charade that they are only “following their church’s teachings.”

    Depends on the racists. Human beings have and continue to use the bible to justify everything under the sun. The Klan didn’t use burning crosses as a threat by accident and Father Coughlin isn’t called the Father of American Hate radio because he was a kindly peaceful man.
    Those who go on about Margaret Sanger need to be looking a bit closer to home for their history lessons.

  • julie-watkins

    I am …. speechless. I think there’s some circularity in how you explain that. This is going to take some thinking before I can respond. I went to the website you supplied that you said should offer “hope”. I’m only going to be able to take that a few sentences at a time, thinking about what kind of pain it would be to be a teen or a parent being told (apparently) it’s your own fault … *whimper

  • beenthere72

    I stopped reading it when I got to the word “disorder” which I think was in like the first sentence? 

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Depends on the racists. Human beings have and continue to use the bible to justify everything under the sun. The Klan didn’t use burning crosses as a threat by accident and Father Coughlin isn’t called the Father of American Hate radio because he was a kindly peaceful man.

     

    Very true. I was only referencing the lack of arguments and ADF-style litigation against racial-nondiscrimination laws/principles made on the basis of infringement of religious beliefs.

     

    (Which isn’t exactly racists holding back, either. As I recall, U.S. laws for recognition of religious institutions have explicit wording against racial discrimination—probably a legacy of the fight against the KKK. There are a few White-supremacist churches out there, but they are not officially recognized, and in practical terms they’re all but neutered.)

  • kevin-rahe

    Many same-sex couples adopt and raise healthy, well-adjusted children, so I guess they make “objectively ordered” families by your standard.

     

    It’s pretty much biologically impossible for a same-sex couple’s relationship to be ordered to the creation of a family.  At least, I’ve never heard of it happening.  There is nothing that is “in order” about such a relationship.

     

    Why is it any more a lie than any other kind of family?

     

    A man and woman having a child together is not a lie, for it is a structure suggested as normal and necessary by nature itself.

  • prochoiceferret

    It’s pretty much biologically impossible for a same-sex couple’s relationship to be ordered to the creation of a family.  At least, I’ve never heard of it happening.

     

    Well, given that there are thousands upon thousands of same-sex-headed families out there, you certainly must lead a very sheltered life.

     

    A man and woman having a child together is not a lie, for it is a structure suggested as normal and necessary by nature itself.

     

    So I take it that eating your young is not a lie either?

     

    (At least it’s good to see that you don’t have a problem with homosexual relationships.)

  • kevin-rahe

    (At least it’s good to see that you don’t have a problem with homosexual relationships.)

     

    Uh huh.  Of course, the disordered sexual activity exhibited by animals isn’t limited to homosexual or bisexual.  Some of it is also pedophilic:  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081210082354AAr1mg8

  • kevin-rahe

    Those who go on about Margaret Sanger need to be looking a bit closer to home for their history lessons.

     

    Like here:  http://www.maafa21.com/

  • prochoiceferret

    Uh huh.  Of course, the disordered sexual activity exhibited by animals isn’t limited to homosexual or bisexual.  Some of it is also pedophilic:  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081210082354AAr1mg8

     

    Gosh! Maybe deciding what is and isn’t moral on the basis of nature and biology isn’t such a good idea after all.

  • colleen

    A link to Father Coughlin’s radio sermons, perhaps?

  • kevin-rahe

    Maybe deciding what is and isn’t moral on the basis of nature and biology isn’t such a good idea after all.

     

    I think the lesson is that just because an attraction or temptation seems natural or desirable, that alone doesn’t mean it’s good, even if others seem to be getting away with the same thing.  To determine if a thing is really good, you have to consider the long-term effects on not just yourself but others involved and those around you.

  • kevin-rahe

    A link to Father Coughlin’s radio sermons, perhaps?

     

    I’ve actually never heard of him before now, yet I’m quite familiar with another Catholic from about the same period who also used the media extensively – Bishop Fulton Sheen.  I’m reasonably well read, so you can rest assured that Father Coughlin’s ideas have little influence on modern Catholics.

  • prochoiceferret

    To determine if a thing is really good, you have to consider the long-term effects on not just yourself but others involved and those around you.

     

    Same-sex relationships seem to be pretty darn good, then. The only people on which they appear to have negative long-term effects are homophobic bigots.

     

    (By the same token, pro-choice public policy fares pretty well, too.)

  • colleen

    I’m reasonably well read, so you can rest assured that Father Coughlin’s ideas have little influence on modern Catholics.

    You really aren’t at all inclined towards honest self reflection, are you.

  • kevin-rahe

    Same-sex relationships seem to be pretty darn good, then.

     

    So they’re noted for high levels of fidelity and a high percentage of them stay together for life?  They willingly make a commitment to raise any children they conceive even though they cannot predict whether, when or how many such conceptions might occur?  And they have the satisfaction of knowing that they fill a crucial role in society?  Or do you perhaps have a different definition of “good” than I do?

     

    The only people on which they appear to have negative long-term effects are homophobic bigots.

     

    Not that I am “homophobic” (whatever that means), but…

     

    “We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.”  -G.K. Chesterton

  • prochoiceferret

    So they’re noted for high levels of fidelity and a high percentage of them stay together for life?

     

    Hmm, I don’t remember offhand. What was the heterosexual divorce rate again?

     

    They willingly make a commitment to raise any children they conceive even though they cannot predict whether, when or how many such conceptions might occur?  And they have the satisfaction of knowing that not only do they fill a crucial role in society?  Or do you perhaps have a different definition of “good” than I do?

     

    They tend to adopt or conceive through a surrogate, and yes, they do a great job raising the next generation of human beings. What more do you want, tacky pink flamingoes in the front yard?

     

    Not that I am “homophobic” (whatever that means),

     

    Oh, okay, so you’re not going to judge same-sex couples merely on the basis of their homosexuality. That’s good to know.

     

    “We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.”  -G.K. Chesterton

     

    Yes, except that we don’t condone denigration of people who are not like you as the “definite end.”

  • kevin-rahe

    Hmm, I don’t remember offhand. What was the heterosexual divorce rate again?

     

    Whenever I find myself relying on the failures of others to justify my own desires, it’s usually a red flag that what I want to do isn’t exactly right.

     

    They tend to adopt or conceive through a surrogate, and yes, they do a great job raising the next generation of human beings.

     

    So they can’t make the same kind of commitment that practically all heterosexual couples did at one time, and that many of us still do.

  • colleen

    Whenever I find myself relying on the failures of others to justify my own desires, it’s usually a red flag that what I want to do isn’t exactly right.

    That is not what she was doing. She was pointing out the obvious, that by your (implied) ‘standards’ most heterosexual couples including many of the ‘pro-life’ leadership would be automatically disqualified. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh come to mind.
    That said, just because you’ve declared marriage to someone as arrogant and full of pride as yourself an ideal we should all strive for but, well, it is not.

  • jayn

    OKay, I have to ask–why is being a part of a loving family, whatever the gender makeup, a lie?  Why is being raised by two people who love and respect each other a lie?  Why is it less of a commitment to adopt, or go through a surrogate or artificial insemination, than it is to raise a kid that just ‘happens’?

     

    So what if they aren’t going to wind up with ‘oops’ babies?  That means that any children they do decide to raise are going to require a commitment to have, and are absolutely going to be wanted.

     

    Your so-called ideal has caused a lot of harm to people who are from some of those families that failed.  I don’t see why striving for an ‘ideal’ that doesn’t work is better than a different arrangement that does.

  • prochoiceferret

    Whenever I find myself relying on the failures of others to justify my own desires, it’s usually a red flag that what I want to do isn’t exactly right.

     

    Does that apply to the desire to denigrate people of other sexual orientations?

     

    So they can’t make the same kind of commitment that practically all heterosexual couples did at one time, and that many of us still do.

     

    I didn’t know that physically being able to reproduce was more important to being good parents than actual parenting. I guess all those deadbeat dads out there aren’t as bad as we thought.

  • julie-watkins

    Saying gay marriages are “lies” and homosexual couples can’t parent as well as heterosexual couples isn’t going to convince people who know healthy gay families. Such people are going to wonder “He’s wrong about that, what else is he wrong about?”

    .

    The “abortion is killing an unborn child” contingent would get much more traction if they dropped the “gay families aren’t licit” nonsense. I can understand why you believe pregnant women & girls have an obligation to their fetus. — I don’t agree, but I understand why you believe it.

    .

    This anti-gay stuff just boggles my mind. It makes you look like a robot, parroting what the Vatican says, rather than really thinking things out. It also makes the Vatican look as if it’s just trying to find pretexts to bolster it’s patriarchical status quo, to guard the privileged position in society the hierarchy believes is its due.

  • julie-watkins

    You put a big stress on “order”, that things should be done a certain way, all the same. If you look at the rule of nature, actually similar things get done many different way, depending on local conditions. Diversity actually gives more room, more niches.

    the anti-gay rhetoric can lead (often leads) to pain large enough to cause suicide, and causes families to turn on their children & throw them out of households.
     
    That’s pretty sad, and I would say that those who would do such things are forgetting that none of us is perfect and we’ve all got traits that make living a virtuous life challenging in one way or another.

     

    I think such a serious problem deserves a better response than “That’s pretty sad”. You don’t seem to comprehend the immensity of the pain involved. Such a response gives the impression that you don’t care.

     That’s not to say that homosexual feelings will always go away, but there’s certainly much less of a chance of that if they’re reinforced by one’s environment.  And even if they persist, there’s hope:  http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0011.html
     

    I went to that website, and the impression I got was also “not understanding” and “not caring”. (it was very difficult for me to read, and I may have skimmed some parts, though I did not mean to.) So hung up on “the one true way” that likely repercussions weren’t apparently considered. If a youth is at the point of suicide, or if there has been an attempted or successful suicide, what do you think statements that stress culpibility would do to the level of pain of youth and their parents & family? Bullet points such as: “The Father Wound: Sadness, Insecurity, and Fear”; “The Mother Wound: Sadness, Mistrust, and Insecurity”; “Narcissism”. Here’s some quotes:

     

    .

    However, the most common early life disappointments leading to homosexual desires is the result of peer rejections because of a boy’s poor eye-hand and athletic coordination. This is a very difficult weakness to have in a culture that is obsessed with successful athletic performance to the point where it is seen as the major measure of masculinity.

    .

    Fear of vulnerability to heterosexual relationships is another important factor in the development of homosexual attractions. This inability to feel safe loving someone of the opposite sex is usually unconscious and originates most often from traumatic experiences within the home. In males this may be a consequence of having a mother who was overly controlling, excessively needy or dependent, angry and critical, unaffectionate and cold, narcissistic and insensitive, very mistrustful and addicted of ill. In females the fear of trusting males in a loving relationship may arise from having a father who was very angry, rejecting and distant, insensitive toward the mother, abusive, harsh, selfish, addicted or unloving.

    .

    Narcissism or selfishness is another major factor influencing the attraction to the homosexual lifestyle. The appeal here is multifaceted and includes not having to make a total commitment to one person and not having to give oneself completely as a parent. There is a desire to remain childlike with minimal obligations in relationships and few limitations to the pursuit of pleasure.

    .

    The most significant type of anger influencing the development of homosexual attractions in childhood is anger with oneself. As a result of ongoing rejections by peers, many boys acquire an intense dislike for their bodies and view them as weak, unattractive, and unmasculine.

    .

    These traditional treatment approaches did not utilize either a process of forgiveness for resolving the inner resentment of Christian spirituality and meditation for the sadness, low self-esteem, and mistrust. In marked contrast, when forgiveness and Christian spirituality are essential parts of the treatment, it has been my clinical experience that the recovery rate from the emotional pain and subsequent homosexual behavior approaches 100% in those who are truly committed to the process. [emphasis added]

    .

     

    What these statemens are, in essence, saying is “That awful pain is your own fault”. The whole Catholic attitude of “everyone sins, we must all ask for forgiveness” is wallowing in guilt. It’s handy for keeping a hierarchical system in place, of course. It’s also corrosive to equate non-conformity with stealing and malicious intentional injury. Yuck.

    .
    There’s three outcomes I’ve observed that can happen when youth in religious families that believe homosexuality is a grave sin identify themselves as homosexual:

    .

    • The youth accepts the spiritual call to chastity. A certain number of people, of all orientations, find spirituality a stronger urge than sexual intimacy.
    • The family accepts the youth and rebel against their church’s doctrines (sometimes changing churches). Tragically (see “Prayers for Bobby”) sometimes this happens after a successful suicide.
    • The youth chooses to be exclusively heterosexual, or chooses to attempt this. Sometimes s/he is bisexual, so this can work. Sometimes s/he isn’t bisexual, so the marriage relationship is strained (though relationships with any resulting children can be unaffected), or the homosexual spouse may fail in his/her resolve and be unfaithful. The marriage may or may not survive.
    • The family breaks. Relations with the youth become dysfunctional, the youth is thrown out of the house, or the youth suicides.

    .

    I don’t know what the relative percentages are for these cases, but I don’t think a significant percentage of the 1st case, or the non-tragic outcome of the 3rd case is an adequate good for this doctrine to compensate for the large number of broken families and broken lives. (The good outcomes that happen in a portion of the 2nd & 4th cases arise from rebellion of individuals & families leaving their churches, which isn’t an endorsement of attempting to change sexual orientation.)

  • kevin-rahe

    So what if they aren’t going to wind up with ‘oops’ babies?  That means that any children they do decide to raise are going to require a commitment to have, and are absolutely going to be wanted.

     

    If the only children born in this world were those who were specifically wanted, or more accurately, planned, our civilization would head into a rapid decline and probably come to rather quick end.

     

    Your so-called ideal has caused a lot of harm to people who are from some of those families that failed.  I don’t see why striving for an ‘ideal’ that doesn’t work is better than a different arrangement that does.

     

    So now families headed by same-sex couples are superior to the traditional variety?

  • kevin-rahe

    I think such a serious problem [anti-gay rhetoric] deserves a better response than “That’s pretty sad”. You don’t seem to comprehend the immensity of the pain involved.

     

    I didn’t really think I was trying to minimize it.  In fact, I don’t find it acceptable whether it’s directed at someone who is homosexual or someone who is not, as sometimes happens among young teenagers.

     

    What these statemens are, in essence, saying is “That awful pain is your own fault”.

     

    Actually, to me it says that the issues that put someone on the path to having homosexual feelings and attractions are usually not the person’s fault.  Once on that path, the failure or lack of opportunity to deal with those issues results in those feelings developing and getting stronger.  It certainly seems reasonable to me that having bad (or no) experiences with one or the other parent during childhood could have an effect on your associations with that gender when you get older, including rejecting them outright or trying to get from others of that gender what you didn’t get from your parent.

     

    There’s three outcomes I’ve observed that can happen when youth in religious families that believe homosexuality is a grave sin identify themselves as homosexual…

     

    Now you know why my religion (at least) doesn’t consider mere homosexual feelings and attractions to be a sin, even though they are disordered.  Even someone with temptations to pedophilia doesn’t sin if he/she doesn’t fantasize about or act on them.

     

    It makes you look like a robot, parroting what the Vatican says, rather than really thinking things out.

     

    Just because I come to the same conclusion as someone else doesn’t mean I let them do my thinking for me.  Plenty of people I know would tell you I think too much, but I don’t think any of them would accuse me of failing to think at all, or even of making bold statements without having thought through them thoroughly.  On the contrary, I think radical ideas like same-sex “marriage” and silliness like comprehensive sex “education” result from a widespread lack of critical thinking skills.  I blame a lot of that on higher education, which some time ago became much more interested in teaching students what to think rather than how to think:  http://www.freeinquiry.com/critical-thinking.html

  • julie-watkins

    Anti-gay rhetoric leads to teen suicides and I think “that’s sad” is a poor response to teen (& pre-teen) suicide.

    You seem to use “reason” as meaning “everyone acting the same”. I would throw out the expectation of conformity and shunning & guilt-laying on people who are different to lessen the number of teens (& pre-teens) who suicide, to lessen the number of broken families.

    I don’t think the encouraging of a few more homosexuals to chastity is worth many more homosexuals being broken & driven away.

    I think “critical thinking” is what happens when teens & families walk away from anti-gay churches and accept non-conformity. I came to support “gay marriage” (I prefer the term “marriage equity”) by speaking with people who were denied state recognition of their relationships, and has suffered much harm from the lack of rights I had taken for granted. (I no longer take my marriage rights and responsibilities for granted. Rather, I feel I have an unfair advantage over people who are unwillingly legally single.)

  • kevin-rahe

    I came to support “gay marriage” (I prefer the term “marriage equity”) by speaking with people who were denied state recognition of their relationships, and has suffered much harm from the lack of rights I had taken for granted.

     

    What about heterosexual married people, who had no such “rights” either prior to the federal government recognizing marriage (1923 with the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act) or the states doing the same (it wasn’t until 1929 that all states finally had marriage laws of their own)?

     

    In other words, same-sex couples have as much of a “right” to get “married” right now and consider themselves each other’s spouse in any state of the union as heterosexual couples had before the federal and state governments began recognizing marriage and granting certain benefits and privileges to married couples.

     

    Now if you want to argue that same-sex couples should be granted the same privileges and benefits as traditionally-married couples (regardless of whether we call it “marriage”) and claim that you’re thinking critically, your justification has to begin with an acknowledgement and understanding of the reasons that the federal and state governments began granting those benefits and privileges to married couples in the first place, then show how those reasons apply equally to same-sex couples.  But no one does that.

  • jayn

    If the only children born in this world were those who were specifically wanted, or more accurately, planned, our civilization would head into a rapid decline and probably come to rather quick end.

     

    My point is that children of gay parents can expect to be brought into a loving home, by people who are ready, willing, and able to be parents.  I can’t figure out how children beign raised in stable homse is in any way a bad thing.

     

    So now families headed by same-sex couples are superior to the traditional variety?

     

    A stable same-sex couple vs. a volatile hetero-couple?  Yeah, I’ll go ahead and say the former is better in that case.  If both are stable, then neither is better in principle.

  • cc

    “Now you know why my religion (at least) doesn’t consider mere homosexual feelings and attractions to be a sin, “

    Now isn’t that nice.  The Catholic Church says that one can be gay but then one can’t have gay sex.  But if one is heterosexual, one can act on one’s sexuality within marriage. However, if one is gay, one can’t even have gay married sex because the Catholic Church condemns gay marriage and gay sex! It’s the same kind of absurd anti-sex thinking that is the basis for the Catholic Church’s condemnation of birth control.  With both situations, there’s a caveat – you can be gay but no sex. You can have sex – but only if you’re married and only without birth control.  And if you engage in either behavior, you’re in a state of mortal sin. What a way to control a population and that’s why they Catholic population will continue to decline as more and more rational people realize the absurdity of this kind of moral manipulation.  The liberal Protestants are so much more enlightened. Not only do they have women priests/ministers; but they accept gay clergy. Meanwhile, there’s a large percentage of gay Catholic priests and one assumes that they’re not all celibate. Hypocrisy?

     

    “silliness like comprehensive sex “education”

    Right. Let’s keep our youth in a state of ignorance so that when they do have sex (and if they’re like the kids in my Catholic high school, they sure will) they will get STD’s and pregnant! Silly sex ed.

     

    “teaching students what to think rather than how to think”

    Sounds like a Catholic education where you are taught the questions – and the answers. At least there’s no Inquisition for those who think differently.

  • kevin-rahe

    However, if one is gay, one can’t even have gay married sex because the Catholic Church condemns gay marriage and gay sex!

     

    Actually, the Church doesn’t condemn “gay sex,” because there is no point in condemning something that cannot exist.  Sexual intercourse requires sexual complementarity, which doesn’t exist between two people of the same sex.  The Church does condemn homosexual acts, which are other acts that may involve intimate contact between members of the same sex.  (As well as condemns those same acts when performed by people of the opposite sex.)

     

    “silliness like comprehensive sex “education”

    Right. Let’s keep our youth in a state of ignorance

     

    I never suggested that ignorance was the desired objective.  The silliness comes in when two choices with dramatic and obvious differences relative to one’s emotional and physical health and the kinds of commitment they involve are presented as equally valid.  What is ignorant is thinking that when one is faced with a major decision, any path chosen is likely to have an outcome equal in benefits to those of any other path.

     

    “teaching students what to think rather than how to think”

    Sounds like a Catholic education where you are taught the questions – and the answers.

     

    You obviously didn’t read the article.

  • rebellious-grrl

    My ears perked up when I read this.

    Actually, the Church doesn’t condemn “gay sex,” because there is no point in condemning something that cannot exist.  Sexual intercourse requires sexual complementarity, which doesn’t exist between two people of the same sex.  The Church does condemn homosexual acts, which are other acts that may involve intimate contact between members of the same sex.  (As well as condemns those same acts when performed by people of the opposite sex.)

     

    Does there have to be a penis in the room to have sex? No. Many of my lesbian friends would disagree with sex being defined as between a man and a woman. I’ve had sex without a penis. You don’t need a penis to have sex.

     

    I believe that sex is much more complicated than a simplistic Christian definition of what sex is.

     

     

     

  • kevin-rahe

    I believe that sex is much more complicated than a simplistic Christian definition of what sex is.

     

    Perhaps we should just stick with definitions from biology then:

     

    http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Sexual_intercourse

  • kevin-rahe

    A stable same-sex couple vs. a volatile hetero-couple?

     

    That was not your original claim.

  • mechashiva

    Yeah, that’s what Bill Clinton did, and look how well it turned out for him.

  • jayn

    You know, you still haven’t answered my original question–how is being part of a loving family a lie?  Why does the genders of the parents matter more than how stable the family is?

     

    My husband is from one of those ‘failed’ traditional families.  If my MIL had been more willing to divorce (partly, I suspect, because of church teachings against divorce), I bet she could have saved herself and her children a lot of pain.  The financial stability of staying married in no way compensated for the damage my FIL inflicted upon his family.

  • cc

    Submitted by Kevin Rahe on September 4, 2010 – 4:08pm

    So anything other than vaginal penetration of a a woman, by a man, isn’t sex? Coulda fooled me!  But then when Father McPedophile messes with a child, he (and they’re only “he’s”) can say that it isn’t really sex? And if he’s prosecuted for sexual abuse, it’s not really “sexual” abuse….????

  • carolyninthecity

     

    Kevin, all you appear to know about homosexuals are stereotypes and what you read on Christian life news site or whatever.

     

    Here’s some real facts for you to consider. Sexuality exists on a spectrum, and there is nothing more “natural” about heterosexual sex simply because one consequence of it is pregnancy. 

     

    Yes,  gay people can and do have long-term, monogamous relationships at the same rate straight people do. 

     

    Gay people also raise healthy, well adjusted children. This has been known for some time. I cannot imagine why being able to plan a dearly wanted child is a bad thing. The world is over populated. We have too many mouths to feed and not enough resources. Having more babies is not the solution to this. Having loving parents able to adopt the babies that already exist, is. 

     

    Yes, the nuclear family is lovely. But it’s not realistic, and most people don’t want it, and it certainly is not required to have a good life. 

     

    The needs of society are constantly changing. We cannot discount the needs, desires, wants of an entire section of the population because a fringe group decides not to accept it. It doesn’t matter what the bible says. That was thousands of years ago, this is today, and it just isn’t relevant anymore. I’m sorry the homosexuals bother you so, but you can’t label everything that makes you uncomfortable as a mental illness. 

  • julie-watkins

    I wrote:

    Anti-gay rhetoric leads to teen suicides and I think “that’s sad” is a poor response to teen (& pre-teen) suicide.

    You seem to use “reason” as meaning “everyone acting the same”. I would throw out the expectation of conformity and shunning & guilt-laying on people who are different to lessen the number of teens (& pre-teens) who suicide, to lessen the number of broken families.

    I don’t think the encouraging of a few more homosexuals to chastity is worth many more homosexuals being broken & driven away.

    I think “critical thinking” is what happens when teens & families walk away from anti-gay churches and accept non-conformity. I came to support “gay marriage” (I prefer the term “marriage equity”) by speaking with people who were denied state recognition of their relationships, and has suffered much harm from the lack of rights I had taken for granted. (I no longer take my marriage rights and responsibilities for granted. Rather, I feel I have an unfair advantage over people who are unwillingly legally single.)

    .. the bit about “gay marriage” wasn’t the lead paragraph & you ignored my point of the large number of youth bullying, and your answer is “a great example” … an go off on a history tangent.
    What was “great” was you were able to reply without replying to the main point and I’m sorry I wrote anything about gay marriage. I am still interested if you have a better response to the problems leading to youth suicides, etc., than “that’s pretty sad”
    To the extent that you avoid addressing the harm done to homosexual youth (or youth perceived to be homosexual) you are giving me the impression that you think encouraging of a few more homosexuals to chastity is much more important than however many suicides and broken families occur.
  • prochoiceferret

    What about heterosexual married people, who had no such “rights” either prior to the federal government recognizing marriage (1923 with the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act) or the states doing the same (it wasn’t until 1929 that all states finally had marriage laws of their own)?

     

    As long as same-sex couples didn’t have those rights, there would have been marriage equality. (Social equality, on the other hand, was still a pipe dream back then.)

     

    In other words, same-sex couples have as much of a “right” to get “married” right now and consider themselves each other’s spouse in any state of the union as heterosexual couples had before the federal and state governments began recognizing marriage and granting certain benefits and privileges to married couples.

     

    What do we want?

     

    EQUALITY!

     

    When do we want it?

     

    UP UNTIL 90 YEARS AGO!

     

    Now if you want to argue that same-sex couples should be granted the same privileges and benefits as traditionally-married couples (regardless of whether we call it “marriage”) and claim that you’re thinking critically, your justification has to begin with an acknowledgement and understanding of the reasons that the federal and state governments began granting those benefits and privileges to married couples in the first place, then show how those reasons apply equally to same-sex couples.  But no one does that.

     

    Same-sex couples can put in the eighteen years it takes to rear a healthy, well-adjusted adult just as well as opposite-sex couples.

     

    There, I just did it.

  • kevin-rahe

    I am still interested if you have a better response to the problems leading to youth suicides, etc., than “that’s pretty sad”

     

    How about this?  I strongly condemn calling people names or unjustly discriminating against them based on their sexual feelings or actions.  I think that such things are very un-Christian and inexcusable.  I also think that counseling should be available to people with disordered sexual attractions to help them work through those issues as well as deal with any unjust treatment they may experience.

  • kevin-rahe

    Same-sex couples can put in the eighteen years it takes to rear a healthy, well-adjusted adult just as well as opposite-sex couples.

     

    I think same-sex couples are at a distinct disadvantage in trying to model the roles of mother and father, which I think is important to a child’s development, but that argument aside, you haven’t even begun to justify extending the benefits and privileges afforded traditionally-married couples to same-sex couples.  There is a cost incurred by society for all those benefits and privileges (e.g. property rights, joint income tax filing, etc.), and like anything the cost must be justified.  In this case, married couples make a contribution to society – namely society itself – that warrants the cost of the benefits and privileges granted to them.  Same-sex couples, however, could never be expected, as a group, to make that contribution to society.  Hence, there is no justification to incur the cost of extending them the same benefits and privileges given to traditionally-married couples.

  • arekushieru

    Of course, Kevin misses the obvious points.  That heterosexual marriage was recognized by the Church long before it was recognized by the federal government.  And marriage is a PAGAN custom.  And that the Bible has NO prohibition against homosexual marriage, only infidelity with someone of the same OR opposite sex. 

  • arekushieru

    Um, Kevin, you do understand WHY pedophilia in humans is condemned, right? Something from your post tells me you don’t, though.  Here, let me spell it out for you, differing levels of consent…. 

  • kevin-rahe

    the Bible has NO prohibition against homosexual marriage

     

    Specifically, no.  There are plenty of references condemning homosexual acts, however.

  • arekushieru

    You missed my point, of course, Kevin, because I was talking about homosexual acts.  What is infidelity if NOT an act, after all, eh?

  • arekushieru

    The ONLY reason that you can state that the mother and father roles are so necessary to raising a child is if you ignore the FACT that there really isn’t much difference between a woman and a man, except what they have been socialized to accept.  And pinholing people into such roles based on their anatomy is something feminists have been trying to abolish for ages.  It’s patriarchal AND misogynistic.  Thanks.

  • prochoiceferret

    I think same-sex couples are at a distinct disadvantage in trying to model the roles of mother and father, which I think is important to a child’s development,

     

    Oh, so you’re a developmental psychologist! Would you happen to have peer-reviewed journal references on which you base your position?

     

    I’d be interested to see those, because whenever I hear about impartial, scientifically-sound studies of kids raised by same-sex couples, the conclusions are uniformly that they do as well (if not better) than those raised by traditional opposite-sex couples.

     

    but that argument aside, you haven’t even begun to justify extending the benefits and privileges afforded traditionally-married couples to same-sex couples.  There is a cost incurred by society for all those benefits and privileges (e.g. property rights, joint income tax filing, etc.), and like anything the cost must be justified.

     

    Yes, why should we pay all of these costly benefits to opposite-sex couples?

     

    In this case, married couples make a contribution to society – namely society itself – that warrants the cost of the benefits and privileges granted to them.  Same-sex couples, however, could never be expected, as a group, to make that contribution to society.

     

    Same-sex parents can, do, and have raised perfectly healthy kids. So they are, in fact, already making that contribution to society.

     

    I’m sure you are very pleased to learn this, and will adjust your position accordingly.

     

    Hence, there is no justification to incur the cost of extending them the same benefits and privileges given to traditionally-married couples.

     

    This conclusion was based on incomplete information, and has been automatically pre-empted for your convenience.

  • arekushieru

    Fear of vulnerability to heterosexual relationships is another important factor in the development of homosexual attractions. This inability to feel safe loving someone of the opposite sex is usually unconscious and originates most often from traumatic experiences within the home. In males this may be a consequence of having a mother who was overly controlling, excessively needy or dependent, angry and critical, unaffectionate and cold, narcissistic and insensitive, very mistrustful and addicted of ill. In females the fear of trusting males in a loving relationship may arise from having a father who was very angry, rejecting and distant, insensitive toward the mother, abusive, harsh, selfish, addicted or unloving.>>

     

    The experiences encapsulated, here, mirror my own so well, Julie, (so I hope you don’t mind if I borrow it?), because I’m NOT homosexual (I know, I’ve tried developing feelings for other women, an explanation for which will be following shortly, but I hope it isn’t offensive.  If it is, *please* do take it down, Mods) AND it wasn’t due to the fact that Mommy and Daddy didn’t love me enough or loved me too much (I have an EXcellent relationship with my parents, yet I don’t trust men outSIDE of my extended family (and am non-sexual due to that reason).   Partly due to the pigeonholing of roles, male privilege and misogyny that is exhibited as part of the patriarchal culture outside of my fairly egalitarian family.

     

    Have you never heard of men like Anthony Venn-Brown, Jeff Ford, or Michael Bussee, Kevin?

  • kevin-rahe

    What is infidelity if NOT an act, after all, eh?

    Yes, infidelity is an act.  What was your point again?

  • kevin-rahe

    I’d be interested to see those, because whenever I hear about impartial, scientifically-sound studies of kids raised by same-sex couples, the conclusions are uniformly that they do as well (if not better) than those raised by traditional opposite-sex couples.

     

    Your original claim was that they raise children who are “well-adjusted” as adults.  The question I have is does “well-adjusted” mean that they reject the lie that was the essence of their “family,” or accept it?  Children raised by same-sex “parents” have been shown to be more androgynous than those raise by opposite-sex parents, which if anything supports my assertion about it being difficult for same-sex parents to model the roles of mother and father.

     

    Yes, why should we pay all of these costly benefits to opposite-sex couples?

     

    You hit the nail on the head.  What many of those who advocate for the extension of marriage benefits to same-sex couples are really arguing – perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not – is that those benefits should be taken away from traditionally-married couples, not extended to another group of people.  If you want to make the case that the reasons the government originally decided to recognize marriage and grant married couples certain benefits and privileges are no longer valid, go ahead and argue that point.

     

    Same-sex parents can, do, and have raised perfectly healthy kids. So they are, in fact, already making that contribution to society.

     

    I don’t believe there is any evidence that same-sex couples could sustain a population.  Even opposite-sex couples are failing to do this in many parts of the world, and they have a tremendous advantage over same-sex couples in that department.

  • jayn

    Children raised by same-sex “parents” have been shown to be more androgynous than those raise by opposite-sex parents, which if anything supports my assertion about it being difficult for same-sex parents to model the roles of mother and father.

     

    Yes, because growing in foster care is a better alternative.  And many of us do not see androgyny as inherently bad.

     

    What many of those who advocate for the extension of marriage benefits to same-sex couples are really arguing – perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not – is that those benefits should be taken away from traditionally-married couples, not extended to another group of people.

     

    I’m not sure how, although there ARE those who think marriage as a legal institution should be abolished regardless (and those who don’t care which way we go, as long as we move away from the status quo).  Otherwise, extending benefits to one group does not negate the benefits given to another group.

     

    I don’t believe there is any evidence that same-sex couples could sustain a population.

     

    Denying them ability to raise children sure as hell isn’t going to help sustain the population.

  • prochoiceferret

    Your original claim was that they raise children who are “well-adjusted” as adults.  The question I have is does “well-adjusted” mean that they reject the lie that was the essence of their “family,” or accept it?

     

    I think it means they reject the lie that the essence of their loving family is a lie.

     

    Children raised by same-sex “parents” have been shown to be more androgynous than those raise by opposite-sex parents, which if anything supports my assertion about it being difficult for same-sex parents to model the roles of mother and father.

     

    Androgynous? What? What are you talking about? What peer-reviewed study are you getting this from?

     

    You hit the nail on the head.  What many of those who advocate for the extension of marriage benefits to same-sex couples are really arguing – perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not – is that those benefits should be taken away from traditionally-married couples, not extended to another group of people.  If you want to make the case that the reasons the government originally decided to recognize marriage and grant married couples certain benefits and privileges are no longer valid, go ahead and argue that point.

     

    I’m not making that case. But if you’re going to argue that same-sex couples shouldn’t get these benefits, then I don’t see what’s so different and special about opposite-sex couples for them to deserve same.

     

    I don’t believe there is any evidence that same-sex couples could sustain a population.  Even opposite-sex couples are failing to do this in many parts of the world, and they have a tremendous advantage over same-sex couples in that department.

     

    Why is sustaining a population a criterion? It’s just one kind of family. All the other kinds of families will continue to exist.

     

    If you’re so worried about population-replacement levels, then why wouldn’t you want to help same-sex couples raise families by extending to them the benefits of marriage?

  • beenthere72

    Meet Sara Gilbert and her partner, who each had a baby:

     

    http://celebritybabies.people.com/2007/08/06/sara-gilbert-an-2/ 

     

     

  • colleen

    The question I have is does “well-adjusted” mean that they reject the lie that was the essence of their “family,” or accept it?

    You have not come anywhere close to demonstrating that it is a “lie” . All you’ve managed to do is demonstrate that you’re a bigot.
    Here is a start on what “well adjusted” means:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm

    Children raised by same-sex “parents” have been shown to be more androgynous than those raise by opposite-sex parents, which if anything supports my assertion about it being difficult for same-sex parents to model the roles of mother and father.

    First, where has this “been shown”? Do you have a source for this?

    Second, describe ‘androgenous’ and then please explain how it is that androgeny is a consequence of poor parental modeling or, for that matter, a negative trait at all.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm

    What many of those who advocate for the extension of marriage benefits to same-sex couples are really arguing – perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not – is that those benefits should be taken away from traditionally-married couples, not extended to another group of people.

    “unwittingly” my ass.
    You’re welcome to nurture and repeat this lie as much as you like but those of us who advocate for the extension of marriage benefits to same sex couples are not arguing for Catholic hospitals to be able to deny husbands or wives the company of their spouse when they’re ill or dying. We’re not arguing that wives be denied inheritance rights and we’re certainly not arguing that the CHILDREN of opposite sex couples be kicked out Catholic schools because the Church disapproves of their parents sexual orientation. Nor are we arguing that same sex couples be denied the right to adopt based solely on their sexual orientation.

    Finally, here’s some more science:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm

  • julie-watkins

    I was quoting Richard Fitzgibbons from the website Kevin linked to. I don’t agree with the quote you quoted. I don’t think children pick their sexual orientation on the basis of what their parents do, but Fitzgibbons (&, I assume Kevin) does.

    As you say above,

    it wasn’t due to the fact that Mommy and Daddy didn’t love me enough or loved me too much 

    but what Fitzgibbons is saying is that what Mommy & Daddy do does make a child gay or straight, opposite of your experience. I think that would be unhelpfully painful to faithful Catholic parents and siblings of gay youth who are upset their child or brother or sister is gay and are looking for spiritual guidance. Also for a faithful Catholic youth who is afraid s/he is homosexual. Unnecessary guilt and pain.

    I think you tried seeing if you could develop a lesbian orientation because you distrusted men outside your family so much, but — if I’m understanding correctly — it didn’t seem to work. Kids aren’t choosing, — who would want such pain? I’ve read many “comming out” stories where gays & lesbians say how much they tried to deny and wanted to change their homosexuality when they were teenagers. Because church and family and friends were all saying how bad and evil gays were.

  • kevin-rahe

    You have not come anywhere close to demonstrating that it is a “lie”.

     

    Two men or two women claiming to be the “parents” of a child is a bald-faced lie, as plain as any lie could be.  It doesn’t take much knowledge of biology to know that the child could not possibly be the result of relations – or even artificial minglings – of its “parents.”  Unlike a family consisting of opposite-sex adoptive parents, the essence, structure and form of such a “family” is a lie.  If you deny this, you have fooled yourself beyond all hope.

  • julie-watkins

    I strongly condemn calling people names or unjustly discriminating against them based on their sexual feelings or actions.  I think that such things are very un-Christian and inexcusable.

    Anti-gay churches keep up the anti-gay rhetoric. Children who attend those church services go to their schools and often aren’t very subtle or careful about how they treat fellow gay students, or fellow students they think are gay. There’s a lot of bullying … and Focus on the Family, etc., put out a lot of controversy, which the kids pick up on from their parents, about how “anti-bullying” leglistation is “gay agenda” and “religious persecution”. I don’t think saying “counseling” instead of “let’s stop the bullies from bullying” is strongly condeming the bullies who are bullying.

    My better idea would be to turn down the rhetoric about “gay agenda” and “religious persecution” and stop tolerating kids bullying kids.

  • kevin-rahe

    First, where has this [androgyny] “been shown”? Do you have a source for this?

     

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477

     

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm

     

    That article indicates that 7% of children of opposite-sex parents have been held back a year in school, but that 9.5% of children of same-sex “parents” have repeated a grade.  That means that children of same-sex “parents” have a 35% better chance of repeating a grade than those of opposite-sex parents.  That’s “well-adjusted”?!?!

  • prochoiceferret

    Two men or two women claiming to be the “parents” of a child is a bald-faced lie, as plain as any lie could be.  It doesn’t take much knowledge of biology to know that the child could not possibly be the result of relations – or even artificial minglings – of its “parents.”  Unlike a family consisting of opposite-sex adoptive parents, the essence, structure and form of such a “family” is a lie.

     

    So let me see if I understand your argument:

     

    “If I can’t at least pretend that the children in a family are the product of sexual intercourse between the two people who are raising them, so that I don’t have to think about how not all families are the same, nor the possibility that children might actually thrive in such non-traditional filial structures… then the family is a lie.”

     

    I guess couples who adopt outside their own race also have lie-based families.

  • kevin-rahe

    I don’t think children pick their sexual orientation on the basis of what their parents do, but Fitzgibbons (&, I assume Kevin) does.

     

    I certainly don’t think it’s a conscious decision.  And I do believe there is a biological component, just like some people are biologically predisposed to alcoholism.  It’s not a guarantee that they’ll become alcoholics, but given the right circumstances and opportunities, it may happen, even when someone else in the same situation wouldn’t have become an alcoholic.  But just because someone is an alcoholic doesn’t mean we let them drive drunk or give them kudos for standing up and saying that alcoholism isn’t bad or that they’re “proud” to be an alcoholic.

     

    Also for a faithful Catholic youth who is afraid s/he is homosexual. Unnecessary guilt and pain.

     

    Not in my church – my pastor never talks about it.  And even if he did, he wouldn’t condemn someone just for having homosexual feelings or attractions.

  • kevin-rahe

    I guess couples who adopt outside their own race also have lie-based families.

     

    The “essence, structure and form” of such a family is not a lie.  Also, the biological child of a couple can appear to be of a different race if at least one of them had biracial parents.

  • prochoiceferret

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477

     

    So, from an article titled “Children of Same-Sex Couples Do as Well as Other Children,” you latch onto the following paragraph:

     

    “The researchers found no differences in the parents other than that lesbian couples share household and child care tasks more equitably,” said Dr. Perrin. “The children of lesbian couples also appeared to be less aggressive, more nurturing to peers, more tolerant of diversity, and more androgynous,” playing with toys for both boys and girls.

     

    We can’t have same-sex couples doing parenting! Their kids play with toys meant for boys and girls!

     

    That article indicates that 7% of children of opposite-sex parents have been held back a year in school, but that 9.5% of children of same-sex “parents” have repeated a grade.

     

    Right after which, the article notes,

     

    The difference between the groups pretty much vanishes when taking into account that the heterosexual couples were slightly more educated and wealthier than most gay parents, Rosenfeld said.

     

    You know, given the tectonic-plate-sized chip you seem to have on your shoulder regarding same-sex-headed families, I kind of thought you would have evidence that was more… slam-dunk-ish.

  • prochoiceferret

    The “essence, structure and form” of such a family is not a lie.  Also, the biological child of a couple can appear to be of a different race if at least one of them had biracial parents.

     

    Yes, that can plausibly explain John McCain’s family:

     

     

    (from this article)

     

    I guess the McCains will just have to learn to live a “lie.”

  • colleen

    First, your link leads to a pay for view site so I’m going to assume that you pulled that one out of the same nether region you pulled your novel interpretation of the one link I provided you managed to partially read.

    That means that children of same-sex “parents” have a 35% better chance of repeating a grade than those of opposite-sex parents. That’s “well-adjusted”?!?!

    Had you taken the trouble to fully read the article you would discover that it says nothing of the sort. I’ve no interest the chain of ‘reasoning’ that allowed you to swell a statistically insignificant difference of 2.5% to 35% and really no interest in either your explanation or further conversation.

    I am deeply pleased that you folks have lost this battle, that a majority of public opinion is now and increasingly in favor of allowing same sex couples to marry. I feel that the women’s movement has a great deal to learn from the political acumen of the GLBT community and that one of these things is to not waste time or energy trying to reason with trolls.

  • kevin-rahe

    “What many of those who advocate for the extension of marriage benefits to same-sex couples are really arguing – perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not – is that those benefits should be taken away from traditionally-married couples, not extended to another group of people.”

     

    “unwittingly” my ass.
    You’re welcome to nurture and repeat this lie…

     

    Your argument is not with me but with ProChoiceFerret, who was the one who argued, “Yes, why should we pay all of these costly benefits to opposite-sex couples?”

     

    That’s the amusing thing about these discussions – so many people trying to jump all over me with unprincipled arguments that they end up stepping on each other’s toes. :-)

  • kevin-rahe

    The difference between the groups pretty much vanishes when taking into account that the heterosexual couples were slightly more educated and wealthier than most gay parents, Rosenfeld said.

     

    And how exactly does he figure that?  I guess we’re just supposed to imagine how that must be so.  Not to mention the fact that I can’t count how many times I’ve heard precisely the opposite argument – that same-sex couples tend to be higher-paid professionals and therefore are able to provide a better financial foundation for raising children.

  • kevin-rahe

    I’ve no interest the chain of ‘reasoning’ that allowed you to swell a statistically insignificant difference of 2.5% to 35% and really no interest in either your explanation or further conversation.

     

    I spend too much time commenting on this site already.  I surely don’t have time to provide basic math education besides.

  • kevin-rahe

    I see a man and a woman with several children.  No lie there.

  • squirrely-girl

    Being held back in school is not always an indication of academic skills, but social as well. And crazy but true, sometimes limited social skills are the result of being socially excluded or bullied. Children of same sex couples are more likely to be bullied than children of opposite sex couples by their peers as well as face discrimination and harassment from authority figures. 

     

    Oh wait… or did you think the people doing the discriminating and harassing suddenly made exception because it was a child?!

     

    Similarly, from that same article you apparently only skimmed - 

    The difference between the groups pretty much vanishes when taking into account that the heterosexual couples were slightly more educated and wealthier than most gay parents, Rosenfeld said.

    “The census data show that having parents who are the same gender is not in itself any disadvantage to children,” he said. “Parents’ income and education are the biggest indicators of a child’s success. Family structure is a minor determinant.”

     

  • squirrely-girl

    Yay for advanced statistics. You can statistically control for a variety of things in research. For example, because BMI is so closely tied to concepts like body image, most research in this area will statistically control for BMI. If you’re genuinely interested in learning more, I would suggest picking up any statistics textbook and reading the chapter on Hierarchal Linear Regression. 

  • prochoiceferret

    I see a man and a woman with several children.  No lie there.

     

    Okay. So can you describe the criterion that determines whether or not a particular family arrangement is a “lie?”

     

    I was under the impression that this was the case if “the child could not possibly be the result of relations – or even artificial minglings – of its ‘parents,’” which is certainly the case with at least one child in that photo.

  • prochoiceferret

    And how exactly does he figure that?  I guess we’re just supposed to imagine how that must be so.  Not to mention the fact that I can’t count how many times I’ve heard precisely the opposite argument – that same-sex couples tend to be higher-paid professionals and therefore are able to provide a better financial foundation for raising children.

     

    So what you’re saying is, instead of giving credence to the ostensibly reputable source you cited, we should listen to you?

  • colleen

    I surely don’t have time to provide basic math education besides.

    What a sad little man you are.

  • colleen

    I was pretty specific about some of the sorts of benefits being denied same sex couples and I am fully aware of who and what my argument is with. You need to learn to differentiate between women. We’re not all as stupid as the one you married.

  • crowepps

    Since a higher proportion of gays tend to be adoptive parents, and a higher proportion of adopted children tend to have disabilities of one kind or another (including those adopted by ‘straight’ parents), that doesn’t surprise me.  It doesn’t have anything to do with being ‘well-adjusted’, it has to do with learning disabilities.

  • crowepps

     the essence, structure and form of such a “family” is a lie.

    So the ‘essence’ of a family depends on putting how and why the parents have sex at the center of family life?  Personally I don’t think children should have to be involved in the sex life of their parents.  Or the sex life of OTHER people’s parents.

     

    It would be sure be nice if the homophobes would stop insisting on their ‘religious freedom right’ to explain to children that gay people marry ‘because they want to have perverted sex’ rather than ‘because they love each other’.  To make it fair, perhaps they should explain that ‘Mommy and Daddy got married because they wanted to have lots of sex and the details are…..’

  • julie-watkins

    Good. I wish Pope Benedict wasn’t so anti-homosexual.

    For instance, here (first one I found):

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100111_diplomatic-corps_en.html

    Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack [against Creation] comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes.  … Yet freedom cannot be absolute, since man is not himself God, but the image of God, God’s creation. For man, the path to be taken cannot be determined by caprice or willfulness, but must rather correspond to the structure willed by the Creator.

    … so he’s says there shouldn’t be laws about not discriminating against homosexuals. If it was just about “Catholic Church should be exempt from such & such”, the Pope should have said that. Rather, he’s saying the anti-discrimination laws, in general, are an attack.

  • cc

     

    Not in my church – my pastor never talks about it.  And even if he did, he wouldn’t condemn someone just for having homosexual feelings or attractions.

    Submitted by Kevin Rahe on September 8, 2010 – 12:54pm

     

    Oh, isn’t that just ducky. But if those with homosexual feelings have sex, (a normal thing), they’re in a state of grevious sin. Talk about a no win situation! And your comparison of gays to alcoholics is noted; as it reveals that you think that homosexuality is a disease.  Meanwhile, the Catholic Church is still paying big bucks to those who were raped by priests whose “feelings and attractions” were aided and abetted by their church.

  • rebellious-grrl

    I think it’s really offensive to say that being gay/LGBT is like being an alcoholic. Being gay/LGBT is not a disorder like alcoholism. There is NOTHING wrong with being gay/LGBT!

    Homosexuality is not an illness or a disorder, a fact that is agreed upon by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. Homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association in 1974. Being transgender or gender variant is not a disorder either, although Gender Identity Dysphoria (GID) is still listed in the DSM of the American Psychiatric Association. Being LGBT is as much a human variation as being left-handed – a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity are just another piece of who they are. There is nothing wrong with being LGBT – in fact, there’s a lot to celebrate. 

    http://community.pflag.org/Page.aspx?pid=290
    Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)

  • arekushieru

    I knew where it was a quote from and I attributed it to Kevin.  I was refuting the claims made by the person you quoted in the link he gave.  I was trying to point out how absolutely wrong they were, not only about where non-heteronormative sexual functions may develop from but about (as you said) how homosexuality is NOT a choice.  :)

  • arekushieru

    It was YOUR point I was discussing, if you can’t remember it, it’s not worth my time….

  • kevin-rahe

    Homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association in 1974.

     

    In the position statement (http://www.psychiatryonline.com/DSMPDF/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf) that accompanied this change, however, the APA also stated that:

    by no longer listing it as a psychiatric disorder we are not saying that it is “normal” or as valuable as heterosexuality.

     

    No doubt, homosexual activist groups will claim that psychiatry has at last recognized that homosexuality is as “normal” as heterosexuality. They will be wrong. In removing homosexuality per se from the nomenclature we are only recognizing that by itself homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being considered a psychiatric disorder. We will in no way be aligning ourselves with any particular viewpoint regarding the etiology or desirability of homosexual behavior.

     

    If the APA’s move was so definitive, there wouldn’t have been any need to hope that the mapping of the human genome would yield a “gay gene,” which of course it did not.  Here’s a good critique of many of the assertions that homosexuality has an exclusive or even predominantly biological cause:  http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

  • squirrely-girl

    If the APA’s move was so definitive, there wouldn’t have been any need to hope that the mapping of the human genome would yield a “gay gene,” which of course it did not.

     

    Only a complete idiot would believe that something as complex as sexual orientation could be explained by a single gene or even a set of genes. There’s no such thing as a “straight gene” so why would there be a “gay gene?”

  • kevin-rahe

    Inasmuch as they are intended to stop real and unjust discrimination – even discrimination against practicing homosexuals – Catholics are allowed, and even compelled, to support such laws.  However, when such laws are used to excuse homosexual relationships or activity, then they incur an evil effect that must be weighed against the good they are expected to do.  If the good effect of ending real and unjust discrimination doesn’t equal or exceed the evil effect of excusing or promoting the acceptance of homosexual activity or relationships, then the law cannot be supported.

     

    Those who promote such laws often freely admit that they’re largely a symbolic measure meant to signal the acceptance of homosexuals.  In this context (or any other for that matter), they rarely if ever distinguish the persons who are homosexual from the activity and relationships that some of those persons engage in.  At the same time, actual examples of real discrimination the law is intended to prohibit are practically never supplied, even with pseudonyms to protect the victims.  Therefore, it is usually far from clear that the good effect of these laws will equal or outweigh their evil effect, making it difficult to impossible for a Catholic in good conscience to support them.

  • prochoiceferret

    Inasmuch as they are intended to stop real and unjust discrimination – even discrimination against practicing homosexuals – Catholics are allowed, and even compelled, to support such laws.  However, when such laws are used to excuse homosexual relationships or activity, then they incur an evil effect that must be weighed against the good they are expected to do.  If the good effect of ending real and unjust discrimination doesn’t equal or exceed the evil effect of excusing or promoting the acceptance of homosexual activity or relationships, then the law cannot be supported.

     

    So can you cite any instances of the Catholic Church supporting a law that prohibits “real and unjust” discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

     

    Those who promote such laws often freely admit that they’re largely a symbolic measure meant to signal the acceptance of homosexuals.

     

    Yes, I’m sure the gay/lesbian folks who have been fired from their jobs and/or evicted from their housing for being who they are feel symbolically grateful for these laws.

     

    In this context (or any other for that matter), they rarely if ever distinguish the persons who are homosexual from the activity and relationships that some of those persons engage in.

     

    Yes, because that’s kind of a private thing. If you want to know about the activities and relationships of homosexuals that badly, I suggest you go to an adult video store. Gay porn is a whole genre, you know.

     

    At the same time, actual examples of real discrimination the law is intended to prohibit are practically never supplied, even with pseudonyms to protect the victims.

     

    Many gay and lesbian folks have shared their accounts of “actual examples of real discrimination.” Whether the Catholic Church and its allies have ever bothered to listen to them, rather than wail about their God-given right to demonize and denigrate sexual minorities, is the more relevant question.

     

    Therefore, it is usually far from clear that the good effect of these laws will equal or outweigh their evil effect, making it difficult to impossible for a Catholic in good conscience to support them.

     

    It seems to me that any person in good conscience would find the discrimination evil, rather than the laws meant to prevent it.

  • kevin-rahe

    Yes, I’m sure the gay/lesbian folks who have been fired from their jobs and/or evicted from their housing for being who they are feel symbolically grateful for these laws.

     

    When blacks were fighting to end discrimination against them, we saw newsreels of crowds taunting black students trying to enter a previously all-white school.  We saw pictures of a group of black guys trying to get a bite to eat at a lunch counter and being ignored or having the counter shut down at their presence.  We read accounts of lynchings and black entertainers who would perform in venues they weren’t allowed to patronize.  The examples are endless.  Where are similar stories about homosexuals being discriminated against?  A group in a town near mine recently tried to push to add sexual orientation to the town’s anti-discrimination ordinance, but while there were several articles in the paper about it, not one of them referenced an actual instance of such discrimination.  ???

     

    It seems to me that any person in good conscience would find the discrimination evil, rather than the laws meant to prevent it.

     

    I would find it evil myself.  I’m just not convinced it exists!

  • squirrely-girl

    The findings of fact from the official Prop 8 decision actually has a ton of examples if you’re interested in reading it. 

     

    Not too long ago in my own small college town a real estate agent openly told a gay couple they “didn’t rent to their kind.” Aside from the fact I think DADT is a pretty strong form of discrimination toward homosexuals, some other examples might include Texas not allowing “gay divorce” and the Red Cross denying openly gay donors. Constance McMillen and Ceara Sturgis are other great examples. How about those states that don’t allow gay men and women to adopt?

     

    Race/ethnicity is often difficult to hide… sexual orientation not so much. The photos you speak of are so poignant because of the stark visual contrasts in skin color. Were you expecting to find photos of drag queens or “flamers” being screamed at? Similarly, when some people react ala Matthew Shepard, are you really surprised gay men and women aren’t running to the news outlets?

     

     

  • kevin-rahe

    The findings of fact from the official Prop 8 decision actually has a ton of examples if you’re interested in reading it.

     

    I’m looking for examples of situations where homosexuals have been discriminated against while trying to do normal things that normal people do.  The only examples you cite that could be considered that are the gay couple who tried to rent a place and the states (I think only two remain) that won’t let gay men or women adopt.

     

    Similarly, when some people react ala Matthew Shepard, are you really surprised gay men and women aren’t running to the news outlets?

     

    News stories and columns use pseudonyms when the subject of an article wants their privacy protected.  Even with anti-discrimination laws in place, they won’t mean anything if victims aren’t willing to file complaints about infractions and appear in public courts to press their case.

  • arekushieru

    Hmm, how about not being able to share benefits, being discriminated against in the hospital room, etc, etc….  You would know this if you watched anything other than ‘Faux News’….

     

    So, it doesn’t mean anything that we have rape laws in place because few victims are willing to file complaints…?

  • kevin-rahe

    how about not being able to share benefits, being discriminated against in the hospital room

     

    Asking for special treatment or the acceptance of exceptional cases is not the same as being denied something that is normally granted.  Men do not normally share spousal benefits with another man.  Women don’t normally have the same rights to speak for another woman that a spouse would.

     

    So, it doesn’t mean anything that we have rape laws in place because few victims are willing to file complaints…?

     

    Rape is a criminal offense, as it should be since it brings direct physical harm on an individual.  Anti-discrimination laws aren’t in that category.

  • jayn

    Asking for special treatment or the acceptance of exceptional cases is not the same as being denied something that is normally granted. 

     

    Way to miss the entire damn point.  This isn’t about gender–it’s about being allowed to see those most dear to you while in the hospital, which is NORMAL.  If I were ill, I would want my husband to be present.  Had I fallen for a woman instead, and I was ill, I would want her present for exactly the same reasons.  It doesn’t matter what gender the person is–what matters is their importance to me.

     

    And not only do you miss the point, you manage to engage in victim-blaming on your second point.  Not everyone who experiences discrimination is going to have the willingness or ability to pursue litigation, and that’s prefectly fine.  Because you know what?  IT SHOULDN’T TAKE A DAMN JUDGE TO BE TREATED LIKE A HUMAN BEING.

  • mechashiva

    Are you seriously trying to argue that homosexual marriage (and spousal benefits thereof) are “special treatment” because homosexual marriage is less common than heterosexual marriage?

  • colleen

    I’m looking for examples of situations where homosexuals have been discriminated against while trying to do normal things that normal people do.

     

    Oh I doubt that. You’ve yet to demonstrate the ability to fully read any links provided and a seemingly endless ability to say the most stupid things possible in an effort to deny what is obvious. What you’re doing is playing the game of having people run around doing research you’re quite capable of doing yourself.

    We know that such discrimination exists because in several municipalities (Boston and DC come to mind)the Catholic church has broken the law by engaging in several forms of discrimination and, as a result, has had it’s contracts to provide services revoked.

    That would be a good place to start your ‘research’. Have at it.

  • prochoiceferret

    When blacks were fighting to end discrimination against them, we saw newsreels of crowds taunting black students trying to enter a previously all-white school.  We saw pictures of a group of black guys trying to get a bite to eat at a lunch counter and being ignored or having the counter shut down at their presence.  We read accounts of lynchings and black entertainers who would perform in venues they weren’t allowed to patronize.  The examples are endless.  Where are similar stories about homosexuals being discriminated against?

     

    When you studied the Civil Rights Movement in school, the lesson it intended to teach was not “this is what oppressed people look like, so if they aren’t getting lynched and firehosed and refused coffee then they aren’t being oppressed.”

     

    A group in a town near mine recently tried to push to add sexual orientation to the town’s anti-discrimination ordinance, but while there were several articles in the paper about it, not one of them referenced an actual instance of such discrimination.  ???

     

    Yes, I’m sure they referenced lots of instances of men not sharing “spousal benefits” like hospital visitation with other men (who happen to be their partners), people asking for “special treatment and/or the acceptance of exceptional cases” (like allowing someone who doesn’t conform to gender stereotypes to hold a job), and people acting on their God-given right to exclude other people from the normal course of society. But not one actual instance of such discrimination.

     

    I would find it evil myself.  I’m just not convinced it exists!

     

    Yes, and many White people would agree that racism no longer exists in this country!

  • squirrely-girl

     

    Asking for special treatment or the acceptance of exceptional cases is not the same as being denied something that is normally granted.  Men do not normally share spousal benefits with another man.  Women don’t normally have the same rights to speak for another woman that a spouse would.

     

    Just because something is “normal” doesn’t mean it’s right. For example, it was once not normal for women to be able to inherit property or vote. Guess what, times change and (occasionally) society realizes the bigoted errors of it’s way.

     

    But both men and women CAN share spousal benefits and the only reason society denies is based on sexual orientation. Again, women were oft denied many “rights” based on traditional gender roles. This is not so anymore. 

     

    If the state doesn’t wish to be equal they should get out of the business of marriage. 

  • beenthere72

    I’m wondering if this group or town near him didn’t reveal the actual instance of discrimination that prompted the amendment in order to AVOID future discrimination for the party involved, especially since there’s no legal protection yet in place.   

     

    And why is an actual instance needed when many states and towns around the US are adopting such laws?   Because the instances exist in many places.   

     

     

  • kevin-rahe

    If the state doesn’t wish to be equal they should get out of the business of marriage.

     

    And go back to the days before the federal government and states got into the marriage business?  I’m with ya there!

  • julie-watkins

    Here’s some evidence:

    http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=110295

    Tammy Aaberg is the mother of a kid who killed himself.

    Tammy Aaberg also addressed the school board, the report said, having found out from her son’s LGBT classmates that he had been bullied at school–and the classmates, also, had endured abuse. The teachers reportedly did nothing to intervene. The news article said that this was due to the sex ed policy, which school staff feared could be used against them if they came to the defense of gay and lesbian students who were being harassed. “”I’m asking you all to rewrite the policy in order to give teachers training in how to be more sensitive to GLBT students,” Tammy Aaberg appealed to the school board.

    “These kids, they just hate themselves. They literally feel like they want to die. So many kids are telling me this,” Tammy Aaberg told the news station.  [emphasis added]

    The school policy is,

    “Teaching about sexual orientation is not a part of the District adopted curriculum; rather, such matters are best addressed within individual family homes, churches, or community organizations.”

    What happens in many schools is that local or state legislation may pass anti-bullying laws, but anti-gay parents push to disable the protection, so the teachers are afraid to stop bullying for fear of lawsuits about “teaching about sexual orientation” by the parents of kids who are told “don’t bully” or whose kids witness the teacher intervening. The parents, in their political actions, teach their kids to be anti-gay, and that anti-bullying stuff is religious persecution, so the kids are, in essense, told it’s OK to bully. And they do. And the more it’s a controversy the more bullying happens. 

     

  • equalist

    Not to mention that thank god they haven’t found a gay gene and I honestly hope they never do.  It’s been theorized that many “pro life” couples, upon finding that their child carried the “gay gene” would suddenly become pro choice in that instance, as well as I’ve personally spoken with many who categorize themselves as pro life but would choose to abort rather than risk giving birth to a homosexual child.