• Subscribe to Crisis

  • The Evidence is Coming In: The CDF was Right on Gay Parenting

    by Dr. William Oddie

    same sex parenting

    Earlier this year, in Faith magazine, I asked this question: “Are ‘gay rights’ now the most prominent defining issue delineating—at least in Europe and the US—the gulf between the Catholic Church and the modern world?” This was a rhetorical question inviting the answer, yes: and in the months that followed, I have, it seems to me, been proved right. Related issue after related issue has arisen in public life, in Parliament and in the courts of law, both national and international: here in the United Kingdom, both North and South of the border, the debate has centered on the issue of gay marriage: so I don’t apologize for returning to the subject yet again, so soon after writing about Nick Clegg’s accusation that those opposed to it are bigots.

    It is one of those questions that currently seems more and more to be proving, a secularist would say, how out of touch Catholics are with the modern world. To which we would reply, well, not out of touch at all: but certainly, in many ways, and not for the first time, diametrically opposed to contemporary values—though we are hardly alone this time: as I write, the Coalition for Marriage petition against gay marriage has reached a total of 600,783 signatures and by the time this is in print, that total will be considerably higher—you can check its current level and sign the petition while you are about it if you haven’t already done so. I am not sure, but I think that this is the highest ever total for an online petition, and is many, many times the total of the equivalent pro-gay marriage petition, which exists but which keeps a very low profile for that reason.

    We will be proved right, in the end, as we were over eugenics in the last century: Hitler dramatically proved us right, and eugenics suddenly went underground. But for most of the first half of the century, only Catholics opposed it: Chesterton was the only major writer who wrote against it, nearly all the rest were enthusiastic supporters. But the trouble with waiting for history to prove us right is that there have to be so many walking wounded—or worse—first.

    As I wrote in this column in 2010 about the enforced closure of our adoption agencies: “We are currently passing through a kind of cultural blip, in which these things go unchallenged (except, as usual, by the Catholic Church). Our descendants will look back and marvel at our gullibility. But in the meantime, in the name of human rights, of liberation from “outworn shibboleths” (remember them?) there will be many human casualties. “Oh Liberty,” in the famous words of Madame Roland as she mounted the scaffold, “what crimes are committed in thy name!”

    Why is the Catholic Church against, not only gay marriage but all gay unions? It is worthwhile to remind ourselves why. It was spelled out by the CDF, in a document turgidly entitled “Consideration regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons”: the title indicates that the document was published (2003) before most countries had actually done it. “Legal recognition of homosexual unions,” it said, “would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.” And one of the main effects of this devaluation would, said the CDF, be in its effects on the children adopted by those contracting such unions. The reasons for this are simple enough:

    As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. 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.

    Pretty bigoted stuff, Nick Clegg would undoubtedly say: but what, Mr Clegg, if the CDF has got it right? The trouble, as I have already suggested, with waiting for history to prove us right is that there have to be so many casualties first. But already, the evidence that the CDF has indeed got it right is beginning to come in, from the USA: though those registering the evidence are of course going though the fires of calumny from gay activists, including accusations of academic dishonesty (why is it we can’t call them bigots?). As the Baptist Press reports:

    The University of Texas at Austin has cleared sociology professor Mark Regnerus of academic misconduct after he was excoriated by some in the media over a study showing that parents’ homosexual relationships can have negative effects on children.

    Regnerus made headlines in June when his study was published in the widely respected journal Social Science Research. According to his findings, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts.

    They are also more likely to require more mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.

    How many years will it be before such findings are acted on? I fear that despite the academic evidence (this is not the only such study), it will take some years before public opinion supporting gay marriage (in the US, currently, this is a majority: here, I’m not sure, evidence is conflicting) goes into reverse, and even longer before gay couples are no longer allowed to adopt children. This is not the beginning of the end: but as Churchill famously said after El Alamein, it may be the end of the beginning. In the end, the Catholic Church, not for the first time when it has defied the Spirit of the Age, will be proved right. But what a lot of suffering is caused before finally the penny drops when the human race gets it wrong as spectacularly as it has this time.

    This column first appeared September 18, 2012 in the Catholic Herald of London and is reprinted with permission.

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Subscribe to Crisis

    (It's Free)

    Go to Crisis homepage

    • Pingback: The Evidence is Coming In: The CDF was Right on Gay Parenting | Catholic Canada

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      As the eminent psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, Pierre Lévy-Soussan, told the Pércresse commission (a commission set up by the French National Assembly in 2006): “It is in the child’s best interests to join a nuclear family that is already socially accepted so that he or she does not have to take on the additional task, following a history of abandonment, of adapting to a family that is, for whatever reason, ‘non-standard’.” He believes that in order to be successful, adoption must lead to a psychological filiation that “allows for a nexus of the three elements that are basic to any society: the biological, the social and the subjective dimensions specific to human beings. The psychological strength of this construction exceeds the purely biological connection of filiation and provides it with security. The security and ‘truth’ of this filiation are based on childbirth, on a potential or actual procreative relationship between a man and a woman, allowing the fictional filiation through the encounter with the other sex, alive and of the same generation. The fictional filiation can then be experienced as true, consistent and reasonable.”The difference in sex between the two members of the parental couple thus seems to him indispensable if the adoption “graft” is to take.

      Obviously, we cannot conflate adoption with cases of children raised by a biological parent and his or her same-sex partner, or, especially in the case of older children, an existing carer.

    • Matthew Arnold

      “in the US, currently, this is a majority” No, Dr. Oddie, I am glad to say that that is not so. Only judges have pushed through or approved legislation: this gross movement is totally top down. The American people are NOT in the majority for gay ‘marriage.’

    • hombre111

      Slice it, dice it, put garnish on it, the Catholic Church is going to apologize one day for its attitude toward gays and gay marriage the way it now apologizes for Galileo, the Grand Inquisition, tolerance of slavery, and witch burning. And it will weaken Church moral authority for centuries to come.

      • Mark

        The phrase “delusional apostate” comes to mind.

        • John200

          Hombre says he has been a priest for 48 years. God help him, and us all.

          • Frank

            Hombre has figured things out. Good for him.

            • John200

              Too bad he didn’t figure them out correctly.

              • Frank

                @John200:disqus Oh, but he did.

      • Objectivetruth

        Interesting…….so when Paul describes ,man lieing with man is an abomination” we should ignore that teaching? And please……don’t spin the interpretation of this to fit a gay agenda. The Church, the authoritative interpreter of scripture, has always that sodomy is intrinsically evil, and never condoned.

        • Frank

          @Objectivetruth:disqus I would strongly agree with hombre111 that the Church will one day regret the positions that it is now taking about same-sex marriage. The Church is one of the most regressive, backward, and quasi-Medieval organizations in the world, and it no longer has any power to enforce its teachings through threats of eternal damnation. No one is buying that line any more, and recent attempts by bishops and cardinals to exclude more open-minded Catholics are already backfiring.

          • Objectivetruth

            Hey ya, Frank! Where have you been? I’ve been waiting for you to post here!

            Tony Esolen above has made an excellent point. If, for example, a lesbian couple has a child through IVF and/ or donor insemination, that couple is Intentionally denying a child of a father. From the study “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” (Marquardt, Glenn, Clark): “Donor conceived children know that the parents raising them are also the ones who intentionally denied them a relationship with at least one of their biological parents. The pain they might feel was caused not by some distant parent who gave them up, but by the parent who cares for them every day.” Also, the same study reports that children of lesbian mothers conceived by donor insemination are more likely to report drug and alcohol abuse. Go to the web-site”Anonymous Us”, and read the painful postings of children of lesbian couples and what was “planned” for them as far as the willful and unnatural denial of a father in their lives. Imagine the horrible pain of a boy whose parents are lesbian as he watches the love, rearing, relationship, and interaction of his male classmate has with his father while the lesbian reared boy has never known this much needed fatherly influence.

            Nature intended for a child to be raised by a Mom and Dad, not a “mom and Mom”, or a “Dad and Dad.” Children of gay couples get second-rate parenting against what nature intended. The negative effects of this are just now beginning to be seen.

            • Frank

              ObjectiveTruth: By now, you know my spiel, but I will play it again for the benefit of our audience.

              You and I can always pull up studies and testimonials that support our claims. The difference between mine and yours, however, is that mine reflect the scientific consensus about same-sex parenting, and yours don’t. The American Academy of Pediatrics, 60,000 members, has been unequivocal about this issue. The following is from one of their position papers:

              “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.”

              Neither you nor I has the expertise to assess the validity of a scientific study unless its faults, like those of the Regnerus study, are so obvious that even non-scientists can readily spot them. So it does no good to offer up single studies unless they are presented as examples from the larger corpus.

              The real question–and the only one that I will really engage with–is whether you can show me a single major health and/or welfare organization that disapproves of same-sex parenting. I know in advance that you cannot, because I’ve done my research and I’ve listed them for you elsewhere.

              The Regnerus study is seriously flawed, and the author of this piece knows that. Even the journal’s own auditor concluded that the study should never have been published. The conflicts of interest were egregious and the study’s methodology was compromised in the interest of ideological agendas.

              • John200

                Dear Frank,

                You cry out for refutation. Two brief examples will do it.

                1. Let us consider
                your: “Even the journal’s own auditor concluded that the study should never
                have been published.”

                This is about as picked as a cherry can be.

                The auditor is Darren Sherkat (he is the also an antagonist
                of Mark Regnerus). Just so CrisisMag readers know, Sherkat also says there was
                no corruption of the publication process. You should have said so.

                2. You pretend that Scott Rozenzweig (aka Scott Rose) is a worthy
                source on homo”sex”ual activity. Many of your ideas come from, or passed through,
                this sad fellow’s homo”sex”ual “rights” blog, laughably
                titled, “The New Civil Rights Movement.” Rozenzweig/Rose made a
                public fool of himself in the contretemps about Regnerus’ study.

                To conclude: you mushed up Darren Sherkat and then cut-and-pasted,
                without attribution, homo”sex”ual blog dross as if it were serious.

                Catholic faith is superior to this kind of commentary.

                You may read between the lines, I know a few things about social
                science and the publication process in the leading journals.

                • Frank

                  @John200:disqus You are dead wrong about Sherkat. He said in an e-mail to Scott Rose that the study’s findings were “bullsh–t.” He was appointed by the journal’s own board, of which he is a member, to evaluate the study, and he concluded that it should never have been published. Scott Rose, whose Jewish provenance you have now disclosed to the entire world (!), has not made a public fool of himself to anyone but homophobic fools. Furthermore, you know nothing about social science. Your views and opinions about same-sex parenting are totally at variance with mainstream science. What social science organization would ever allow you to appear on its daïs? None.

                  • John200

                    Dear Frank, You’re a little late. I have appeared on social science orgs’ (yup, plural, more than one) dais. It has been obvious that you were heading for a total embarrassment, but I did not know it would come so soon.

                    Clearly I got to the bottom of you (no fun intended). But let that pass.

                    RCIA, Frank, that’s the trick. You don’t have to end up this badly.

                    • Frank

                      @John200:disqus Don’t worry about me. And—did I embarrass myself? Please explain. I wasn’t aware.

                      • John200

                        If you want to become aware of how you embarrassed yourself, that is a good sign. Go back and read your own comments. I’ll wait.

                        For you, another tidbit: I know Professor Sherkat better than you do.

                        I said nothing about Scott Rozenzweig being a Jew. I attended to his wholly laughable blog, built on the idiotic pretense that the US denies homo”sex”uals their civil rights. You are making me think I might know you better than you know yourself.

                        I also thank you for the comment where you claim to have routed Objectivetruth. It begins with:

                        “My conversation with “ObjectiveTruth” (OT) about this blog post followed a familiar pattern, and its outcome was predictable.” The most familiar aspect of this “pattern” occurs when you fill your diapers and put them on your head.
                        Come on, Frank, that’s a joke, just a figure of speech. It’s OK to laugh at yourself, especially necessary when you have been our fool.

                        Then off to RCIA. Then read “Dei Verbum.”

                        You can improve quickly, but you must make a start.

                      • Frank

                        @John200:disqus Sorry, John. Your “humor,” or whatever it is, goes right over my head. If you could try being less archi-cryptic, may we could all understand what you are saying.

                      • sajetreh

                        After reading the dialogue above it amazes me that no one has mentioned the obvious scientific truth. There is something called the human reproductive system. I don’t need the Church or opposing studies to instruct me on the obvious scientific fact, the human reproductive system has only one normal purpose. I don’t care one bit if you have sex with trees, animals or even Frank, just don’t try and tell me that something is normal when it is not. As far as history goes, if you believe what the Church teaches you go to heaven or hell and you can watch it unfold from there. If you are Frank, my ancestors will step in the mud you will become and you won’t know history anymore than you do now. Let’s face it, the world is soon to become under the rule of Islam anyway and Frank you know what they do to homosexuals and those who promote their lifestyles. Be careful Frank, they are watching and listening.

                      • Frank

                        @sajetreh:disqus My purpose in joining this conversation was to expose the fringe science that was cited here, and I accomplished that goal. You are of course entitled to believe anything you like, but when you claim that your beliefs are supported by mainstream science, you’d better be prepared to defend that claim, because it is highly misleading and ultimately harmful.

                        Your comment was one of the most bitter and hateful ones that I’ve seen on this thread. It seemed almost like a curse. I hope that when you write such things you will remember that you are a Catholic and that you are in some sense representing Catholicism through your words. What you’ve written is not a good “advertisement” for your faith, unless revenge and bloodlust are Catholic values.

                        I wonder if any Catholics participating in this conversation will object to the tone of your comment.

                      • sajetreh

                        Frank, you are good at ignoring the obvious. I never implied that I was representing Catholicism. In fact, I made it quite clear that I don’t need the Church to tell me how the reproductive system works. And I certainly don’t need you and your ilk telling me that the one purpose of the reproductive system is misleading. I can see how it would be harmful to your ideas because the truth is always harmful to lies. The only goal you accomplished was to show your ignorance of how the reproductive system works. The reason I read what the Catholic Church has to say about homosexuality is that they are the only ones on the side of science. And from what I can tell they aren’t the ones who are going to seek revenge with bloodlust on you for disagreeing with them. But, Islam, the new world religion will. Be careful Frank, they are watching and listening.

                        Finally, I’m sure Catholics participating will object to my tone. They seem to be reasonable people of peace and not radical revolutionaries like myself. I am the common man, who stands up against bad religion and bad ideas that ignore the obvious.

                      • John200

                        Looking back over this thread, I guess I am over your head. You cut-and-paste, then you think you have proven something you cannot prove, and you wonder why we gaze on you in such wonderment.

                        OK, you’re right, I am too far ahead of you.

              • Objectivetruth

                Which of the two homosexual men that a child lives with does said child call “Mommy” Frank?

                • Frank

                  @Objectivetruth:disqus You seem unusually preoccupied with traditional roles and nomenclatures. The year is 2012. Your presumption that a child needs someone to call “mommy” is, of course, the conventional wisdom. But in fact it’s not true, and I will once again cite the American Academy of Pediatrics here:
                  “Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.”

                  I consider this to be sound science, which in my opinion always trumps conventional wisdom.

              • Objectivetruth

                Frank, the study from the AAP you cite also states the following. In fact, it goes on for a whole page on how children need a mother and a father. But of course, you purposely forgot this part, didn’t you?:

                “Children need a mother and a father
                There are significant innate differences between male and female that are mediated by genes and hormones and go well beyond basic anatomy. These biochemical differences are evident in the development of male and female brain anatomy, psyche, and even learning styles.11Consequently, mothers and fathers parent differently and make unique contributions to the overall development of the child.11,12,13 Psychological theory of child development has always recognized the critical role that mothers play in the healthy development of children. More recent research reveals that when fathers are absent, children suffer as well. Girls without fathers perform more poorly in school, are more likely to be sexually active and become pregnant as teenagers. Boys without fathers have higher rates of delinquency, violence, and aggression.12,13″

                • Frank

                  @Objectivetruth:disqus These days, with the help of the Internet, it is very easy to verify whether certain kinds of claims are true or untrue. Yours is untrue. I just did a search in the article that I referenced, and the quotation that you cite does not appear there. Where did you find this opinion, which is the opposite of the one that I quoted but which you claim is in the same article? Either you are bluffing or I am being uncharacteristically careless, and I suspect the former to be the case.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Frank, I’ve been involved with medical clinical studies for 25 years…..you can choose to believe that or not. A 25 year old pharmaceutical sales rep can point out the sampling flaws in the study you referenced. It’s a bad study.

                    It’s been fun batting it around with you Frank, but it’s a waste of time. As a gay atheist, you’re only in here to attack the Catholic Church, not to openly educate yourself on what and why the Church TRULY believes. If you posted on here “I’m confused and don’t know the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality, abortion, contraception….could someone clarify the questions I have?” people would be more than happy to answer you or direct you towards where to get your questions answered. But I believe your afraid to study the Catholic Church, because the Truth will speak to both your mind and heart, challenging your current lifestyle. You’re scared to death to discover the beauty of the Truth of the Catholic Church, Frank. It would mean you would have to repent from your sins…..and you don’t want that.

                    • Frank

                      So it WAS a bluff! You knew all along that the passage you quoted was not from the document that I cited. There’s no way you could have been honestly mistaken about that. You tried a fast one and it failed. Instead of admitting it, you’ve launched into an ad hominem and scurried back into the shelter of your faith.

                      Why should I profess to be “confused” about the Church’s teaching on homosexuality? I’m not at all confused about it and I didn’t come here to “discover the beauty of the Truth of the Catholic Church.” My purpose here is to be a witness to the truth, and that is all.

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus See my summary toward the top.

                • Frank

                  @Objectivetruth:disqus I just searched on the text you cited, and it is from the American College of Pediatricians, which is socially-conservative splinter group off the American Academy of Pediatricians. It splintered from the AAP over this very issue and it is clearly ideologically driven, as its very mission statement makes clear. The ACP has a membership of somewhere between 60 and 200 members, while the AAP has a membership about 60,000. The ACP is to the AAP what Conservapedia is to Wikipedia. How could you have thought, much less claimed, that the passage you cited was from the same article that I cited? This says everything we need to know about your credibility.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Apparently frank the study you reference is eleven years old, and the AAP has been criticized highly for being biased towards the gay community. Prominent social scientists Robert Lerner and Althea Nagi in their report “No Basis” have called the study “highly flawed.” read the following article in the link below. Apparently a staggering 57% of the studies references are erroneous. Basically, it’s a bad study! I’ve been involved in the cancer medical community for 25 years Frank and trust me when I say just because an organization like the AAP has 60,000 members, that doesn’t mean that the dues paying members agree with or had anything to do with a flawed study such as this. Bad studies are bad studies Frank, and one of my first year med school students can see that a mile away with this one:

                    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/conclusive-report-by-american-academy-of-pediatrics-on-homosexual-adoption-

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus See the comment I left for you just above. The “No Basis” study is from the Marriage Law Project, a Catholic advocacy group whose stated mission is “to reaffirm the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman through scholarly, legal and educational work.”

                      It appears that you filter everything through the fine mesh of Catholic theology. Does it occur to you that scientific understanding and “objective truth” (your avatar) may sometimes be at odds with Catholic teachings?

                  • Objectivetruth

                    Read this, Frank. It’s actually shocking how biased the study you reference is. I tore through the data myself, and just the incredible, one-sided biased sampling of the study tosses this study in the hopper. Pretty poor stuff, at best:

                    http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

                    • Frank

                      @Objectivetruth:disqus You’ve got to be kidding me. This document you’ve sent me is from the Marriage Law Project, a Catholic advocacy group whose stated mission is “to reaffirm the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman through scholarly, legal and educational work.”

                      Do you know the difference between an advocacy organization and a scientific one? In the former, the mission is to push an agenda. In the latter, the mission is to discover and propagate the truth. The former sacrifices scientific rigor for ideology; the latter prioritizes the rigorous pursuit of knowledge and is not driven by ideology.
                      You repeatedly have failed to provide any objective, substantive, or unbiased counterweight to the AAP’s position on same-sex parenting. All you have done is to slander the AAP without providing any reliable (unbiased) evidence for your charges. You say that the AAP “has been criticized…” Well, of course it has. That’s why one-tenth of one percent (one-one-thousandth) of their membership splintered off into the ACP. Even if another 0.1 percent of AAP’s membership doesn’t agree with its position, that still leaves an overwhelming (99.8%) AAP consensus favoring same-sex marriage.
                      And the ACP is only one of the organizations that I listed for you previously. There are about a dozen major health and welfare associations in this country, and some of them have memberships much larger than the ACP’s. ALL of them have taken essentially the same position.

        • Frank

          @Objectivetruth:disqus Yes, you should ignore Paul’s teaching, as you ignore so many other teachings of the Bible. Using the Bible as a guide is like using a 15th-century map–and not a GPS–to get from Bologna to Paris.

          And who made the Church the authoritative interpreter of scripture? Oh, I know. It was the Church.

          • Objectivetruth

            To have you read “Dei Verbum ” Frank would be a waste of time, wouldn’t it?

            Full disclosure Crisismagazine readers: Frank’s a proud atheist, and no matter what truth either of nature, scripture or of the Church you present he will either ignore, spin, or lie about.

            • Frank

              @Objectivetruth:disqus Having me read “Dei Verbum” would indeed be a waste of time. Anyway, I’ve got my own reading list, thank you.

      • sajetreh

        Slice it, dice it, put garnish on it, it will never change the fact that the human reproduction system has one function and anyone who says otherwise is not paying attention.

    • publiusnj

      Although some polls have said that a majority of Americans supporting gay marriage, other polls go the other way. Better than polls: there have been popular referendum votes on the official ballots of 32 states on issues related to the gay marriage question and in every such public vote, Gay Marriage has gone down to defeat…vox Populi, vox Dei.
      Mr. Oddie is correct, though, in noting that the Catholic Church has usually been first to speak out on the important moral issues when the state has abandoned sensible restrictions on conduct. Most importantly on abortion. Although a good number of Protestant groups came to the pro-life side of the issue somewhat later on, the Catholic Church was almost alone in unequivocally opposing abortion in the days leading up to Roe v Wade. Indeed, the Southern Baptist Convention, which is now a very genuine and vocal Protestant opponent of abortion, originally supported the legalization of abortion. It took a revolt among the SBC faithful and a vote that ousted the incumbent leadership of the convention to get the SBC to stand with the Catholics in opposing Roe v Wade several years after the infamous 1973 Roe Decision.
      Divorce is another example but one in which the Church still stands almost alone despite the clear language of Christ that Remarriage after Divorce is adultery. (Mark 10:2-12).

    • givelifeachance2

      Yes why indeed can we not call the bigots bigots (inasmuch as they would deny the opposite sex a seat at the lunch counter of marriage?)

      Unfortunately, as with the specter of Communism, neither has Eugenics died (and in fact, each could be said to have faked their own death). In fact, eugenics is now intersecting with gay adoption, as planned by our global inferno-funders, to form the basis of Brave New World.

      • Frank

        @givelifeachance2:disqus You have co-opted the language of the Civil Rights movement in order to further stigmatize gays and lesbians. Your grotesque inversion of the lunch counter story reveals an underlying set of values and assumptions that you would probably not be proud of if they were spelled out to you. Few things can be more horrible or perverse than a forced marriage. We do not marry people in order not to discriminate. We marry people because we feel sexual and affectional attraction and because being with them gives us a life-long fulfillment and sense of purpose.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

      Oh, the Church, apologizing for sometimes being almost as pagan as the pagans! What our opponents to is to hold us to the standard of Christ — as we should be held; and then they forget all about that standard when it comes to themselves. Which would you prefer, the treatment that Galileo received, or the treatment that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn received? Which would you prefer, the sins of the medieval Christians, or the sins of their Viking, Magyar, Saxon, and Hunnish predecessors?
      Father Hombre below has apostasized on ALL the sexual issues. And yet the sexual revolution has been perfectly disastrous, especially for the most vulnerable among us. I don’t deny that there are nice people who act out on their attraction to the same sex. There are nice people in all kinds of groups. Diocletian was a very nice man …
      Professor P-S has nailed it, below. Consider the plight of a boy whose father dies when he is very small. He is raised by his mother and his aunt, who are devoted to one another. Is there a single person so hard-hearted as to assert that the boy hasn’t been harmed by the loss of his father? That it will all be JUST THE SAME, being raised by his mother and his aunt? But in his case, there will at least be the memory of the father, given to him by his mother and his aunt and his other blood relations; there will be pictures lovingly preserved; and there will be the knowledge that he came into being by the love of his mother and father. He will therefore have a tremendous advantage over the boy whose mother HAS CONSCIOUSLY DEPRIVED HIM OF A FATHER …

    • Frank

      My conversation with “ObjectiveTruth” (OT) about this blog post followed a familiar pattern, and its outcome was predictable. OT’s primary allegiance, of course, is to his Catholic faith, and yet he has a certain pragmatic respect for science and knows that arguments from faith alone have a limited appeal, even to fellow Catholics, 74% of whom now believe that same-sex relationships should be respected by society. (PRRI survey, 3/11). So he pretends that there is really no conflict between faith and science on the issues of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and same-sex parenting.

      OT cites scripture or the catechism or scientific studies–whatever seems to work. But then he runs into a problem when a challenger points out that the so-called “scientific” studies he has cited are “fringe science” or “pseudo-science.” They are bought and paid for by the Church or its allies, and they are therefore heavily biased. These studies were driven by ideological agendas, and their conclusions had already been decided upon before they were conducted.

      When OT is confronted with the truth, i.e., that every major health and welfare association in this country, with their hundreds of thousands of members, has endorsed same-sex marriage and parenting, and has declared there to be nothing disordered about homosexuality (contrary to Catholic teaching), he decides to put all his chips on one big bluff, and it fails. He offers a quotation from a rogue pediatric group (with a membership of 60-200) and claims it is from a position paper from a legimate one (with a membership of 60,000). But a quick Internet search uncovers the truth. Yes, the truth, OT.

      Confronted with what he has done, OT drops the “scientific” pose and resorts to ad hominems and appeals to that other truth–the Truth of the Catholic Church. And he declares the whole conversation to have been a waste of time.

      Not for me, it wasn’t.

    • Taryn

      Perhaps any negative mental health effects children of gay parents suffer come not from being raised by gay parents but by living in a world that condemns them because of their parents.

      • Frank

        @f9dadb27ddd2f8ab0bc8665968908a15:disqus This is exactly what the entire health and welfare community has been telling us for years. To get some idea, go to Wikipedia and search on “LGBT parenting.” You will find an abundance of information there, with links to scholarly articles. Here is a summation from the Wikipedia entry:

        “The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families. Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise. Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.”

        • Taryn

          It’s easy for people to condemn what they don’t understand, but facts are facts, and we can see that gay and lesbian couples in a healthy relationship can still model those relationships to their children, who grow up as well as any other child with a similarly strong heterosexual parental relationship to look up to. Thank you for showing the research that supports this!
          I am Catholic, have been my whole life, and don’t intend to ever leave the Church that came directly from Christ. However, we’ve had a couple thousand years of human leadership since Jesus, and humans can be wrong. As more and more science is released (and more and more people get to know gay people and find out that they’re no worse than anyone else), I pray that the Church will come to realize that its position is a mistake and not in keeping with Jesus’ teachings of love.

          • Frank

            @f9dadb27ddd2f8ab0bc8665968908a15:disqus I am so touched by what you wrote. Sometimes in the midst of all this acrimony, I wonder if I am becoming “anti-Catholic.” That could be because this is a particularly rough site to visit, sort of like wandering into the Bronx at night alone. I can’t tell you how many times other commenters here have told me I’m going to burn in hell. And I’ve tended to generalize in spite of myself. My principles tell me not to do so.

            But I have to remember that I have some very dear Catholic friends with whom I have spent many hours discussing all kinds of matters in a civil tone, with mutual respect. I know that is possible and that I mustn’t judge all Catholics from the excesses of a few.

            What you wrote is very well put. The Church will eventually come around, as it always does. I think we all wish it could be more of a leader, instead of coming around to the truth 100 years or more after everyone else has already sorted things out.

            Thank you for your comment.

    • Pingback: Tactics of Gay Lobby May Have Chilling Impact on Academic Freedom | Crisis Magazine