For the past decade, a cadre of social scientists has claimed that kids raised by homosexuals show “no differences” from kids raised by opposite-sex couples.
Now, a large national study of the well-being of young adults reared in different types of families challenges this widely circulated “no differences” thesis.
In this month’s Social Science Research, University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus reports that Americans ages 18 to 39 who grew up in families where either parent had a same-sex romance fared significantly worse on 25 of 40 measures. They were three and a half times likelier to be unemployed and almost four times likelier to be on public assistance than children raised in biological, intact mom-and-dad marriages. Children reared by same-sex-wooing adults were also more likely to have been arrested, to have pled guilty to a minor criminal offense, to smoke marijuana, and to have thought about suicide during the previous year.
Regnerus’s “New Family Structures Study,” which screened more than 15,000 Americans and interviewed nearly 3,000, radically challenges the previous scientific consensus.
Recent Legal Actions
In a 2005 brief, the American Psychological Association (APA) stated: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”
The APA’s primary stated objective for publishing the brief was to influence family law. The preface declared that “the focus of the publication … [is] to serve the needs of psychologists, lawyers and parties in family-law cases.”
The APA statement seemed to accomplish, at least in part, the work it set out to do. The “no differences” thesis has been used in many legal briefs, articles and expert testimonies to sway state and federal judges on same-sex “marriage” decisions.
Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady cited the “no differences” thesis in his opinion for the 2009 case that legalized same-sex “marriage” in the Hawkeye State. Likewise, now retired Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. district court in San Francisco repeatedly cited the “no differences” thesis in his 2010 decision, which overturned California’s Proposition 8 voter initiative defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Judge Walker said the research supporting the conclusion that children raised by homosexual parents are as likely to be “healthy, successful and well-adjusted” as other children was “beyond serious debate.”
But, in fact, there is serious debate about the quality of research that was used to establish the “no differences” claim. In a thorough critique of the 2005 APA brief, which also appears in this month’s issue of Social Science Research, Louisiana State University associate professor Loren Marks writes that “strong assertions” about same-sex parents, “including those made by the APA,” are not “empirically warranted.”
Marks says that 77% of the 59 studies cited in the APA paper were conducted on small, non-representative samples of fewer than 100 people, with one study including only five participants. In Marks’ words, “It seems that influential claims by national organizations should be based, at least partly, on research that is nationally representative.”
Those researching same-sex parenting, Marks said, also tend to study a few privileged lesbians (predominantly white, well-educated and middle-class), then unscientifically generalize their findings to all same-sex couples nationwide.
In a press release responding to Marks’ critique and Regnerus’ study, the APA simply reiterated its 2005 position that “there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation.”
Asked how the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) differs from previous same-sex parenting studies, Regnerus said, “We employed a random, population-based sample, and a large one at that, so people can generalize to the broader population of young adults in America. And we talked to independent adults, not to parents or kids still in the home. Nobody did that before.”
In an article for the online magazine Slate, Regnerus wrote, “I’m not claiming that all the previous research on this subject is bunk. But small or non-random studies should not be the gold standard for research, all the more so when we’re dealing with a topic so weighted with public interest and significance.”
Sex-Abuse Indicator?
Among the most disturbing of the new findings were those regarding childhood sexual abuse. Sadly, when asked if they were ever touched sexually by a parent or an adult, grown children of lesbian mothers were 11 times more likely to say “Yes” than those from intact biological mom-and-dad families.
The new study plainly shows that to be reared by an intact biological family presents clear advantages for children over all other family forms, including those in which parents are divorced, cohabiting, single or adoptive.
“The biologically intact, stable nuclear family may seem like an endangered species — it is not — but it remains the most secure environment for child development,” Regnerus writes.
He adds that what sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, authors of Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, observed in 1994 remains true today: “If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent family ideal.”
A Political Firestorm
Regnerus, who regularly pens op-eds for The Washington Post and other news outlets, cautioned that his study says nothing about why these outcomes might have occurred. It does not say people who’ve had same-sex romances are “bad parents” or that they “caused” their children’s problems.
Nonetheless, his findings have ignited a political firestorm.
Same-sex “marriage” activists and bloggers have called Regnerus a “bigot,” an “anti-gay theocrat,” a “retrograde researcher,” plus dozens of worse names unsuitable to print. “The ad hominem attacks have been unreal,” Regnerus said.
His carefully designed, peer-reviewed study, published in a highly reputable journal and funded to the tune of nearly $800,000, has been called everything from “ill-conceived” to “junk science.”
In a joint statement, leaders of the Human Rights Campaign, Family Equality Council, Freedom to Marry, and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation called the study a “flawed, misleading and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents.”
Seeing the New Family Structure Study as a mere political maneuver, the above coalition further charged that “Regnerus is well-known for his ultra-conservative ideology, and the paper was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation — two groups commonly known for their support of conservative causes.” Further, they added, “The Witherspoon Institute also has ties to the Family Research Council, the National Organization for Marriage and ultra-conservative Catholic groups like Opus Dei.”
Writing in The New Republic, Molly Redden called the NFSS an “embarrassing piece of statistical acrobatics” and openly called for “respectable news outlets” to blackball Regnerus and “decide that his isn’t a voice we need at all.”
Asked what he thought of all this hullabaloo, Regnerus quipped, “I think the decibel level of the critics is in keeping with the quality of the study: high.”
Regnerus, who is Catholic, states for the record that he has not yet voted for a Republican presidential candidate.
“Religious organizations have historically been interested in the sorts of subject matter I’ve studied,” he told one interviewer. “But there’s no ‘Christian’ approach to sampling or ‘Catholic’ way of crunching numbers. Any trained methodologist, data manager and statistician can locate the same patterns I reported.”
Matthew Franck, director of the Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution of the Witherspoon Institute, said that although his organization helped fund the research, “We had no influence on the conduct of the study or on the writing” of Regnerus’ journal article.
“The reason Witherspoon wanted to sponsor research on this question,” Franck said, “is because we were already persuaded that the existing research was not sound.”
Register correspondent Sue Ellen Browder writes from Ukiah, California.
Jimmy Akin: Should We Be Concerned About Pope Francis's Inaugural Mass?
Matthew Warner: Should the Church Preemptively Withdraw From the Civil Marriage Business?
Comments
Post a Comment
As with the no difference studies, Mr. Regnerus’ study does not eliminate alternative explanations for his findings. This is a frequent problem with dichotomous studies - having an either-or outcome removes the possibility of combinatorial factors. As a researcher I did not find the no difference studies convincing, I don’t find the current study convincing. To be honest I do not believe we can ever sort this out - we are dealing with humans and all that entails, which makes social-psychological research suspect.
Is the study availabile online?
Warped science to support the gay agenda? Where have we heard this before?
In fact you don’t even need the study. Reason alone is sufficient to conclude that a family that lacks role models for both sexes is not going to provide the best upbringing for a child. Homosexual parenting is prima facie deficient. But note the reaction to the study. How they howl when their sacred cows are attacked! Sorta like man-made global warming, huh?
It doesn’t matter how big or representative your sample is ... if you are going to compare apples and oranges (or in this case stable heterosexual families with a mix of stable and unstable families thanks to a totally contrived definition), you are going to get nonsensical results. Even Regnerus acknowledges that you can’t attribute the results to the sexual orientation of the parents involved, and that he actually only had one instance in his study where kids were raised long-term by a same-gender couple. (And in that one case, the parenting results were outstanding.) Given their complete disregard for simple honesty, I am not sure my respect for the Catholic Church hierarchy can go any lower at this point ... and that comes from someone who, until about 15 years ago, had quite a lot of respect for the institution.
You can read Regnerus’ study here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
Marks’ study can be found here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.006
For a summary of the findings see: familystructurestudies.com
I haven’t read Regnerus’ study yet, but I’m inclined to agree with Andy’s post above that there are probably some flaws to the study (some things he couldn’t experimentally control, alternative hypotheses unaccounted for etc.). The fact is that human behavior is incredibly complex and there are likely all sorts of factors we can’t begin to account for. Given the volatile nature of this topic, it would make sense that those who believe the “no difference” hypothesis would be especially critical of it and cite it as flawed. However, I don’t think that the study can be entirely dismissed either, as some opponents of the study are clearly inclined to do. If it was published and survived the peer review vetting process, there clearly was some merit to it. If it was “junk science” it would never have gotten past reviewers. How can they reject this study for its flaws but be ok with small or biased sampling studies that support the “no difference” claim? Sounds academically dishonest to me and that an agenda is being pushed rather that a true pursuit of reality.
I agree with Andy that it would be very difficult to sort this issue out with social science alone. Who is to say what the effect of same sex parenting is 40-50, or even 150 years down the road?
Additionally, what about its effects on other dimensions of human experience not addressed by the study? No study could conceivably address, and quantify, every factor of human life, and so we can never say that a study has addressed all the effects of something.
As far as I am concerned, humanity has been in the course of “studying” the effects of different types of relationships for hundreds of thousands of years. It seems to me that most societies have found it profitable to encourage heterosexual commitments and child rearing.
The study is available here: http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/index.html
Posted by Dave on Tuesday, Jun 26, 2012 7:54 AM (EST):Given their complete disregard for simple honesty,I am not sure my respect for the Catholic Church hierarchy can go any lower at this point ... and that comes from someone who, until about 15 years ago, had quite a lot of respect for the institution.”
*************
How is this relevant to the article in question?
Amazing! “Their” side has all kinds of baloney studies that says gay marriage is fine for kids. “Our” side has conservative studies that are, yes, biased to some degree. Come on peope: Doesn’t common sense tell us that what’s the very berst is for the natural man and wife family, committed for life is the best for kids? Unless, I guess if your are atheist, or maybe buddhist etc etc. (Boy doesn’t the left attack the right vigously if a study disagrees with their agenda in any way! ? And isn’t the Church under attack and it’s only just begun? And hasn’t this President taken all this craziness to a new level? And don’t we need to come together as Catholics and stop this craziness?)
It only takes common sense to know every child wants a Mom and a Dad. One only need ask himself/herself..if I were a child would I be happy with two Mommies/two Daddies? Would I be happier in an orphanage than live like that…?
Is there something wrong with me that only weirdos want to be my parent?
All this is done, (I think) to eventually make Churches obsolete. Churches refuse to perform marriage ceremonies to homosexuals. When their “marriage” is legalized churches will be forced to perform their ceremonies. Churches will refuse, and soon there will be no churches. The Godless left will win. We must stand our ground.
Does anyone expect the bishop of Fr. Pierson will be handing down any corrections to this?
MINNESOTA, June 21, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) —Collegeville, Minnesota’s notoriously liberal Benedictine community of St. John’s Abbey is in the spotlight once again as one of its monks urges Catholics to oppose the cause for true marriage.
On June 10th, openly homosexual priest Fr. Bob Pierson, the guest-master at St. John’s, told over 200 people at a Methodist church in Edina, Minneapolis, that “Catholics can vote no” on Minnesota’s proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Pierson, who styled himself an “LGBT ally”, made his case by selectively quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church and voicing disagreement with the Vatican on certain issues.
As reported, Regnerus’s study seems not to compare apples and apples: intact two parent hetero families with intact, two parent same sex families. As worded, the families where at least one parent had a gay romance could be hetero, with one parent having same sex flings on the side. This would allow for a conclusion that the decisive variable might be fidelity, not sexual orientation.
it would be good to clear this up.
I once went to a hospital with children that were under suicide watch when I was 15 years old in 2007 and a girl who had two gay fathers had a lot of problems and tried to kill herself on numerous occasions. I’ve also met other kids like her. I’ve see that when two homosexuals adopt a child they put alot of their problems on the child. (Like, they have to explain why they have two dads or two moms all the time and they also do bisexual/homosexual acts on other kids their age because they see thier parents do them to each other and then they get confused and question their own sexuality.) I’ve seen alot of confused sexual identity on these kids and they are so depressed and are given problems they do not need. And the parents dont give a care at what they are doing to thier kids. They are so selfish on wanting kids of their own to prove their “Gay Pride” rights, that they don’t care for the mental damamge and confusion they cause their kids.
I also met a 11 year old boy that was raped by his father and the hospital staff said in his hospital room, that he shared with another boy, he tried to rape the other boy when he was asleep. He was so psychologically messed up and confused.
There were also teen girls and boys that were bisexual/homosexual and were that way because they saw gay porn when they were kids(watched by their parents or other family members)and the images were burned into thier minds and they suffered a great deal because of it and then became bisexual/homosexual because they got addicted to the sexual images at such a young age and could not push them away. Alot of them have gone through loads of mental problems and have been in and out of hospitals, and eventually got into drugs and orgies.
(Orgies were born from bisexuality/homosexuality. In order for a orgy to take place there has to be at least two people of the same sex having sex with each other in the group in order for it to happen. It also is one of the #1 causes for aids and other sexually transmitted diseases.)
I truly pitied those kids I met in there. I think God wanted me to see how alot of these kids ended up. It was an eye opener and got me quite shaken up after I left there. But it did indeed open my eyes and I saw alot of corruption and things that could have been avoided if the parents did not adopt them in the first place.
For me, it doesn’t really matter what any study finds on the subject. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and are contrary to the natural law (CCC 2357). I pray that homosexuals repent, change their way, and are called to chastity. I suspect I’ll get my share of ad hominem replies but this isn’t my law but God’s. God gives each of us free will to choose to follow his Son or not. You can exercise your free will but you can’t rewrite God’s laws.
I think the overall point of the article is to point out the flawed assertion of the APA that “no studies exist” (or maybe we thank them for the invitation?)
I don’t consider active homosexuals parenting as a positive lifestyle, however, I have many questions about this study. As the mother of both biological and adopted children, I know first hand that raising adopted children can be somewhat challenging, particularly if those children are not placed into permanent homes at birth. The brave new world of in vitro and surrogacy as a realistic road to parenthood for homosexual couples is only a few years old. I have to think that many of the kids in this study were from broken homes or joined the homosexual parent in an adoptive situation, likely either foster care or from an eastern European orphanage. In other words, many of these kids were already in special needs situations. Was there any kind of control so that the kids being compared were from similar backgrounds?
This study, by admission of the author is correlational and he does not infer causation. However, it (as all good science should)does strongly suggest the need for further study. The real question is whether in a histrionic and politically charged society, that has had the acceptability/normality of homosexual relationships consciously forced upon it is there courage enough to even ask these questions without being labeled as homophobes/bigots?
This is all academic anyway. Even if there were 10,000 studies with flawless methodologies and clear, iron-clad conclusions upon which every scientist in the word agreed 100%, it would not matter one jot. No one in the same-sex marriage camp is the least bit interested in Truth. They want their relationships approved and celebrated by society, period. Truth, whether scientific, theological or otherwise, simply doesn’t enter into it. To paraphrase Nietzsche, truth is fine, but why not accept untruth if it takes you where you want to go? Jesus taught us all what marriage is, and he made it abundantly clear. If people aren’t willing to listen to the One who is Truth, then no “study” will ever be convincing.
To those who are slamming Regnerus, it seems clear they did not actually read either the study or the article he wrote for Slate. He is very careful to point out that association is not proof of causation. In fact, he is clear to point out that in an era where same sex relationships are more out in the open that the results for the generation currently being reared could be very different. The main point of this research is that the previous studies of the last decade or so were seriously, even critically flawed.
I am no researcher. I am only a committed Catholic. What God shows as right is always right; what He says is wrong is always wrong. Even if there was NO perceptable differences in outcome, those who live outside of God’s Design are in rebellion. We may never be able to quantify results of cause-effect in some things (for instance, was the outbreak of AIDS a direct message from God on how disobedience plays out?).
But the key to life is to live in the way God intends us to live. Maybe then we can all live out our purpose here.
@Kathleen—the Church considers the NCR to be an important tool for communication of Catholic views to the public. The article is a disingenuous characterization of what is in the Regnerus report at best, and an outright distortion at its worst. The headline is basically false; even Regnerus knows better than to take things that far. The article is just one more example of why I’ve basically become convinced that those making official and semi-official Catholic pronouncements on this topic will say just about anything to forward its agenda, regardless of whether it is truthful or not.
@Maryland Bill—the bigger problem is not the Regnerus study per se. It is the misrepresentation of the significance of the study by organizations like NOM, and writers like the author of this piece for NCR. The headline of this piece is not substantiated by the paper, since there were virtually no same-sex couple households—as any reasonable person would define the term—considered in the study.
@jfire—your assertion that churches will be forced to perform marriage ceremonies once same-gender marriage becomes legal is a complete and utter falsehood.
@Karen Salstrom—you are entitled to your own religious beliefs, and your church is entitled to live out those beliefs within the confines of its own private worship space. But you do not have the right to enshrine those beliefs in the law. If you want to have discriminatory laws, and have them hold up in court, you need to be able to justify them using NON-religious arguments, as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
Everyone NEEDS to understand that Dr. Regenerus did NOT study families with mommy+ mommy or daddy+daddy. In fact he only found out of his whole sampling, TWO straight up lesbian women who raised children and in an e-mail to me he says these children turned out GREAT! And he found no daddy+daddy.
Dr. Regenerus’s Respondents were raised in a MIXED ORIENTATION MARRIAGE (MOM), or a MIXED ORIENTATION SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. A MOM is where one spouse is gay and one spouse is straight. That is who responded to this survey people who had parents in a MOM. Regnerus confirms that he found only 2 Respondents who were raised in a straight up lesbian or straight up gay home. Here is part of his e-mail to me which he asked me to post.
[snip]“By the way, one of the key methodological criticisms circulating is that–basically–in a population-based sample, I haven’t really evaluated how the adult children of stably-intact coupled self-identified lesbians have fared. Right? Right. And I’m telling you that it cannot be feasibly accomplished. It is a methodological (practical) impossibility at present, for reasons I describe: they really didn’t exist in numbers that could be amply obtained *randomly*. It may well be a flaw–limitation, I think–but it is unavoidable. We maxxed Knowledge Networks’ ability, and no firm is positioned to do better. It would have cost untold millions of dollars, and still may not generate the number of cases needed for statistical analyses.[end snip] You can read the full e-mail exchange here-
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/06/11/45557
We know that only 1/3 of Mixed Orientation Marriages attempt to stay together after disclosure and of that 1/3, only half manage to stay together for 3 years or more (and it goes really down hill after 7 years).
FWIW I agree with Dr. Regnerus Mixed Orientation Marriages (or Mixed Orientation Sexual Relationships) that produce children are VERY BAD for the children. And that is what his study proves. It does not attempt and does NOT assess the outcomes of children raised by 2 loving moms or 2 loving dads. It.Does.Not.
This pic by Rob Tisnai depicts this research perfectly. I know he will let you re-post it.
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/quit-damning5.png
One of the reasons that Regnerus didn’t compare children reared by intact, stable, two-parent natural families to those reared by intact, stable, two-parent homosexual families is that stability is NOT a normal feature of homosexual relationships. They suffer far more breakups than natural marriages. Homosexual relationships are just so unstable that finding enough to provide a statistically significant sample is tough if not impossible.
The so called” Same sex parenthood” is the great and wide gate for all sexual aberrations. It is a license to indulge in all imaginable and unimaginable ways to satisfy worldly desires for pleasures. There cannot be a Dad and a Mom. Either it is Dad number one and number two and Mom number one and Mom number two. When the humans do notcare for the natural and traditional laws, anything is Right Who wants this state of affairs ? Do the Hindus, the Muslims, the Christians support the change in the definition of marriage and family ? Not at all. The world is of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Jews and so on and not exclusively of secularists of gay style
@MarylandBill - I don’t think anyone is slamming Regnerus. We are questioning whether the conclusion drawn in the headline up above was the conclusion that should be drawn by this study.
.
And I did read the study and it is plain as day right in there that the sample of children raised by homosexuals was skewed very heavily toward children from broken homes (e.g. mom leaves dad and then turns lesbian) and adoption. (I am assuming that twenty years ago the adopted children were from difficult situations as domestic infant adoption to a homosexual couple would’ve been anathema). Comparing children from broken homes and difficult adoptive backgrounds to children from a more random sampling from the general population is going to skew the results.
Congratulations Regnerus for your study and thank you. Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a respected Professor of Human Development and Family Studies faces the same criticism from those who are less than truthful about their methodology. Secular world won’t take her studies showing link between abortion and depression etc for obvious reasons. Similarly, you are being attacked by those not interested in studies that question their purported studies on issue.
Fair is fair - this is the better study. Wake up people!
@Arkanabar—sorry, but that is just nonsense. Some statistics show that same-gender relationships break up at higher rates than straight, but others show the opposite. (E.g., England has had same-gender partnerships long enough that their version of the census bureau can tabulate large-scale data on the matter, and they have found that dissolution rates among same-gender couples after five years is actually only about a half that of straight couples.) The notion that one can’t get a statistically meaningful sample of long-term same-gender relationships because they don’t exist is a total fabrication on your part. And to the extent that same-gender couples do exhibit problematic issues, most social scientists attribute those to social stigmatization ... which is precisely why the major mental health organizations all favor providing them the same level of support granted married straight couples.
I’m a little confused, because it seems like the title and the article aren’t saying the same thing. It seems to me that the study was actually conducted on “families where either parent had a same-sex romance, ” implying that, instead of being raised by two men or two women who planned their family together, these children had parents who had children with a heterosexual partner but struggled with homosexual feelings. If that is the case, it seems to me that this study is supporting the belief that our children would be better adjusted and statistically healthier if we allowed same-sex marriage and took down the legal barriers that allowed same-sex couples to have children through donors, surrogates, and adoption.
Would anyone like to drop off their 9 year old son for a play day with a friend in a household where there were two dads? What about a sleep over for such a situation? Is that a good idea? Is it beyond reasonsble question that your son’s friend, who has been raised seeing two men kissing and cuddling, might want to try this sort of thing with your son? Is it worth taking the chance? Things start to look a little differently when you personalize them instead of viewing them from a theoretical vacuum.
There are many books written by people who grew up in situations similar to what is described in the report. Their stories tend to track much closer to what Kal described above.
Some people are so open minded that their brains have fallen out. This amounts to nothing more then child abuse.
God help this country and God help our children.
Posted by Eileen on Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012 7:43 AM (EST):@MarylandBill - I don’t think anyone is slamming Regnerus. We are questioning whether the conclusion drawn in the headline up above was the conclusion that should be drawn by this study.
.
And I did read the study and it is plain as day right in there that the sample of children raised by homosexuals was skewed very heavily toward children from broken homes (e.g. mom leaves dad and then turns lesbian) and adoption.”
****************
I’m not a statistician & not able to comment on this particular study, but how else would a male homosexual couple acquire children if not through adoption or a “broken home?”
That same-sex marriages are farces can be demonstrated by history, logic, common-sense, and yes, even religion. There is no such thing as liberal neutrality. The State has plenty of common-good interest in protecting true marriage but instead is opting for a zero-sum game.
THE TRUTH AND MEANING OF HUMAN SEXUALITY, Guidelines for Education within the Family – 1995 document, paragraph 104 does not consider the practice of sodomy as a sin, (making people believe that God makes mistakes and creates creatures who will practice sodomy, one of The 4 Sins that Cry Out to Heaven).
Nothing in the document known to date is mentioned of its dangers but it does give the practice of it “personhood”.
See “Confirm homosexuality’s dangers – Data up to 2010”.
Dave, please site your source regarding same sex relationships in the UK.
@Kathleen - It’s a brave new world out there. These days, homosexual couples can do all kinds of things with purchased sperm/eggs, artificial insemination, in vitro, surrogacy, and even domestic infant adoption. Parenthood is acheivable for anyone nowadays - all it takes is money and a willingness to overlook/defy Natural Law.
@New Yorker—see tables 3 and 4 in the following:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/population-trends-rd/population-trends/no—145—autumn-2011/ard-pt145-civil-partnerships.pdf
@New Yorker—I provided the link, but so far it’s looking like NCR is not going to post it. But it comes from a publication on the website of the UK Office for National Statistics entitled “Civil Partnerships Five Years On, Autumn 2011” ... see specifically tables 3 and 4.
Eileen—it is sad that you can so readily dismiss the love and devotion same-gender parents bring to the table, and reduce it to a matter of money and the pseudo-scientific notion of “Natural Law” ... which as used by people like you is nothing more than Catholic dogma stripped of any direct reference to God. Yet another example of why my personal opinion of traditionalist Catholics has completely tanked over the past few years.
Eileen ,
Yes, but for a male, same-sex couple to legally obtain custody of a child it would still involve some form of adoption, “broken home” of one partner or both.
And here is another point of fact about the research which claims to show that if your mother is a lesbian or your father is gay you had a 2.1% high chance of being in Foster Care. But the research never asks when the child was in foster care. A lot of sexual minorities take children as Foster Parents and then many of them they adopt.
Don’t forget also that you had to be born between 1972 and 1993 to be included in the Survey. In many States not that long ago Lesbian women routinely had their children taken away from them and placed in Foster Care for no other reason other than they were a lesbian.
As late as 1995, Mary Ward’s daughter was taken away, solely because Mary was a lesbian, and placed with the father – even though he’d done time in prison for killing his first wife.
Another famous one was the Sharon Bottoms case in 1993 in Virginia. Sharon was a lesbian mother, and her own mother sued for – and got – custody of Sharon’s son. The judge (with the Dickensian name of Buford Parsons) specifically noted that homosexuality was illegal in Virginia at the time, and he called Sharon “immoral.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottoms_v._Bottoms
So when Regnerus tries to point to children with lesbian mothers or gay fathers having a higher risk of Foster Care please keep in mind the above, it is just another attempt to use fake science to slam sexual minorities.
@ K.C.Thomas"Do the Hindus, the Muslims, the Christians support the change in the definition of marriage and family ? Not at all. The world is of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Jews and so on and not exclusively of secularists of gay style.”
OK, I hate to spoil your phony ecumencalism, but that won’t exactly wash. Reform and Conservative Jews - by far the largest number of American Jews - approve of same-sex marriage. Yes, approve. So where does that leave you? With a Church in Rome that’s fighting tooth and nail against a tenet of the Jewish faith, perhaps?
Jains believe in complete separation of church and state - which would disallow Catholics seeking to impose “natural law” on civil society.
Hindus, those “idolators” who disobey the Very First Commandement? Aside from why you’d want to take such “wicked” people as your co-conspirators, it’s likely that the very Hindu country of Nepal will approve of SSM, as their court ruled.
And your definition of “Christian” would exclude Unitarians, the Lutheran Churches of Sweden and Denmark, a number of congregations of the United Church of Canada, the Mennonite Church of the Netherlands, British Quakers, and other denominations that approve of SSM. Perhaps you should explain to them why they’re not “real” Christians, but you are?
On the other hand, your postion on same-sex marriage certainly is in full accord with that of the Taliban.
@Kathleen - did you read my posts? I was referring specifically to those adoptions which by definition are special needs. In other words, the kids nobody else wants. The adopted children of homosexuals from the study were not the cute, cuddly babies whose mother received prenatal care adopted into a home from birth. They were the problem kids with attachment issues who are much more prone to all the problems listed in the study. Those were the only adoptive kids available to homosexual couples twenty years ago.
Posted by Dave on Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 10:04 AM (EST):@New Yorker—I provided the link, but so far it’s looking like NCR is not going to post it. But it comes from a publication on the website of the UK Office for National Statistics entitled “Civil Partnerships Five Years On, Autumn 2011” ... see specifically tables 3 and 4.
Eileen—it is sad that you can so readily dismiss the love and devotion same-gender parents bring to the table, and reduce it to a matter of money and the pseudo-scientific notion of “Natural Law” ... which as used by people like you is nothing more than Catholic dogma stripped of any direct reference to God. Yet another example of why my personal opinion of traditionalist Catholics has completely tanked over the past few years.”
*************************
Dave,
Which part of Catholicism does not teach Natural Law? There’s only one Catholic Church not “traditionalist” sub-groups.
Is there any part of Catholic teaching that you believe in? Or are you a Catholic yourself? No disrespect, but I find more & more people google for subjects like this to have a platform.Which is their choice I suppose.
Statistics are a tricky thing but even if the data provided is valid, Catholic teaching does not depend upon UK census figures nor personal opinions.It’s certainly not a popularity contest either.
Eileen ,
Thanks for clarifying the adoption particulars you were referring to.I was trying to figure out by what other means 2 men would arrive at custody of a child other than through adoption.You were pointing out that some of the adoptions might be from troubled situations.
Posted by mishi on Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 3:22 PM (EST):@ K.C.Thomas"Do the Hindus, the Muslims, the Christians support the change in the definition of marriage and family ? Not at all. The world is of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Jews and so on and not exclusively of secularists of gay style.”
OK, I hate to spoil your phony ecumencalism, but that won’t exactly wash. Reform and Conservative Jews - by far the largest number of American Jews - approve of same-sex marriage. Yes, approve. So where does that leave you? With a Church in Rome that’s fighting tooth and nail against a tenet of the Jewish faith, perhaps?
********************************
Demographically, Orthodox & Hasidic Jews are the ones increasing in population.The reverse is true of Reform & Conservative Jews.
The Catholic Church does uphold a “tenet of the Jewish faith” & agrees with Orthodox Jews in regards to the definition of marriage as being between a man & a woman.Judaism is our foundation.
Dave, I did look at the link you provided and the tables you specifically sited. A number of comments come to mind. First, the population of civil partenerships is only a small fraction of the marriages (about 3% on average). Also, note the commentary at the bottom of page 15/top of page 16 regarding the newness of civil partnerships skewing the data. Considering the aide disparity in population sizes and the commentary, I don’t see this study as proof positive that homosexual relationships are somehow longer lasting or superior to heterosxual marriages. Also, the rate of heterosexual divorce is atrocious and truly shameful. That the relationships between men and women have become so cheapened (thanks to articial contraceptives) is the main reason why the concept of same sex marriage has even become plausible. Also, many of the civil partnerships that stay together may in fact be staying together because the partners accept a sort of “restrained promiscuity” and not true monogamy. In fact, many books written by children of same sex partners indicate this sort of thing going on. This is not healthy for children.
I did some research of my own by doing a Yahoo search for “monogamous homosexual relationships study” and there’s an awful lot of data out there that refutes this notion of eutopian same sex relationships which homosexual activists put out there. Here’s one article from the NY Times, which is certainly not a conservative publication: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
Here’s anorther article: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Dave, I rally feel badly for anyone burdened with a same sex attraction. Truth be told, I think many guys dealing with same sex attrctions are decent, caring guys and I’m not just saying that. But I’m not going to pat them on the back and tell them to indulge themselves because I feel sorry for them any sooner then I would give a beer to an alcoholic who was going through withdrawals. There are serious health concerns with living a homosexual lifestyle and I’m frankly tired of all the misinformation and distortion of reality that is being put out there.
NewYorker, that second quote you posted? Yes, you probably are NOT aware but that is fromt he Family Research Council(FRC). The Family Research Council has been identified as a certified ***HATE GROUP*** by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/anti-gay/active_hate_groups
The SPLC is the preeminent organization that tracks ***HATE GROUPS*** like Nazi’s the KKK. In fact they are a Community Partner to the FBI, the SPLC is the real deal.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2007/february/coldcases_022707
I would urge you NewYorker to look for credible sources for information and not to certified ***HATE GROUPS*** I hope this information is of help to you.
Str8Grandmother, the point being made by the article is that overall, in the grand scheme of things, and looking at the big picture, the safest place for a child is with married biological parents. It’s good that you sited specific examples of poor heterosexual behavior, but I have to ask, what does this prove? That drug addicted heterosexuals make bad parents? I think we can all agree on that fact. But compared to the nightmare examples you sited, just about any scenario would be an improvement. I don’t think the fact that some heterosexuals are bad parents is a good reason to start advocating for same sex parenting. That’s like asking, “How many times would you like to be hit in the head with a baseball bat, 5 times or 10 times?” Well, ideally the answer would be NONE, but if I absolutley had to pick, I guess I’d have to go with 5 times.
I also did a Yahoo search for “gay couple abuse” and low and behold, a cadre of articles where gay couples abused kids popped up. Here’s just a few, but you can research it for yourself:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5466526/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys—social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8416361/gay-couples-son-removed-on-abuse-fears
While not all homosexual men are child abusers, there does seem to be something wrong with the psychology of a same sex attraction. Something like 85% of the abuse cases the Catholic Church saw were between gay men and much younger men of junior high school age. The Boy Scouts had a similar problem. None of this should be news because this type of man - boy behavior was common in the Greco-Roman world - so much so that the apostles specifically condemned it in The Didache, which you can also Google. All of this is very well documented.
I’m tired of the distortion and misinformation put out there specifically to confuse people.
NewYorker- “I’m tired of the distortion and misinformation put out there specifically to confuse people.”
Cough, cough, I beg your pardon New Yorker. It appears to me that YOU are the one spreading DISINFORMATION. All that pedophile sh*t that is meant TO dis inform and to smear really, it is a SCARE tactic. No wonder you are quoting from certified ***HATE GROUPS*** these must truly be your compatriots.
“For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.
Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as “fixated;” 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women….There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…” (p.180).
More information here-http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
As a recent example look at that Coach Sandusky out of Pennsylvania Heterosexually Married Man.If you want to go there this was a HETEROSEXUAL man who assaulted boys.
You should be able to make your points without resorting to the FAKE scare tactic of gays are pedophiles. Actually if we HAD to go against science the result would be HETEROSEXUALS are the worst Pedophiles. But that is not really fair per the above noted article.
Move on and make your points truthfully, without misrepresenting science, or quoting from ***HATE GROUPS***
It’s funny how some readers try hard to say because this is a human study that “sorting” things out are hard. Did they have that same view reading the bad studies done to advocate same sex marriage? Science is about data, and data don’t lie. Whether a scientific study is flawed or not should be left to the professional, peer scientists to make that judgement. And since they are the ones that make a living out of it, they will not be shy about striking down any bad studies. We shouldn’t be playing armchair amateur scientists with these studies. Let science does it thing.
Str8Grandmother ,
Some don’t consider the Southern Poverty Law Center impartial, either.
The original article references surveys & data so it’s valid to continue on in that fashion but data doesn’t change doctrine.
New Yorker,
I agree with your first sentence & I think stats back that up, but a huge number of abuse cases involve kids living in single-mom homes where there is a boyfriend present or where older males prey on young girls who don’t have a father in the home.
Str8Grandmother, the FBI may work with the SPLC on civil rights issues, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the FBI agrees with everything the SPLC says. The FRC is controversial because they have used research which homosexual groups dispute because the results doesn’t fit their agenda. An example of this is the Paul Cameron obituary study. That study included a survey of obituaries in homosexual newspapers and reported the average age of death was only 38. Right away homosexual groups went on a mission to discredit the study - sample size wasn’t big enough, not scientific enough, not statistically repesentative of the population, etc. etc. Technically, they may be correct. But why anyone wouldn’t be concerned that the actual average age of death was really 38 is beyond me. Even if the study is flawed it’s a pause for concern.
Anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda and is brave enough to stand up against them is usually branded a hate monger and lumped in with the neo-Nazi’s and the KKK. I’m not buying this nonsense. So on this issue, I’d have to part with the SPLC.
There’s a variety of reasons why the life expectancy of a male homosexual is less than normal, but one of them is not Christians or the FRC breaking into their homes and harming them. There are high rates of depression, substance abuse, domestic abuse, and unfortunately, suicide. There are also high rates physical ailments including anal cancer and certain types of urinary tract diseases - all rarely found in heterosexuals. Then there’s the penchant for rampant promiscuity, which inevitably affects one’s psyche, hence the depression and suicide.
I live in a major metropolitan area and I’ve seen enough examples of this destructive lifestyle to say that it’s frankly either ignorant or downright disengenuous to encourage people, on whatever level, to indulge in same sex relations. Discouraging people from doing something that ultimately harms them is not spreading hate. It is spreading love.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church has it right. Refer to CCC 2357-9.
@Kathleen - sort of. I was pointing out that most adoptive situations for the children (of the homosexuals) in this study were from troubled situations. Situations where adoptive children could begin bonding with their homosexual parents in infancy were pretty much non-existant twenty years ago.
Dear Readers,
Replying to Andy’s comment of 26 June, it must be noted that he is wrong if he is saying, as I think he is, that dichotomous explanatory variables rule out statistical analyses involving other explanatory factors. This is not true. The dichotomous nature of sexual orientation—either the parents are homosexual or they are not—would not forbid considering other factors bearing on the success of their kids. Moreover, these other factors may or may not be construed as dichotomous, such as parental income, educational level, ethnic or religious background.
Even if the dependent variable (how well the children do) is construed as dichotomous (kids of homosexual couples do either better or worse than other kids), it would still not rule out considering a host of factors bearing on the kids’ success, not just parental sexual orientation. A researcher could, for example, use logistic regression to analyze the effects of parental income, occupation and educational level, as well as sexual orientation, on the outcome “Kids raised by homosexual couples either do better or they do worse than other kids—one for ‘better,’ two for ‘worse’.”
In conclusion, the methodological issue that Andy seems to raise is really no problem. Although people may argue about the theory behind the analysis or suggest that factors beyond the analysis ought to be brought into it, the analysis itself is perfectly feasible from a methodological standpoint.
NewYorker, no, non, no, no, no. I really must insist that you STOP trying (and failing) to link homosexuality and pedophilia. I think that is about the lowest, dirtiest trick in the book. It is a LIE. Just look at that Coach of Pennsylvania Sandusky, HETEROSEXUALLY Married, and identified and lived HETEROSEXUAL.
Pedophiles are predominately HETEROSEXUALS.
Here watch this video and get the TRUTH. Then you can stop repeating that vicious lie about gay men. Please watch this video.
http://youtu.be/sV5PbrTySxY
***A Warning to the Public about the Commenter NewYorker***
On these most important topics it is really important to bring to the table factual information by reputable sources. NewYorker has cited data from-
1)Family Research Council, a Certified HATE GROUP
2)Falsely attempted to link gay men to pedophilia
3) Now is Citing research by (sigh) Paul Cameron.
I have already covered 1 & 2 in previous comments, please allow me to share with you the info on Dr. Paul Cameron, Here from his Wiki-
In 1983, the American Psychological Association expelled Cameron for non-cooperation with an ethics investigation, although by his own account he had resigned from the organization the previous year. Position statements issued by the American Sociological Association and Canadian Psychological Association have accused Cameron of misrepresenting social science research
In 1984 the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement disassociating itself “from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron”.[3] In 1986 the American Sociological Association passed a resolution condemning Cameron for “consistent misrepresentation of sociological research”.[24]
(+ the Canadian Psychological Association thew him out)
I think that is enough. It should be obvious to all readers that NewYorkers comments are in fact, *HATE SPEECH*. He knows what he is repeating are lies, lies that are intended to harm and denigrate sexual minorities. And his lies keep getting bigger. This is not a difference of opinion this is the definition of HATE SPEECH. No different than if I said “All black people have lower IQ’s.” Would you accept that here? It is absolutely outrageous that on National Catholic Register we should even see the name Paul Cameron in print, NCR please protect your reputation as a venue for civil discourse.
I respectfully request that the Moderators remove NewYorkers posting privileges, at least on this article. He is not commenting in good faith. Even when we disagree, we should be able to discuss the topic with rational people bringing in at least some points of substance and not with people who lie, lie, lie. I respectfully ask for this consideration.
Posted by New Yorker on Friday, Jun 29, 2012 3:27 PM ;
Anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda and is brave enough to stand up against them is usually branded a hate monger and lumped in with the neo-Nazi’s and the KKK. I’m not buying this nonsense. So on this issue, I’d have to part with the SPLC.”
***************
Exactly.
Str8Grandmother, some Catholic web sites site the same sources (Cameron’s obituary study, for example). Does the Catholic Church now have to be labelled a hate group? At the rate we’re going that will probably be next. What I see here is loud voice trying to shout down dissent, whether that loud voice be youself or any of the other organizations you’ve mentioned. If, for example, you disagree with Cameron’s obituary study, fine. Why not state why you disagree with it? Why is it junk science? Be specific. What is wrong with asking for explanation and further research into areas where there may very well be some disturbing trends? Do male homosexuals actually suffer with a reduced life expectancy and if so, why? Is that “hate speach” to even ask that question? This attempt at silencing and discrediting dissension is frankly appalling. When we reach a point where discussion is no longer possible because of threats and accusations, we will be in a very bad - and very scary - place.
Dear Readers,
Regarding the above comments about homosexuality bearing no special association with pedophilia, you must spell out what you mean. If you mean that the vast majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles, I agree. But this does not rule out the possibility that a majority of pedophiles are homosexual. In fact, I’ve heard that two thirds of pedophiles are homosexual—-a remarkably high rate, considering that only about two to three percent of the general male population is homosexual. A proportion like this would be considered not just statistically significant but also, probably, theoretically interesting, to say the least.
By the way, homosexual males sometimes marry women, e.g., a former governor of New Jersey. A man’s being married to a woman is no guarantee of heterosexual identity.
“Sigh” Indeed. None of you people, on the right or the left, seem to get it. It doesn’t matter what this or that study says. Natural law shows us that children ensue from the sexual congress of one man and one woman. God has told us all that legitimate sexual congress occurs within marriage, and Jesus was EXPLICIT about marriage being one man and one woman for life. Period. Personal feelings, opinions, and “scientific” studies simply don’t enter into it. Neither the APA nor the SPLC nor the LCWR or any other alphabet-laden organization has any authority whatsoever to arbitrate God’s design. Pro-Gay studies, Anti-Gay studies, all of it is useless. This is one issue where authentic Catholics need to just close their mouths and obey. You aren’t God and neither am I. There could be a billion studies that say children are best raised by same-gender couples, but we would still have to do it God’s way regardless of the outcome. We really do need to bring back the old, Pray, Pay, and Obey Catholicism of yesteryear!
One other thing, here is an exact quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2357): “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” Is it hate speach to call homosexual acts intrinsically disordered?
Str8Grandmother: “sexual minority”? Surely you are referring to the fraction of a fraction of a percentage of those who are neither clearly female or male. Or perhaps you are referring to males in general, for you know well that females in the human race out-number males.
See Randy Engel’s article:
The Sodomization of Innocence
http://www.unitypublishing.com/Newsletter/Innocence.htm
See the lobby that is invading Catholic schools with a vengeance and what is their intention.
There has been a new development in recent days on this Regnerus Study. Over 200 Leading Social Scientists are demanding that the Journal Social Science Research retract this study and send it for Peer Review, peer review that meets scientific standards. And there ARE heavy hitters who have signed. The 200+ names and their Universities can be found here.
Professor of Sociology and Director, Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin. (This is Regnerus’s Department!)
Professor and Head of Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Chair and Professor of Sociology, Stony Brook University.
Chair and Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Charles H. Gregory Chair in Liberal Arts, Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University.
Chair, Department of Political Science, Professor of Political Science and Women’s Studies,University at Albany, SUNY.
Clinical Director, The Addiction Institute of New York, Department of Psychiatry, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center.
And many more.
Here is part of their Letter of Objection-
part of letter- [Snip] Respondents were asked whether their parents had ever had a same-sex relationship. The author then identifies mothers and fathers as “lesbian” or “gay” without any substantiation of parental sexual orientation either by respondents or their parents. Given the author’s stated caveats, it is both inappropriate and factually incorrect for him to refer to these parents as “gay” or “lesbian” throughout the paper.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/98888308
There is just so so much wrong with this so called research that it is better to send it back and start over, it really is.
Michael W. Drwiega, -“But this does not rule out the possibility that a majority of pedophiles are homosexual.
They are not in fact homosexuals, they identify and live a heterosexual orientation. The majority of pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL.
I can tell that you like a good debate. :) In fact I will wager that you enjoy a debate so much that often times you will take the opposite point of view of that which you hold just to enjoy an intellectual debate. I think I have provided enough citations on showing that in fact Pedophilia is not related to sexual orientation at all, but if it were, it would in fact be HETEROSEXUAL orientation. There always comes a point where if you feel you have made your point, it is time to quit and move on, and that is what I will be doing now. Take care.
You guys need to read the bible a bit closer….perhaps the teachings of Christ a little closer. If you are claiming to be Christian, they “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.” Or perhaps, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” But, my favorite direct quote from Christ regarding judgement is, “Judge no one in the name of God”, that one is in RED, so you can find it easier. :) Also, as Catholics, perhaps I should give you some updated info: The Catholic Church’s official position on homosexuality can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2358. The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
What’s particularly interesting about the Catholic position on homosexuality is how intimately connected it is with the Catholic position on birth control. Because the connection is so fundamental, any shift on the Catholic description of homosexuality as “disordered” would risk undermining the Catholic opposition to “artificial” contraception like birth control pills, condoms, and sterilization. Thus, it may be that one of the most important reasons why the Roman Catholic Church remains locked into their opposition to homosexuality may have nothing to do with homosexuality itself. So if you use birth control, have lustful thoughts, over eat, are envious or vengeful, etc….you are just as wicked and sinful. As it clearly states, “No sin is greater than another. So maybe exercise a little self control when it comes to your hateful words, it seems to me these are far from the actions of people who claim to strive to be like Christ and follow his teachings!
Nicki, I am going to start robbing others of money because I desire more than what I have. Will you be tolerant of my desires? Even though I claim the desire for more things and fun loving pursuits is all around me and enticing me for them, why can’t I? Your reasoning is unsound. God said stealing is wrong. God said homosexual acts violate His Commandments. God does not create what He opposes. He opposes the practices of the homosexuals just as He opposes robbing others. You heap condemnation upon those “who choose” homosexual practices making it appear acceptable. How tragic to support people towards an eternal life of misery. We must hate the things God hates or we become depraved and perish ourselves. Just the mere fact that the homosexual issue is being discussed makes it appear that God might have changed His mind or that the Roman Catholic Church has been ‘locked’ into error. Yes, it’s a major topic of the day. The agenda to normalize homosexuality is aggressive even if the practice of it has been scientifically proven it to be a life of misery and a shorter life span and Our Blessed Mother said sins against the flesh will send more people to Hell than any other sin.
To all: Be kind to one another and remember Luke 17:3 “take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him” We have to hate the sin, and love the sinner.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.