Gay Marriage Threatens World Peace

[DoubtingStephen]

The good and peace loving people of Spain obviously have enough sense not to take the Rat in a Hat seriously. Their culture places great value on being inclusive, and they understand through their recent history how terribly dangerous it is to allow greedy multinational religious organizations to influence their politics.

I care about the lies told by the Catholic Church because many people use these lies to justify campaigns against my civil rights. Here in the United States the Catholic Church has consistently supported, financed and promoted campaigns of disinformation intended to deny civil rights to gay people. I am personally affected by the disinformation propagated by the Catholic Church.

In addition, I believe it is not in people's best interests, or in the interest of society, to propagate preposterous ancient superstitions that are used to justify bigotry, hatred and intolerance.

I believe facts are a better basis than lies for determining social policies. So when the Catholic Church tells lies about me I object to those lies. The specific lie objected to in this thread is the especially preposterous and self evidently false claim by the Rat in a Hat that gay marriage poses a threat to world peace.

The Catholic Church consistently campaigns against human rights by opposing equal rights for gay citizens in every nation that is unfortunate enough to be afflicted with Catholic churches.

[Meadmaker]

Let me ask you a question in return - do you agree with the RCC that "gay marriages" represent a threat to world peace?


Ok. Question dodged. Typical.



Although you didn't answer my question, I will try to answer yours. I do not consider gay marriage a threat to world peace. A more complete answer would take much more time and effort, which would be wasted anyway.

[qayak]

I'm not thoroughly familiar with the works of Osama bin Laden, but the excerpts I have seen have a different tone, and I can't recall any discussion of environmental stewardship in Osama's writings. Perhaps he has been quoted out of context.

The underlying message is the same. "The world must run the way I want it. If it doesn't there will be dire consequences. All the troubles in the world are caused by those who do not follow my way."

This message could have, and has, come from anyone of a number of religious zealots. Falwell, Robertson, Haggard, Kim Jong-il, etc., along with the the two already mentioned.

As for the pope's environmental record, you would think that anyone with a direct line to god would be at the forefront of protecting the planet we live on instead of being 50 years behind.

[qayak]

Let me ask this. Do you think this was the primary message of Benedict's writings? How do you think Benedict would describe the severity of the threat represented by gay marriage?

One thing to ponder in answering that would be to note that Benedict enumerated specific conditions which he felt constituted threats to families, and gay marriage was not listed among those threats.

Obviously, the pope feels that this is a bigger threat than say . . . religious terrorism. He didn't mention that in his address. He also didn't mention the fact that all the experts have stated that the AIDS epidemic in Africa is one of the biggest threats to peace on the continent.

But the pope still sticks to the old line on AIDS and attacks those he feels are weak enough for him to get away with. And there are a lot of people, you included, who enable that to happen. Thankfully, there are a lot who aren't afraid to call a pompous ass, a pompous ass and will speak out against his bigotry and hate.

[Darat]

...snip... I do not consider gay marriage a threat to world peace. ...snip...


Now what do you think of the leader of the world's largest religious sect who promulgates the idea that gay marriage is a threat to world peace?

[Meadmaker]

Now what do you think of the leader of the world's largest religious sect who promulgates the idea that gay marriage is a threat to world peace?


I don't think he has stopped beating his wife.


(But if you want a serious answer, you'll have to go first. I asked a question. If you want an answer to yours, you have to answer mine first.)

[Herzblut]

Now what do you think of the leader of the world's largest religious sect who promulgates the idea that gay marriage is a threat to world peace?
That leader does not use the phrase "gay marriage" nor will he. You put it into his mouth.

[Darat]

I don't think he has stopped beating his wife.


(But if you want a serious answer, you'll have to go first. I asked a question. If you want an answer to yours, you have to answer mine first.)

Sorry but I'm not interested in derailing this thread by answering question not to do with the subject of this thread.

[Darat]

That leader does not use the phrase "gay marriage" nor will he. You put it into his mouth.

"gay marriage" is being used as it is from the opening post - it just [I]means[/ I] a homosexual union as described by the current Pope. Now that another meaningless semantic quibble of yours has been cleared away do you have a comment/opinion/argument regarding the fact that the leader of the world's largest Christian sect believes that "homosexual unions" are a threat to world peace? Or are you going to continue to avoid addressing the topic of this thread?

[Herzblut]

In addition, I believe it is not in people's best interests, or in the interest of society, to propagate preposterous ancient superstitions that are used to justify bigotry, hatred and intolerance.

I see, we should differentiate between those who deserve freedom of speech and those who don't. Only in the people's best interest, of course.


The specific lie objected to in this thread is the especially preposterous and self evidently false claim by the Rat in a Hat that gay marriage poses a threat to world peace.

It's a lie that papito said anything like that.


The Catholic Church consistently campaigns against human rights by opposing equal rights for gay citizens ..schnippel..

Not that I'm aware of. What human rights do you infer?

[Herzblut]

...snip... do you have a comment/opinion/argument regarding the fact that the leader of the world's largest Christian sect believes that "homosexual unions" are a threat to world peace?

I start thinking about it when he actually says such a think, and how.

[DoubtingStephen]

I see, we should differentiate between those who deserve freedom of speech and those who don't. Only in the people's best interest, of course.


Strawman ignored.

It's a lie that papito said anything like that.


One of us is not correct.

Not that I'm aware of. What human rights do you infer?

Have you noticed at all what this thread is about, or were you too busy arguing about the definitions of words and with other pedantic nuisances and distractions from the matter at hand?

Do you agree with the obvious fact that gay marriages do not pose a threat to world peace?

[Meadmaker]

Sorry but I'm not interested in derailing this thread by answering question not to do with the subject of this thread.


For those who forgot, this is the question I asked:
Let me ask this. Do you think this was the primary message of Benedict's writings? How do you think Benedict would describe the severity of the threat represented by gay marriage?

To my way of thinking, that seems pretty closely related to the subject of this thread, but others' opinions may differ.

[Herzblut]

One of us is not correct.

I know who.


Have you noticed at all what this thread is about, ..schnipp..
Look, I appreciate you fight for the rights of the gay community. That's fine. But you should be aware of the wheel you are turning. And the human rights wheel is way too big for your case, U.S. gays are not heavily suppressed people to whom human rights are denied. This image devaluates real, harsh suffering in the world.


Do you agree with the obvious fact that gay marriages do not pose a threat to world peace?
Yes.

[Meadmaker]

Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html)
...
...It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society....

Something struck me as interesting in this quote. I had never before seen a quote from a conservative Christian religious leaders that recognized the rights of homosexuals at all. The Vatican is saying here that "personal goods" of homosexual "can and must" be guaranteed. That's quite a leap from the days when the Church stood behind laws that made sodomy a capital crime.

[Fiona]

Look, I appreciate you fight for the rights of the gay community. That's fine. But you should be aware of the wheel you are turning. And the human rights wheel is way too big for your case, U.S. gays are not heavily suppressed people to whom human rights are denied. This image devaluates real, harsh suffering in the world.



I cannot agree with you Herz. The ECHR lists a number of human rights and it includes

# 1.8 Article 8 - right to respect for private life

# 1.12 Article 12 - right to marry

# 1.14 Article 14 - prohibition of discrimination

Now the court has so far as I know refused to uphold article 12 in respect of same sex couples but I am not able to construct any logical basis for that decision. It is certainly defined as a human right and so one can only assume that the definition of marriage recognised by the court is that between a man and a woman. It may be that this reflects historical or semantic convention; or it might indicate the strength of the religious lobby or be for some other reason. What is not clear is that the exclusion is justified nor that it is not a denial of a human right as you claim

[Slimething]

Something struck me...

If only. :rolleyes:

The Vatican is saying here that "personal goods" of homosexual "can and must" be guaranteed. That's quite a leap from the days when the Church stood behind laws that made sodomy a capital crime.

Now, that's progress! Say, would you by any chance know who the "guest" is at today's five o'clock stoning?


For anyone who hasn't yet figured it out yet, herzbluti is the world's most annoying Turing Machine ever devised. It actually unlearns stuff. :covereyes

[kmortis]

No he or she can read and comprehend my posts.

* kmortis checks his trousers

He.

[kmortis]

Listen, a sect is a religious grouping.

No.
I just posted two sources that say that you're wrong. If you want to continue arguing against, please provide a source that shows otherwise. This isn't even a case of denotation v. connotation. In English, "sect" refers to a religious grouping.

[kmortis]

I mean, you're right. Since when did ignorance mean a lack of knowledge...? Oh, right.

I'll take "Words from Ancient Greece" for 200, Alec.

[Herzblut]

What is not clear is that the exclusion is justified nor that it is not a denial of a human right as you claim
I think the exclusion can simply be explained as a product of lacking majorities in Brussels. However, that doesn't hold up corresponding national processes, as demonstrated in Belgium, Holland, and Spain.

But I don't see how human rights are involved. There is no human right to marry whomever you want under whatever circumstances. Such a right cannot exist. A gay in Germany has got options to marry to a degree totally equal to mine, no more, no less. He cannot marry another man? I can't either. I wanna marry her but she doesn't want me? Bad luck. I wanna marry my cousin? Bad luck. I wanna marry two women? Bad luck. You don't want me to report on the endless problems that can arise for a bi-national couple, like the one I am part of. But I don't see how a human right is touched here, sorry.

I collected some paragraphs:

ECHR: Article 12 – Right to marry
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

German Constitution: Article 6
[Marriage and the family; children born outside of marriage]
(1) Marriage and the family shall enjoy the special protection of the state.
(2) The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a
duty primarily incumbent upon them. The state shall watch over them in the
performance of this duty.
(3) Children may be separated from their families against the will of their
parents or guardians only pursuant to a law, and only if the parents or guardians
fail in their duties or the children are otherwise in danger of serious neglect.
(4) Every mother :confused: shall be entitled to the protection and care of the community.
(5) Children born outside of marriage shall be provided by legislation with
the same opportunities for physical and mental development and for their
position in society as are enjoyed by those born within marriage.

[kmortis]

No he or she can read and comprehend my posts.

The post I referred to is composed of quotes to other texts. To a 100%.

And I asked a simple question about what your quotes meant. Justified by the fact that you draw a conclusion from those quotes:

"gay marriage is a threat to world peace"

What does your conclusion mean? Does it refer to full-blown same sex matrimonies, realized in only five countries so far, or does it include all those models of a civil union implemented in many other countries worldwide?


Oh, really? Let's take a look, shall we?

No, he didn't claim that, Herzbluti.
How do you know? You can read his mind?

Hrm...it would appear that you were replying to my post, not Darat. Leading us ignant people to assume that it was me you were asking for mind-reading qualifications. Interesting that you reply to people you don't want to answer, without indicating that to be the case.

[Herzblut]

I just posted two sources that say that you're wrong.
You can adhere to any kind of leader, religious or not.

[kmortis]

I just posted two sources that say that you're wrong.
You can adhere to any kind of leader, religious or not.
Seriously, WTF does your response have to do with my post? You been sniffin' glue? Or are you replying to a post from qayak this time?

[Herzblut]

3 a: a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader b: party c: faction In Darat's usage, definition 3 is the appropriate one.
(Bolding and schnippeling by myself)

Is it memory or cognitive problems?

[Fiona]

*sighs* Is it memory or cognitive problems? You tell me

OED

"Sect (sekt). Late M.E. [-(O)Fr.Secie or L. secta (used as cogn.obj. in sectam sequi follow a certain course of conduct, follow a person's guidance), party faction, school of philosophy, F. older pa. ppl. stem sect- opf sequi follow.] 1. A class or kind (of persons)-1628 b. A religious order-1814 c. Sex. Now only in illiterate or joc. use.late M.E. 2. Body of followers or adherents -1667 3. A religious following; adherence to a particular religious teacher or faith.esp a. A body of persons who unite in holding certain views differing from those of others who are accounted to be of the same religion; a party or school among the professors of a religion; sometimes applied spec. to parties that are regarded as heretical. late M.E. b. in mod. usage, commonly applied to a separately organised religious body having its distinctive name and its own places of worship; a "denomination". Also, less widely, one of the bodies separated from the Church. 1577. 4. the system or body of adherents of a particular school of philosophy. late M.E. 5. transf. A school of opinion in politics, science, etc 1605

[Robin]

Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage
I wish someone would explain this to me. I have been in a traditional man/woman marriage for 20 years. My friends have been in a same sex marriage for 25 years, although it has only been legally recognised in the last two years.

I am yet to notice the difference this has made to our own marriage - it seems as good as ever, we just had our last child. Do I have an atypically strong marriage? Are most heterosexual marriages more fragile and tend to self-destruct by the very fact of legally recognising gay unions?

Exactly how is our marriage devalued by their marriage? Can somebody provide an example? Which basic moral value has been obscured?

In fact soon after they had their civil union another couple we know, a man and a woman living together, were inspired to get married themselves. So I have an actual example of a gay marriage strengthening the institution of marriage.

[Herzblut]

*sighs*

Yeah, didn't you promise to read my posts? Doing kmortis a favor, I referred to what he declared as being the proper definition of "sect" in our case. Why he didn't see that it didn't match his very own definition, saying sect=religious group, well, I don't know.

I throw yet another definition into the ring, my Webster's Dictionary (1996):

sect: 1 a: dissenting or schismatic religious body; esp: one regarded as extreme or heretical

(Leaving out 1b, 2a and 2b)

I go with Webster's, if you don't mind.

[kmortis]

3 a: a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader b: party c: faction In Darat's usage, definition 3 is the appropriate one.
(Bolding and schnippeling by myself)

Is it memory or cognitive problems?
Mainly memory. I really got to get those new SIMMs installed.

Ok, except that every definition, and the Latin root, refers to religious groups and religious leaders. While you are correct that you can follow a leader, no matter his religion, the common usage, as demonstrated by the quotes that I and Fiona provided show the religious bent of that word.

No matter. If you want to insist that the RCC isn't a sect, fine. You're wrong, but whatever. I've learned that debating semantics on the web is like squeezing Jell-o, useless and you get your hands sticky.

Ok, lemee ask you a question. If the Pontiff didn't want to refer to just heterosexual marriage as being the basis of peace, why did he change the language from the previous speech that he used as a cross-reference? In that one ("GAUDIUM ET SPES", Pope Paul VI, 1965), marriages, families and so forth are never refered to as "marriages between a man and a woman", just "marriage" or "family(ies)". Why did Pope Benedict feel the need to specify, thereby excluding homosexual marriages if he didn't mean to imply that they were in the bad group (i.e. not causing world peace)?

I'll grant you that no where does Pope Benedict come out and explicitly SAY "gays are evil, they'd sooner kill you than look at you, and they smell funny". It is quite clear, however, that if ya ain't fer 'em, yer again' 'em. That if you're not in a man/woman marriage that you're somehow damaging the peaceful fabric of society.

I'll give him this, he did come out against domestic abuse and violence. What a brave, brave man he is. Such a stance. Really put that mitre on the line there. Phew, if he hadn't said
It is no wonder, therefore, that violence, if perpetrated in the family, is seen as particularly intolerable.
I'd never know that it was wrong.

[kmortis]

I wish someone would explain this to me. I have been in a traditional man/woman marriage for 20 years. My friends have been in a same sex marriage for 25 years, although it has only been legally recognised in the last two years.

I am yet to notice the difference this has made to our own marriage - it seems as good as ever, we just had our last child. Do I have an atypically strong marriage? Are most heterosexual marriages more fragile and tend to self-destruct by the very fact of legally recognising gay unions?

Exactly how is our marriage devalued by their marriage? Can somebody provide an example? Which basic moral value has been obscured?

In fact soon after they had their civil union another couple we know, a man and a woman living together, were inspired to get married themselves. So I have an actual example of a gay marriage strengthening the institution of marriage.
It's only devalued when you try to trade it in. Kinda like the stock market, really. So long as you hold on to it, you don't lose, but go and sell...WHOOO BOY!

[Herzblut]

Mainly memory. I really got to get those new SIMMs installed.

I knew you were witty.


Ok, except that every definition, and the Latin root, refers to religious groups and religious leaders. While you are correct that you can follow a leader, no matter his religion, the common usage, as demonstrated by the quotes that I and Fiona provided show the religious bent of that word.

I can't disagree! But to be honest, you know, I spotted your little error and couldn't resist to just put a provocative "No" hoping to see you run against the brick wall. I'm not that unkind, normally, but kindness should be kinda mutual, shouldn't it?

Give me some time to answer your question, please.

[kmortis]

I knew you were witty.


I can't disagree! But to be honest, you know, I spotted your little error and couldn't resist to just put a provocative "No" hoping to see you run against the brick wall. I'm not that unkind, normally, but kindness should be kinda mutual, shouldn't it?

Give me some time to answer your question, please.

True. So long as it doesn't seem that I'm just getting the run around, I tend to be understanding. Take your time. I got all <yawn> nigh.....zzzzzzz

[DoubtingStephen]

Exactly how is our marriage devalued by their marriage? Can somebody provide an example? Which basic moral value has been obscured?


Thank you, Robin, for noticing and commenting on this. It seems to be universal among dire warnings about the immense harm that will befall our species if gay people are allowed to marry that this alleged potential harm is never described in any detail beyond the vague and nebulous.

I suppose the acknowledgment of the civil rights of gay couples by governments might pose a threat to the bigotry that resides in the hearts of a small minority of people, but is that intolerance really sacred or of high moral value?

And as I asked earlier today, has anyone heard of any invasions recently that were based on gay marriages instead of a pack of lies?

[kmortis]

Thank you, Robin, for noticing and commenting on this. It seems to be universal among dire warnings about the immense harm that will befall our species if gay people are allowed to marry that this alleged potential harm is never described in any detail beyond the vague and nebulous.

I suppose the acknowledgment of the civil rights of gay couples by governments might pose a threat to the bigotry that resides in the hearts of a small minority of people, but is that intolerance really sacred or of high moral value?

And as I asked earlier today, has anyone heard of any invasions recently that were based on gay marriages instead of a pack of lies?
Oh, c'mon DS. WE all know that you gays also control the media, so OF COURSE we've not heard of any invasions. Ya'll covered it up. Geesh.

[Meadmaker]

Oh, c'mon DS. WE all know that you gays also control the media, so OF COURSE we've not heard of any invasions. Ya'll covered it up. Geesh.


Gays control the media? I thought Jews controlled the media! I want my money back!

[Herzblut]

I suppose the acknowledgment of the civil rights of gay couples by governments might pose a threat to the bigotry that resides in the hearts of a small minority of people, but is that intolerance really sacred or of high moral value?

No, but I wonder why other forms of partnership, e.g. non-monogamic, wouldn't deserve the same level of tolerance.

Polyamory is existing. People might want to live in a stable, polyamorous triade, two women and a man, and seek some kind of legal framework to stabilize this partnership. A possible setup today with a marriage plus a non-married "surplus" is doomed to fail because it heavily violates the three partner's equality in the relationship.

I wonder if civil rights are denied by not legalizing those partnerships.

[Meadmaker]

Ok, lemee ask you a question. If the Pontiff didn't want to refer to just heterosexual marriage as being the basis of peace, why did he change the language from the previous speech that he used as a cross-reference? In that one ("GAUDIUM ET SPES", Pope Paul VI, 1965), marriages, families and so forth are never refered to as "marriages between a man and a woman", just "marriage" or "family(ies)". Why did Pope Benedict feel the need to specify, thereby excluding homosexual marriages if he didn't mean to imply that they were in the bad group (i.e. not causing world peace)?

I'll grant you that no where does Pope Benedict come out and explicitly SAY "gays are evil, they'd sooner kill you than look at you, and they smell funny". It is quite clear, however, that if ya ain't fer 'em, yer again' 'em. That if you're not in a man/woman marriage that you're somehow damaging the peaceful fabric of society.


It's not that these statements are wrong. It's just that this message had very close to zero to do with it.

Pope Benedict thinks that strong families are key to world peace. He thinks that it's important that nations behave like strong families in order for the world to have peace, and in order for that to happen, he thinks that the leaders and citizens of those nations have to be raised in strong families. He just gave a whole message on that, going on for 18 paragraphs about that general theme, and applying that theme to how nations must refrain from strong nations using power against weak ones, rich nations hording wealth and destroying the environment, and all sorts of nations building up arms against each other. Nations must emulate strong families, in which mutual respect and consent are the dominant factors. Meanwhile families' needs must be met. He noted, among those needs, were "home, employment and a just recognition of the domestic activity of parents, the possibility of schooling for children, and basic health care for all. "

Oh, and by the way, when describing strong families, he said that they started with a man and a woman, but he really didn't talk about it much.

[kmortis]

Gays control the media? I thought Jews controlled the media! I want my money back!

Naaa..the Jews are just a gay front group.

[kmortis]

It's not that these statements are wrong. It's just that this message had very close to zero to do with it.

Pope Benedict thinks that strong families are key to world peace. He thinks that it's important that nations behave like strong families in order for the world to have peace, and in order for that to happen, he thinks that the leaders and citizens of those nations have to be raised in strong families. He just gave a whole message on that, going on for 18 paragraphs about that general theme, and applying that theme to how nations must refrain from strong nations using power against weak ones, rich nations hording wealth and destroying the environment, and all sorts of nations building up arms against each other. Nations must emulate strong families, in which mutual respect and consent are the dominant factors. Meanwhile families' needs must be met. He noted, among those needs, were "home, employment and a just recognition of the domestic activity of parents, the possibility of schooling for children, and basic health care for all. "

Oh, and by the way, when describing strong families, he said that they started with a man and a woman, but he really didn't talk about it much.

Out of 15 paragraphs, he specifically addressed the concept of a "natural family, as an intimate communion of life and love, based on marriage between a man and a woman" in paragraphs 2-5. That's almost a full quarter of his address being specifically about a "natural family, as an intimate communion of life and love, based on marriage between a man and a woman".

He then goes on to generalize, in paragraph 6, to say
The social community, if it is to live in peace, is also called to draw inspiration from the values on which the family community is based. This is as true for local communities as it is for national communities; it is also true for the international community itself, for the human family which dwells in that common house which is the earth. Here, however, we cannot forget that the family comes into being from the responsible and definitive “yes” of a man and a women, and it continues to live from the conscious “yes” of the children who gradually join it.

So, a full third of his address covers the concept of marriage = man + woman.

Doesn't talk about it much? 30% of a paper revolves around a common theme and you say he doesn't talk about it much?

ETA: I agree with your general assessment. Benedict does try to equate strong families with solid societal foundations. However, throughout the beginning of his talk, he introduces his bias that marriage = man+woman. Now, that he's got this bias doesn't shock me...he's the Pope.

ETA: I'm tired of beating around the bush. Here's the entire blasted thing.
THE HUMAN FAMILY, A COMMUNITY OF PEACE

1. At the beginning of a New Year, I wish to send my fervent good wishes for peace, together with a heartfelt message of hope to men and women throughout the world. I do so by offering for our common reflection the theme which I have placed at the beginning of this message. It is one which I consider particularly important: the human family, a community of peace. The first form of communion between persons is that born of the love of a man and a woman who decide to enter a stable union in order to build together a new family. But the peoples of the earth, too, are called to build relationships of solidarity and cooperation among themselves, as befits members of the one human family: “All peoples”—as the Second Vatican Council declared—“are one community and have one origin, because God caused the whole human race to dwell on the face of the earth (cf. Acts 17:26); they also have one final end, God”(1).

The family, society and peace

2. The natural family, as an intimate communion of life and love, based on marriage between a man and a woman(2), constitutes “the primary place of ‘humanization' for the person and society”(3), and a “cradle of life and love”(4). The family is therefore rightly defined as the first natural society, “a divine institution that stands at the foundation of life of the human person as the prototype of every social order”(5).

3. Indeed, in a healthy family life we experience some of the fundamental elements of peace: justice and love between brothers and sisters, the role of authority expressed by parents, loving concern for the members who are weaker because of youth, sickness or old age, mutual help in the necessities of life, readiness to accept others and, if necessary, to forgive them. For this reason, the family is the first and indispensable teacher of peace. It is no wonder, therefore, that violence, if perpetrated in the family, is seen as particularly intolerable. Consequently, when it is said that the family is “the primary living cell of society”(6), something essential is being stated. The family is the foundation of society for this reason too: because it enables its members in decisive ways to experience peace. It follows that the human community cannot do without the service provided by the family. Where can young people gradually learn to savour the genuine “taste” of peace better than in the original “nest” which nature prepares for them? The language of the family is a language of peace; we must always draw from it, lest we lose the “vocabulary” of peace. In the inflation of its speech, society cannot cease to refer to that “grammar” which all children learn from the looks and the actions of their mothers and fathers, even before they learn from their words.

4. The family, since it has the duty of educating its members, is the subject of specific rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which represents a landmark of juridic civilization of truly universal value, states that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”(7). For its part, the Holy See sought to acknowledge a special juridic dignity proper to the family by publishing the Charter of the Rights of the Family. In its Preamble we read: “the rights of the person, even if they are expressed as rights of the individual, have a fundamental social dimension which finds an innate and vital expression in the family”(8). The rights set forth in the Charter are an expression and explicitation of the natural law written on the heart of the human being and made known to him by reason. The denial or even the restriction of the rights of the family, by obscuring the truth about man, threatens the very foundations of peace.

5. Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international, since he weakens what is in effect the primary agency of peace. This point merits special reflection: everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace. The family needs to have a home, employment and a just recognition of the domestic activity of parents, the possibility of schooling for children, and basic health care for all. When society and public policy are not committed to assisting the family in these areas, they deprive themselves of an essential resource in the service of peace. The social communications media, in particular, because of their educational potential, have a special responsibility for promoting respect for the family, making clear its expectations and rights, and presenting all its beauty.

Humanity is one great family

6. The social community, if it is to live in peace, is also called to draw inspiration from the values on which the family community is based. This is as true for local communities as it is for national communities; it is also true for the international community itself, for the human family which dwells in that common house which is the earth. Here, however, we cannot forget that the family comes into being from the responsible and definitive “yes” of a man and a women, and it continues to live from the conscious “yes” of the children who gradually join it. The family community, in order to prosper, needs the generous consent of all its members. This realization also needs to become a shared conviction on the part of all those called to form the common human family. We need to say our own “yes” to this vocation which God has inscribed in our very nature. We do not live alongside one another purely by chance; all of us are progressing along a common path as men and women, and thus as brothers and sisters. Consequently, it is essential that we should all be committed to living our lives in an attitude of responsibility before God, acknowledging him as the deepest source of our own existence and that of others. By going back to this supreme principle we are able to perceive the unconditional worth of each human being, and thus to lay the premises for building a humanity at peace. Without this transcendent foundation society is a mere aggregation of neighbours, not a community of brothers and sisters called to form one great family.

The family, the human community and the environment

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

8. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth's energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

Family, human community and economy

9. An essential condition for peace within individual families is that they should be built upon the solid foundation of shared spiritual and ethical values. Yet it must be added that the family experiences authentic peace when no one lacks what is needed, and when the family patrimony—the fruit of the labour of some, the savings of others, and the active cooperation of all—is well-managed in a spirit of solidarity, without extravagance and without waste. The peace of the family, then, requires an openness to a transcendent patrimony of values, and at the same time a concern for the prudent management of both material goods and inter-personal relationships. The failure of the latter results in the breakdown of reciprocal trust in the face of the uncertainty threatening the future of the nuclear family.

10. Something similar must be said for that other family which is humanity as a whole. The human family, which today is increasingly unified as a result of globalization, also needs, in addition to a foundation of shared values, an economy capable of responding effectively to the requirements of a common good which is now planetary in scope. Here too, a comparison with the natural family proves helpful. Honest and straightforward relationships need to be promoted between individual persons and between peoples, thus enabling everyone to cooperate on a just and equal footing. Efforts must also be made to ensure a prudent use of resources and an equitable distribution of wealth. In particular, the aid given to poor countries must be guided by sound economic principles, avoiding forms of waste associated principally with the maintenance of expensive bureaucracies. Due account must also be taken of the moral obligation to ensure that the economy is not governed solely by the ruthless laws of instant profit, which can prove inhumane.

The family, the human community and the moral law

11. A family lives in peace if all its members submit to a common standard: this is what prevents selfish individualism and brings individuals together, fostering their harmonious coexistence and giving direction to their work. This principle, obvious as it is, also holds true for wider communities: from local and national communities to the international community itself. For the sake of peace, a common law is needed, one which would foster true freedom rather than blind caprice, and protect the weak from oppression by the strong. The family of peoples experiences many cases of arbitrary conduct, both within individual States and in the relations of States among themselves. In many situations the weak must bow not to the demands of justice, but to the naked power of those stronger than themselves. It bears repeating: power must always be disciplined by law, and this applies also to relations between sovereign States.

12. The Church has often spoken on the subject of the nature and function of law: the juridic norm, which regulates relationships between individuals, disciplines external conduct and establishes penalties for offenders, has as its criterion the moral norm grounded in nature itself. Human reason is capable of discerning this moral norm, at least in its fundamental requirements, and thus ascending to the creative reason of God which is at the origin of all things. The moral norm must be the rule for decisions of conscience and the guide for all human behaviour. Do juridic norms exist for relationships between the nations which make up the human family? And if they exist, are they operative? The answer is: yes, such norms exist, but to ensure that they are truly operative it is necessary to go back to the natural moral norm as the basis of the juridic norm; otherwise the latter constantly remains at the mercy of a fragile and provisional consensus.

13. Knowledge of the natural moral norm is not inaccessible to those who, in reflecting on themselves and their destiny, strive to understand the inner logic of the deepest inclinations present in their being. Albeit not without hesitation and doubt, they are capable of discovering, at least in its essential lines, this common moral law which, over and above cultural differences, enables human beings to come to a common understanding regarding the most important aspects of good and evil, justice and injustice. It is essential to go back to this fundamental law, committing our finest intellectual energies to this quest, and not letting ourselves be discouraged by mistakes and misunderstandings. Values grounded in the natural law are indeed present, albeit in a fragmentary and not always consistent way, in international accords, in universally recognized forms of authority, in the principles of humanitarian law incorporated in the legislation of individual States or the statutes of international bodies. Mankind is not “lawless”. All the same, there is an urgent need to persevere in dialogue about these issues and to encourage the legislation of individual States to converge towards a recognition of fundamental human rights. The growth of a global juridic culture depends, for that matter, on a constant commitment to strengthen the profound human content of international norms, lest they be reduced to mere procedures, easily subject to manipulation for selfish or ideological reasons.

Overcoming conflicts and disarmament

14. Humanity today is unfortunately experiencing great division and sharp conflicts which cast dark shadows on its future. Vast areas of the world are caught up in situations of increasing tension, while the danger of an increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons causes well-founded apprehension in every responsible person. Many civil wars are still being fought in Africa, even though a number of countries there have made progress on the road to freedom and democracy. The Middle East is still a theatre of conflict and violence, which also affects neighbouring nations and regions and risks drawing them into the spiral of violence. On a broader scale, one must acknowledge with regret the growing number of States engaged in the arms race: even some developing nations allot a significant portion of their scant domestic product to the purchase of weapons. The responsibility for this baneful commerce is not limited: the countries of the industrially developed world profit immensely from the sale of arms, while the ruling oligarchies in many poor countries wish to reinforce their stronghold by acquiring ever more sophisticated weaponry. In difficult times such as these, it is truly necessary for all persons of good will to come together to reach concrete agreements aimed at an effective demilitarization, especially in the area of nuclear arms. At a time when the process of nuclear non-proliferation is at a stand-still, I feel bound to entreat those in authority to resume with greater determination negotiations for a progressive and mutually agreed dismantling of existing nuclear weapons. In renewing this appeal, I know that I am echoing the desire of all those concerned for the future of humanity.

15. Sixty years ago the United Nations Organization solemnly issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948-2008). With that document the human family reacted against the horrors of the Second World War by acknowledging its own unity, based on the equal dignity of all men and women, and by putting respect for the fundamental rights of individuals and peoples at the centre of human coexistence. This was a decisive step forward along the difficult and demanding path towards harmony and peace. This year also marks the 25th anniversary of the Holy See's adoption of the Charter of the Rights of the Family (1983-2008) and the 40th anniversary of the celebration of the first World Day of Peace (1968-2008). Born of a providential intuition of Pope Paul VI and carried forward with great conviction by my beloved and venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II, the celebration of this Day of Peace has made it possible for the Church, over the course of the years, to present in these Messages an instructive body of teaching regarding this fundamental human good. In the light of these significant anniversaries, I invite every man and woman to have a more lively sense of belonging to the one human family, and to strive to make human coexistence increasingly reflect this conviction, which is essential for the establishment of true and lasting peace. I likewise invite believers to implore tirelessly from God the great gift of peace. Christians, for their part, know that they can trust in the intercession of Mary, who, as the Mother of the Son of God made flesh for the salvation of all humanity, is our common Mother.

To all my best wishes for a joyful New Year!

From the Vatican, 8 December 2007

[kmortis]

No, but I wonder why other forms of partnership, e.g. non-monogamic, wouldn't deserve the same level of tolerance.

Polyamory is existing. People might want to live in a stable, polyamorous triade, two women and a man, and seek some kind of legal framework to stabilize this partnership. A possible setup today with a marriage plus a non-married "surplus" is doomed to fail because it heavily violates the three partner's equality in the relationship.

I wonder if civil rights are denied by not legalizing those partnerships.

Personally, I don't have an issue with that. I don't think it would last long, as politics would upset the balance. If they can make it last, why not? Oberon Zell and his family has had a polyamorous relationship for dun near 20 years now, so it can happen.

[Herzblut]

Ok, lemee ask you a question. If the Pontiff didn't want to refer to just heterosexual marriage as being the basis of peace, why did he change the language from the previous speech that he used as a cross-reference?

That reference dates back to 1965 where such clarification was not needed.


Why did Pope Benedict feel the need to specify, thereby excluding homosexual marriages if he didn't mean to imply that they were in the bad group (i.e. not causing world peace)?

Postfixing "man and woman", when talking about marriages, of course explicitely excludes same sex marriages.

[Robin]

Something struck me as interesting in this quote. I had never before seen a quote from a conservative Christian religious leaders that recognized the rights of homosexuals at all. The Vatican is saying here that "personal goods" of homosexual "can and must" be guaranteed. That's quite a leap from the days when the Church stood behind laws that made sodomy a capital crime.
I admire your ability to find a positive spin to this nonsense.

I am sure the gays of the world are all leaping about in celebration of the Vatican's lousy little sixpence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Family is certainly not just a metaphor in the Pope's message. His message is that family is the place where values are learned, and that we must then take those values learned in life with our mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters, and then treat all people with the same values we learned at home in order to achieve world peace. Consequently, anything that threatens our ability to learn those values at home will prevent us from applying those values in the broader community. In order to live in peace, it follows that there must be strong families, and that any threat to families is a threat to peace.(my bold) Exactly. So how is it if gay marriage threatens the above described values you think the Pope isn't concerned about those gay marriages undermining the family and therefore undermining the world peace which depends on that foundation of anti-gay marriage values? You have exactly echoed the sentiments you claim to disagree with.

I'll put it like this. If I were writing a headline to describe the Pope's message I would probably write something like, "Pope says that the key to world peace is to live like family." Or, I could write, "Pope says that the key to world peace is to live like heterosexual family." Technically, the latter is just as correct as the former, but it misses the point of the message by a mile.

It's tempting to start a thread entitled, "Pope Says Polygamy Threatens World Peace" It would be just as accurate as this one.You said this already and I already acknowledged it. The Pope didn't repeat 6 times ONE man and ONE woman, nor is it a current event topic. If there were much of a social movement for polygamy and the Pope was fighting against that particular struggle for the right to polygamous marriages, you could post such a headline and it would be meaningful.

You are choosing to ignore the gay marriage sniping included in the message because you don't hear it. But someone who does hear it isn't making up gay persecution in the message. The anti-gay sniping is distinctly in there. You are arguing that it isn't very loud. If you were sensitized to the message, it would be loud to you. Neither person is wrong, just more or less sensitive to the anti-gay passages. You seem to think the sniping is non-existent, merely imagined. You could make that case for an attack on polygamy. You can't make it for an attack on gay marriage.

[Darat]

...snip...

It's a lie that papito said anything like that.

...snip...

No it is not.

Ratzinger: ....Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of new life ... constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace,....

Ratzinger: .....Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage....

[Herzblut]

And as I asked earlier today, has anyone heard of any invasions recently that were based on gay marriages instead of a pack of lies?
Heard a huge blast this morning. "Invasion of the gay-jewish cohorts", I instantly thought. But no, it turned out to be the outburst of a massive dam in Latin America.

Civil unions in Uruguay
Uruguay is the first Latin American Country to legalize civil unions. Following approval of a bill proposed by Margarita Percovich of the Broad Front coalition in November 2007, same-sex and opposite-sex couples will be allowed to enter into a Civil union after they live together for five years, and will be entitled to get some of the benefits that married couples are afforded.
...
As of December 19 2007 the final version of the bill has passed both chambers of Congress and president Tabare Vazquez has promised to sign the bill into law.

Senator Margarita Percovich, the author of the legislation, said the bill would give couples entering civil unions the same rights as marriage. Under the legislation couples would have be together for at least five years and sign a registry. The couples will receive heath benefits, inheritance, parenting and pension rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions_in_Uruguay

[qayak]

Family is certainly not just a metaphor in the Pope's message. His message is that family is the place where values are learned, and that we must then take those values learned in life with our mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters, and then treat all people with the same values we learned at home in order to achieve world peace.

Well, the values of hatred, bigotry and intolerance that the catholic church teaches maybe good enough for catholics but they certainly have no place in the modern world.

Consequently, anything that threatens our ability to learn those values at home will prevent us from applying those values in the broader community. In order to live in peace, it follows that there must be strong families, and that any threat to families is a threat to peace.

It does not follow because you cannot show that the catholic values are good. It does not follow because you cannot show that family values have anything to do with world peace. It does not follow because you have not shown that same sex marriage is tha threat to family values . . .

It does not follow at all. The pope's speech is simply the unreasoned opinion of a bigot. He is disguising his bigotry, intolerance and hate behind the patina of family values but it is still bigotry, intolerance and hate.

I'll put it like this. If I were writing a headline to describe the Pope's message I would probably write something like, "Pope says that the key to world peace is to live like family."

That would be a lie because the pope didn't say that at all. He said one model of the family leads to peace and the rest are a threat to that one model.

Or, I could write, "Pope says that the key to world peace is to live like heterosexual family." Technically, the latter is just as correct as the former, but it misses the point of the message by a mile.

This would still be a lie. A heterosexual family can still involve divorce and one person bringing up the children alone. What he said was, "The catholic model iof heterosexual, married, couple with children is the only path to peace, every other model is a threat to that family unit and therefore a threat to peace."

It's tempting to start a thread entitled, "Pope Says Polygamy Threatens World Peace" It would be just as accurate as this one.

And just as wrong. You seem to know a lot about what the pope "meant" to say. If this is, in fact, the case, how come your version doesn't line up with what he said and exactly why does he need you to interpret his message?

[qayak]

No it is not.

Ratzinger: ....Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of new life ... constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace,....

Ratzinger: .....Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage....

I like how vague bigots like to keep their words. . . . would obscure certain basic moral values . . .

[Herzblut]

No it is not.

Proof by repeatedly praying the assertion.

[Rasmus]

I wish someone would explain this to me. I have been in a traditional man/woman marriage for 20 years. My friends have been in a same sex marriage for 25 years, although it has only been legally recognised in the last two years.

I am yet to notice the difference this has made to our own marriage - it seems as good as ever, we just had our last child. Do I have an atypically strong marriage? Are most heterosexual marriages more fragile and tend to self-destruct by the very fact of legally recognising gay unions?

Exactly how is our marriage devalued by their marriage? Can somebody provide an example? Which basic moral value has been obscured?

In fact soon after they had their civil union another couple we know, a man and a woman living together, were inspired to get married themselves. So I have an actual example of a gay marriage strengthening the institution of marriage.

No, you have got it wrong. You need to know about the marriage-tinkerbell-syndrome. Every time a legal gay marriage is formed, somewhere a heterosexual marriage dies fails or divorces.

It doesn't have to be in the vicinity of the forming of the gay marriage. So whilst they may not have affected your marriage your friends are surely responsible for the end of some marriage somewhere.

And if someday your S/O leaves the toothpaste open yet again, or burns the toast, you know that somewhere a gay couple just uttered the words "I do". And you can't do a thing to save your own family.

Of course, there are many, many heterosexual marriages and only comparatively few homosexual ones, so the relationship is not apparent and the effect one has on the other could be neglected. But just imagine what would happen if more and more gay folk got married!

It's not widely known, but the only way to save a marriage that has been thus doomed to failure is for a man to wear a silly dress and say "Gay marriages are evil." So this explains the behaviour of the pope - he's not evil and retarded and out of touch with reality and a hatemonger, he's just doing his part to save heterosexual marriages, and so are his followers.

(You don't want to know about the real reason for celebrating Christmas....)

[Darat]

Proof by repeatedly praying the assertion.

Again I'll ask you - do you have any refutation of the actual statements made by the current Pope or not?

[Darat]

(my bold) Exactly. So how is it if gay marriage threatens the above described values you think the Pope isn't concerned about those gay marriages undermining the family and therefore undermining the world peace which depends on that foundation of anti-gay marriage values? You have exactly echoed the sentiments you claim to disagree with.

You said this already and I already acknowledged it. The Pope didn't repeat 6 times ONE man and ONE woman, nor is it a current event topic. If there were much of a social movement for polygamy and the Pope was fighting against that particular struggle for the right to polygamous marriages, you could post such a headline and it would be meaningful.

You are choosing to ignore the gay marriage sniping included in the message because you don't hear it. But someone who does hear it isn't making up gay persecution in the message. The anti-gay sniping is distinctly in there. You are arguing that it isn't very loud. If you were sensitized to the message, it would be loud to you. Neither person is wrong, just more or less sensitive to the anti-gay passages. You seem to think the sniping is non-existent, merely imagined. You could make that case for an attack on polygamy. You can't make it for an attack on gay marriage.

And this is one of the reasons why in my first post I originally said it was "good" that he was carrying on the work of his predecessor (albeit there was some sarcasm in that comment).

The more obviously the stupidity of his religiously formed beliefs can be shown to be the more damage he does to the idea of religious authority.

I've talked about this with a couple of friends of mine and rather than emphasising the "gay marriage is a threat to world peace" we've discussed how they are threatening world peace. They are a monogamous heterosexual couple - or so they claim - who have lived together for almost 20 years and have two teenage children but *shock* *gasp* they are not married! And of course the Pope's latest stupidity is also accusing them of being a threat to world peace.

[Herzblut]

Again I'll ask you - do you have any refutation of the actual statements made by the current Pope or not?
I suggest you direct your questions to the author of the texts.

[Darat]

I suggest you direct your questions to the author of the texts.

I am not asking you a question about what the author of the text means or meant.

What I have clearly asked you for is any text from the RCC or reasoning that means we can either disregard the current Pope's statements because they do not represent RCC policy/thinking or expand on them to show they do not mean that "gay marriage is a threat to world peace".

So far you have been unwilling or unable to do so.

[Herzblut]

What I have clearly asked you for is any text from the RCC or reasoning that means we can either disregard the current Pope's statements because they do not represent RCC policy/thinking or expand on them to show they do not mean that "gay marriage is a threat to world peace".

100 € per hour, please, to play your personal assistent. Special price just for you - I usually take 75€ per hour. :D

Otherwise, I kindly suggest you validate your reasoning on your own or seek help somewhere else.

[Worm]

Apparently, by not being raised in a traditional family with two parents, male and female, who are married to each other, I am a threat to world peace.

My bad.

I thought I was a pacifist (albeit a fairly wishy-washy one) - clearly I was deluding myself.

[Herzblut]

Apparently, by not being raised in a traditional family with two parents, male and female, who are married to each other, I am a threat to world peace.

My bad.

I thought I was a pacifist (albeit a fairly wishy-washy one) - clearly I was deluding myself.
Why don't you tell us more about your ..eh.. interesting self-image.

[Darat]

100 € per hour, please, to play your personal assistent. Special price just for you - I usually take 75€ per hour. :D

Otherwise, I kindly suggest you validate your reasoning on your own or seek help somewhere else.

I have not asked you to validate my reasoning only to validate your own.

[Herzblut]

I have not asked you to validate my reasoning only to validate your own.
If you're making a claim you have to justify it.

[Worm]

Why don't you tell us more about your ..eh.. interesting self-image.

Nothing to do with my self-image, its the Pope's image of me I have issue with.

Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international, since he weakens what is in effect the primary agency of peace. This point merits special reflection: everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace.

So apparently it's all my fault. Me and the millions of other people that were not raised in a 'family based on the marriage of a man and a woman'. And the millions of people that are not involved in a 'family based on the marriage of a man and a woman'.

As I stated before, I find the idea that there is an 'ideal' way to live to be laughable, and the idea that how I (or anyone else) lives their life is in some way threatening to the institution of 'marriage' or 'the family', and therefore threatening to world peace, to be barely worthy of consideration.

[kmortis]

That reference dates back to 1965 where such clarification was not needed.
Yes, I know it's from 1965, I even said it was from 1965. My point was why did Benedict feel it necessary to change the language from implicit to explict?


Postfixing "man and woman", when talking about marriages, of course explicitely excludes same sex marriages.

Why did he feel it necessary to do so?

[blobru]

What’s this!? Looks like they cut the last paragraph out of the Pope’s Nuovo Anno address. Too bad:

...
16. Of course, the most sacred bond, even more vital to international peace in the eyes of the Holy See and Father than the bond between man and woman that constitutes holiest matrimony, is the bond between altar boy and priest. The Holy Bible teaches that God loves all His children, and so do our priests every chance they get. The Catholic clergy’s love for children, especially prepubescent boys, truly knows no bounds and must be fostered and maintained if World War III is to be averted. It is important to understand that salvation is a partnership between church and family. Reflect a moment: our priests save your souls for eternity, in exchange all we ask is you leave your youngest, fairest boys with the cutest rosiest cheeks and those delectable buttocks all aquiver with snow white goose down baby fat so that they may be introduced to the greater glory of God by the expert ministrations of our stern but caring priests. For international brotherhood and understanding is only possible within the natural confines of the loving relationship of altar boy and priest as God and der holy Fuhrer intended. Amen and pass the sausage.

[Herzblut]

Nothing to do with my self-image, its the Pope's image of me I have issue with.

It's more the caricature of your image of the pope's image of you.


So apparently it's all my fault.

Yeah, right.


Me and the millions of other people that were not raised in a 'family based on the marriage of a man and a woman'. And the millions of people that are not involved in a 'family based on the marriage of a man and a woman'.

Very pathetic, indeed.


As I stated before, I find the idea that there is an 'ideal' way to live to be laughable, ..snip..

What about the idea that some ways are better than others?


..snip.. and the idea that how I (or anyone else) lives their life is in some way ...snip... threatening to world peace, to be barely worthy of consideration.

So, you say peace does not depend on, e.g., how cooperative people live together? Your model of society consists of a population of egocentric individualists you live however they want?

[Herzblut]

Yes, I know it's from 1965, I even said it was from 1965. My point was why did Benedict feel it necessary to change the language from implicit to explict?

Why did he feel it necessary to do so?
He doesn't wanna be misunderstood, e.g. in Spain.
Leaving out this postfix (m&w) nowadays would be ambiguous and probably cause pretty much confusion.

I understand what you say, but I don't get the point, though. It is crystal clear that papito deliberately excludes same sex unions when talking about beneficials of the family, isn't it?

[Worm]

It's more the caricature of your image of the pope's image of you.
Yeah, right.
Very pathetic, indeed.

The Pope's words, not mine - and I agree they are pathetic.


What about the idea that some ways are better than others?

Some ways are better for some people. No single way is best for everyone. As I said, there is no 'ideal', jsut whatever works for each person.


So, you say peace does not depend on, say, how cooperative people live together? Your model of society consists of a population of egocentric individualists you live however they want?
I didn't say that at all. I agree that cooperation is a must for peace. If you read what I actually said, rather than your edited version of it, what I said was that living a 'different' way to the Pope's idea of the 'family' in no way threatens the idea of that 'family', and therefore poses no threat to world peace.

No denying that familys are, in general, good. You just have to accept a broader definition than 'a family based on the marriage of a man and a woman'. Like, for instance, 'cooperative people living together'.

And to be honest, even the 'living together' part is probably up for debate.

I'm not proposing some radical rethink of family life here. I'm simply suggesting that a statement that implies that a large proportion of the world's population are somehow 'obstacles on the road to peace' purely because they don't adhere to some strict defintion of 'family' to be fairly blatently offensive to those people.

[Meadmaker]

3262264]You are choosing to ignore the gay marriage sniping included in the message because you don't hear it.[/QUOTE]

That's a good description, sniping. Yes, in a message about world peace and how nations must emulate families to be strong, the Pope took a couple of offhand swats at gay marriage, divorce, and contraception.


Now, although the message isn't very loud, (unless you are "sensitized" to it, meaning that anytime you hear that message it drowns out whatever else is around it, apparently), is the message correct? Does it even make sense?

I don't think it is correct, but I think that it shouldn't be dismissed lightly. First, it has to be understood, and then it could be analyzed for truth. So, how does the Pope say that gay marriage threatens world peace? The same analysis could be said for divorce and contraception which were other targets of the Pope's sniping. He mentions none of them directly, but it isn't too hard to figure out that he was referring to them, and consciously so.

DoubtingStephen has been talking about looking for wars that start over gay marriage. In doing so, he is employing the classic straw man argument. He takes "gay marriage threatens world peace", and turns that into "wars will be fought over gay marriage", and proceeds to demonstrate that there are no wars that are the result of gay marriage. He has refuted the straw man argument, but has ignored the real one.

The Pope's position is that in our upbringing, we learn certain values. He mentions a few of them. Mutual respect, rejection of selfish individualism, "prudent management of material goods and interpersonal relationships". Those values, learned at home as children, then must guide our adult relationships, and must guide our collective relationships, those expressed as relationships among nations. So far, so good. I think we can all agree with him on that.

So then, the question comes up about whether the targets of the Pope’s sniping, which included divorce, contraception, and gay marriage, undermine those values. The Pope would claim that each of those represents an elevation of individual desires and needs above the collective good of families and societies. I don’t agree with him on that, at least when it comes to concrete actions that ought to be taken in law, but I think there is a valuable message within his rhetoric, and you can hear that message, if you are sensitized to it.

[kmortis]

He doesn't wanna be misunderstood, e.g. in Spain.
Leaving out this postfix (m&w) nowadays would be ambiguous and probably cause pretty much confusion.

I understand what you say, but I don't get the point, though. It is crystal clear that papito deliberately excludes same sex unions when talking about beneficials of the family, isn't it?
By "beneficials" I assume you mean "benefits"?

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? He excludes an entire segment of the population, and, by implication, indicates that they are a factor working against this nebulous concept of world peace. Show me any study that shows that gays (male or female) are a destabilizing force in any manner, other than being the target of bigotry from others. The Pope is just wrong in this assertion. I don't care that it's his religious belief, if it's wrong, it's wrong. WE don't condone Islamic fanatics lopping off peoples' heads just because their religious beliefs say that it's warranted, do we? We shouldn't allow the Pope to make statements that are wrong. Statements that foster a bigotry that has no place in this modern world.


3262264]DoubtingStephen has been talking about looking for wars that start over gay marriage. In doing so, he is employing the classic straw man argument. He takes "gay marriage threatens world peace", and turns that into "wars will be fought over gay marriage", and proceeds to demonstrate that there are no wars that are the result of gay marriage. He has refuted the straw man argument, but has ignored the real one.
Technically, DS has been engaging in redicio ad absurdium. He's brought the Pope's comments to their illogical extreme for humorous effect to help illustrate how stupid they are. Personally, I find it really funny to think of hordes of gays running rampant across the world, tearing down facades (and replacing them with more tasteful columns), destroying public buildings (via chorus line) and generally wreaking havoc (by dressing normally staid politicians in fashionable garb). Switzerland being renamed Nathanlanedia (because Switzerland doesn't sound good with a lisp).

See? Using humor to advance a point is perfectly acceptable form of debate. Especially true when you're dealing with touchy subjects.

[Herzblut]

By "beneficials" I assume you mean "benefits"?

Yep, sorry.


Well, that's the rub, isn't it? He excludes an entire segment of the population, ..schnapp..

How significant is this "segment" of gays, pubes fetishists, polygamists ... in statistical terms? I mean compared to e.g. one-parent families?

..schnipp.. and, by implication, indicates that they are a factor working against this nebulous concept of world peace.

No implication here, because it does not follow logically. Instead it's an invalid inference, thus non sequitur.


Show me any study that shows that gays (male or female) are a destabilizing force in any manner, other than being the target of bigotry from others.

You call me for disproving your strawman.


The Pope is just wrong in this assertion. I don't care that it's his religious belief, if it's wrong, it's wrong.

No, your inference is wrong.


We shouldn't allow the Pope to make statements that are wrong. Statements that foster a bigotry that has no place in this modern world.

Your second (with DS) who's calling for the withdrawal of freedom of speech from somebody based on the sole fact you dislike what he says.

Over my dead body, mate!

[Lonewulf]

Yes, because loving gay parents will teach their kids to be OMG TERRORISTS!

This material is great. :D

[Fiona]

The Pope's position is that in our upbringing, we learn certain values. He mentions a few of them. Mutual respect, rejection of selfish individualism, "prudent management of material goods and interpersonal relationships". Those values, learned at home as children, then must guide our adult relationships, and must guide our collective relationships, those expressed as relationships among nations.

How is this intrinsically related to the family? Any family?

[Lonewulf]

I had one mother, one father. I was an only child. I was part of a nuclear family.

The values I was taught? My mom taught me to work hard... so hard, you were never around. She did because of my father, who taught me that you should leach off your wife, get drunk, take all the money and waste it away on booze, and then beat your wife now and then (whether you're sober or not). Then blame it on her because she "started it" by yelling at you for spending hundreds of her dollars without her permission.

I TOTALLY would have preferred that to just being raised by my mother alone. I mean, he totally taught me how to be a strong man. Don't take no back talk from your wife, and beat her when she gets a bit too uppity. Also, all the money in the family is yours to spend as you please, no matter how much it ****s up the family. Totally moral! Totally good for society!

[DoubtingStephen]

Your second (with DS) who's calling for the withdrawal of freedom of speech from somebody based on the sole fact you dislike what he says.


I said no such thing. The only mention of my calling for denying freedom of speech to the Rat in a Hat was in a strawman of your creation. Please demonstrate my statement that calls for denying freedom of speech to the Rat in a Hat, or, failing that, please withdraw this false accusation.

[Herzblut]

I said no such thing. The only mention of my calling for denying freedom of speech to the Rat in a Hat was in a strawman of your creation. Please demonstrate my statement that calls for denying freedom of speech to the Rat in a Hat, or, failing that, please withdraw this false accusation.
You said in #215

In addition, I believe it is not in people's best interests, or in the interest of society, to propagate preposterous ancient superstitions that are used to justify bigotry, hatred and intolerance.

I think, you mentioned anti-gay campaigns run or sponsored by the RCC in the U.S. which affected your civil rights, as you said.

[DoubtingStephen]

Yes I did say that. In what way does this comment about what I think is in the best interests of people and society suggest to you that I would deny freedom of speech to the Rat in a Hat?

It is one thing to talk about the merit or lack thereof of certain types of speech, it is entirely a different matter to say that a person should be denied their freedom of speech.

Your suggestion that this sentence of mine would deny freedom of speech to the Rat in a Hat is nearly as preposterous as the statements made by the worlds richest man in an expensive dress with richly embroidered gold lamè. Not quite as ridiculous, but fairly ridiculous. I'd give it a 75.

It is also incorrect, and as I already pointed out it is a creature made of straw.

[Lonewulf]

Didn't you know? Criticizing speech is censorship! People should not only be able to say what they want, but never ever be criticized for their speech.

Unless the person criticizing is a religious nut, of course. Then it's kosher!

[Darth Rotor]

I hate one mother, one father. I was an only child. I was part of a nuclear family.

The values I was taught? My mom taught me to work hard... so hard, you were never around. She did because of my father, who taught me that you should leach off your wife, get drunk, take all the money and waste it away on booze, and then beat your wife now and then (whether you're sober or not). Then blame it on her because she "started it" by yelling at you for spending hundreds of her dollars without her permission.

I TOTALLY would have preferred that to just being raised by my mother alone. I mean, he totally taught me how to be a strong man. Don't take no back talk from your wife, and beat her when she gets a bit too uppity. Also, all the money in the family is yours to spend as you please, no matter how much it ****s up the family. Totally moral! Totally good for society!
Do you care to make any assumptions on whether or not that model was the family ideal the Pope was referring to?

Do you think it might be considered, even by the Pope, who never married, an abberation, or a failed marriage?

Just askin.'

My Aunt (may she rest in peace) married two men, both of whom turned out to be alcoholics, and both of whom made the decision to slap here once too often, and she divorced both of them shortly after "once too often" which in both cases was twice. Her sister, my mother, and my dads' sister, my other aunt, never had anything remotely approaching that problem. My cousin, her daughter, shortly after her own divorce from an unfaithful husband, once complained to me, when we were both well into our cups, that it wasn't fair that she and her brother didn't have the advantages my siblings and I had in a stable home.

Life is not fair, and that sometimes sucks ass.

She is remarried now, and very happy.

Here's my thought: the Pope assumes that most marriages (even though he has never married) are like the one's my mom and my dad's sister have, or m y cousin's second marriage, not the one's my aunt and your mom had.

DR

[Worm]

It is one thing to talk about the merit or lack thereof of certain types of speech, it is entirely a different matter to say that a person should be denied their freedom of speech.

Your suggestion that this sentence of mine would deny freedom of speech to the Rat in a Hat is nearly as preposterous as the statements made by the worlds richest man in an expensive dress with richly embroidered gold lamè. Not quite as ridiculous, but fairly ridiculous. I'd give it a 75.

It is also incorrect, and as I already pointed out it is a creature made of straw.

Quite right. You can clearly oppose what someone says without opposing their right to say it. It's just easier to shout 'Freedom of Speech' that to actually debate the content....

[Lonewulf]

Do you care to make any assumptions on whether or not that model was the family ideal the Pope was referring to?

Do you think it might be considered, even by the Pope, who never married, an abberation, or a failed marriage?

Just askin.'

My Aunt (may she rest in peace) married two men, both of whom turned out to be alcoholics, and both of whom made the decision to slap here once too often, and she divorced both of them shortly after "once too often" which in both cases was twice. Her sister, my mother, and my dads' sister, my other aunt, never had anything remotely approaching that problem. My cousin, her daughter, shortly after her own divorce from an unfaithful husband, once complained to me, when we were both well in our cups, that it wasn't fair that she and her brother didn't have the advantages my siblings and I had in a stable home. She is remarried now, and very happy.

Here's my thought: the Pope assumes that most marriages (even though he has never married) are like the one's my mom and my dad's sister have, or m y cousin's second marriage, not the one's my aunt and your mom had.

DR
So, one father, one mother = good?

That's the message I got. You're welcome to prove that message right, or show me where I made the error.

Question: Can gay parents raise children well, yes or no? If yes, then are you not disagreeing with the Pope? And if you aren't, can you point to any point where the Pope has accepted that homosexuals could make good parents?

[Darth Rotor]

That's the message I got. You're welcome to prove that message right, or show me where I made the error.
Did you read my post?
So, one father, one mother = good?

In my case, hell yes. In my wife's as well. Fan freaking tasatic.

In your case, it apparently didn't work out that way. This is bad. Glad you survived it. So did my cousins.

In the Pope's view, a man who has never been married, my suggestion (guess) is that he assumes that my experience is the norm. Whether or not he has a clue is an open question. Ya see, he's never been married . . .

DR

[Fiona]

Do you care to make any assumptions on whether or not that model was the family ideal the Pope was referring to?

Do you think it might be considered, even by the Pope, who never married, an abberation, or a failed marriage?

Just askin.'

My Aunt (may she rest in peace) married two men, both of whom turned out to be alcoholics, and both of whom made the decision to slap here once too often, and she divorced both of them shortly after "once too often" which in both cases was twice. Her sister, my mother, and my dads' sister, my other aunt, never had anything remotely approaching that problem. My cousin, her daughter, shortly after her own divorce from an unfaithful husband, once complained to me, when we were both well into our cups, that it wasn't fair that she and her brother didn't have the advantages my siblings and I had in a stable home.

Life is not fair, and that sometimes sucks ass.

She is remarried now, and very happy.

Here's my thought: the Pope assumes that most marriages (even though he has never married) are like the one's my mom and my dad's sister have, or m y cousin's second marriage, not the one's my aunt and your mom had.

DR

This point is very much what I was trying to get it when I asked what all this has to do with the family. I do not claim that all families are deeply unhappy or dangerous or violent. But neither can I see any justification for assuming that all or even most families are "ideal" in the way the pope seems to imply. It is true that children learn what they live. But it disturbs me that the pope appears to believe that there is a cessation to that at some point because, like you, I know many good people who learned good values and stuff only after they rejected the lessons of their early lives and models.

I cannot accept the Pope's premise and therefore even if he were not utterly illogical I could not accept his conclusions

[Lonewulf]

Did you read my post?
I did. I still see no reason why the Pope wasn't also commenting on homosexual parents.

In my case, hell yes. In my wife's as well. Fan freaking tasatic.
And I'm sure that if you only had one parent, or two gay parents, it would have been horrible, right?

In your case, it apparently didn't work out that way. This is bad. Glad you survived it. So did my cousins.
Survived with plenty of debt still to counter. And the bastard still come back, and still took money... a decent chunk of my mom's retirement. Apparently the law allowed him to do that, because he "helped support me" (bullspit).

In the Pope's view, a man who has never been married, my suggestion (guess) is that he assumes that my experience is the norm. Whether or not he has a clue is an open question. Ya see, he's never been married . . .

And I would suggest that his suggestion and assumption is not founded in reality.

Dysfunctional families are not uncommon.

[Meadmaker]

How is this intrinsically related to the family? Any family?

Learning mutual respect? I think that is part of a healthy family life, don't you? Likewise with rejection of selfish individualism and other elements the Pope discussed in this message.

Wherever you lived, and in whatever circustances you lived, as a child, I would hope that you would be exposed to people who exhibited those attributes of character. Some families have those characteristics. Others do not. Some people raised without families or in non-traditional families have those characteristics, others do not. Nevertheless, despite the fact that we cannot make absolute statements about the moral values taught to children in traditional families, same sex parent families, orphanages, divorced and remarried families, etc, it is my opinion that families are more likely to teach those values than any other arrangement, and that treating other people the way you would treat your family is, more often than not, good advice.

[Fiona]

I read DR's post very differently. Lonewulf, as you can see. Is it not true that if you disagree with the premise that the family, however defined, leads to the good outcomes the pope specifies, them the whole question of whether any perceived threat to the family is a bad thing becomes moot?

edit:Wherever you lived, and in whatever circustances you lived, as a child, I would hope that you would be exposed to people who exhibited those attributes of character. <.....>Nevertheless, despite the fact that we cannot make absolute statements about the moral values taught to children <....>it is my opinion that families are more likely to teach those values than any other arrangement

In the first place many many families not only give preferential treatment to family members; they see that as a positive value: so the admonition to treat others as they would treat members of their own family would actually seem wrong to them. Treating family members more favourably is in fact the defining feature of the value of a family for such people.

Secondly the first phrase is very important. In fact as I interpret it it contradicts your whole thesis. I absolutely accept that children can be exposed to people who will give them good values and I would wish this for every child - it is one of the foundations of resilience in the child from a dysfunctional family and it proves that the family is irrelevant - the principles are what counts. So I think anyway

[Belz...]

When you read the New Testament, you will find many examples of a rather advanced humanistic world view.

It may have been radical for that time, at that place, but I don't think it was advanced by any stretch of the imagination.

[Belz...]

No.

Yes, actually.

[Meadmaker]

So, one father, one mother = good?


I think it is more accurate to say, P(Good|one mother, one father)>P(Good|anything else).

In other words, the probability of having a "good" upbringing is greater if there is one mother and one father than with any other arrangement. That's the Pope's view, not mine.

On the other hand, if you put in >= instead of >, it's also my view. Furthermore, there are certain arrangements, such as two father-like figures, where P(good) is unknown, due to insufficient data. We just don't have much experience with people raised by same sex couples.

Being liberal, my own opinion is that unless we know there are significant problems, we ought to allow people to live in any way that suits their fancy, unless there is reasonable evidence it is harmful to someone else. At the moment, no such evidence exists for gay marriage. On the other hand, it's a sufficiently new phenomenon, at least when describing open lives in significant numbers, that it bears watching. An awful lot of sociologists and psychologists will, and should, be watching the results of our experiments with non-traditional families.

[Belz...]

Baleeted.

[Darth Rotor]

And I'm sure that if you only had one parent, or two gay parents, it would have been horrible, right?
Why are you sure of that? It doubtless depends on the people, and how committed they are to "we" rather than "me."
Survived with plenty of debt still to counter. And the bastard still come back, and still took money... a decent chunk of my mom's retirement. Apparently the law allowed him to do that, because he "helped support me" (bullspit).
Don't get me started on "the law being a ass."
And I would suggest that his suggestion and assumption is not founded in reality.
When one gets down to cases, such general statements as the Pope's tend to lose their utility. His appeal to an ideal is right up his alley, as a Pope.

To misquote the apocryphal Italian grandmother in St Peter's Square one day:

"Papa, if you no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules!"
Dysfunctional families are not uncommon.
Aye, sad but true.

DR

[Meadmaker]

It may have been radical for that time, at that place, but I don't think it was advanced by any stretch of the imagination.

FWIW, it wasn't all that radical for his day, either. He didn't make it up:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/hillel.html

[Lonewulf]

I think it is more accurate to say, P(Good|one mother, one father)>P(Good|anything else).
Why?

In other words, the probability of having a "good" upbringing is greater if there is one mother and one father than with any other arrangement. That's the Pope's view, not mine.
It's a silly view.

On the other hand, if you put in >= instead of >, it's also my view.

I'd leave out any "greater than" or "less than" symbols altogether, personally.

Furthermore, there are certain arrangements, such as two father-like figures, where P(good) is unknown, due to insufficient data. We just don't have much experience with people raised by same sex couples.
Yeap. Doesn't stop religious freaks from assuming.

Being liberal, my own opinion is that unless we know there are significant problems, we ought to allow people to live in any way that suits their fancy, unless there is reasonable evidence it is harmful to someone else. At the moment, no such evidence exists for gay marriage. On the other hand, it's a sufficiently new phenomenon, at least when describing open lives in significant numbers, that it bears watching. An awful lot of sociologists and psychologists will, and should, be watching the results of our experiments with non-traditional families.

How "significant" will that "problem" have to be for you to ban gay marriage?

[Belz...]

I can't disagree! But to be honest, you know, I spotted your little error and couldn't resist to just put a provocative "No" hoping to see you run against the brick wall.

Yeah, around here we call that "trolling".

[Belz...]

I TOTALLY would have preferred that to just being raised by my mother alone. I mean, he totally taught me how to be a strong man.

But, but, but... you didn't have a strong father figure!! You can't possibly lead a normal life!!!

[Meadmaker]

How "significant" will that "problem" have to be for you to ban gay marriage?

That's a question that is difficult to answer, but I've been asked it before. If I were to see, for example, a significant difference in suicide rates among teenagers raised by gay parents, I would be likely to ban gay marriage. How significant is significant? Basically, anything that can be measured accurately enough to be certain it isn't a phenomenon of faulty measurement.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how I would react if I saw that suicide rates were lower among teenagers raised by gay parents. I certainly wouldn't ban heterosexual marriages, but it would make me very likely to be more enthusiastic in supporting gay marriage.

(I really should put "ban" in quotes, because with the exception of Massachusetts, gay marriage is already banned in the United States. It would be more accurate to say that I would continue the ban.)


ETA: Interesting study. http://www.zmag.org/0026.htm
It's a few years old, but I'm surprised I haven't heard more about it. I wonder if there is any follow up. This, in my mind, is not sufficiently significant to "ban" gay marriage.

[Fiona]

But, but, but... you didn't have a strong father figure!! You can't possibly lead a normal life!!!


To get serious on this particular issue for a moment: one of the things which has been puzzling me throughout this thread is this: what are the perceived relevant differences between a man and a woman which make that particular set-up better than any other?

[Lonewulf]

That's a question that is difficult to answer, but I've been asked it before. If I were to see, for example, a significant difference in suicide rates among teenagers raised by gay parents, I would be likely to ban gay marriage. How significant is significant? Basically, anything that can be measured accurately enough to be certain it isn't a phenomenon of faulty measurement.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how I would react if I saw that suicide rates were lower among teenagers raised by gay parents. I certainly wouldn't ban heterosexual marriages, but it would make me very likely to be more enthusiastic in supporting gay marriage.

(I really should put "ban" in quotes, because with the exception of Massachusetts, gay marriage is already banned in the United States. It would be more accurate to say that I would continue the ban.)

So, essentially, you are stating that if heterosexual marriage causes a significantly increased amount of suicides, that's a-OK, but if homosexual marriage causes a significantly increased amount of suicides, ban it.

That's... that's just swell.

I'm thinking that there's not much worth listening to here.

[Lonewulf]

To get serious on this particular issue for a moment: one of the things which has been puzzling me throughout this thread is this: what are the perceived relevant differences between a man and a woman which make that particular set-up better than any other?

Women are weak but more compassionate. Men are less compassionate but are stronger physically...

D'uh . :)

[Fiona]

I really hope that is a facetious reply :D

[CFLarsen]

It may have been radical for that time, at that place, but I don't think it was advanced by any stretch of the imagination.

Why not?

[DoubtingStephen]

If I were to see, for example, a significant difference in suicide rates among teenagers raised by gay parents, I would be likely to ban gay marriage. How significant is significant? Basically, anything that can be measured accurately enough to be certain it isn't a phenomenon of faulty measurement.


There have been a number of studies seeking to compare the well being of kids raised by same sex couples to those raised by opposite sex couples. The typical finding seems to be that children raised by same sex couples do not suffer any harm or display any type of anti-social or other behavioral problems. The APA supports same sex couples as parents (http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/action.html). The ACLU claims that "all mainstream national children's health and welfare organizations oppose restrictions on gay parenting" [PDF (http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file480_27496.pdf)]. A related page on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting) states "Gay and lesbian parenting enjoys broad support from medical experts."

I think there is a sufficient body of knowledge on this subject for a reasonable person to develop an informed opinion on the matter.

<personal_anecdote>
Speaking only from my own experience, there was a time many years ago when a certain New England state was no longer large enough to contain both my ex-wife and our daughter, so she came to live with me in California. Fortunately "she" refers to my daughter and not my ex wife, with whom I had already done my time. This transpired not long after a "life partner" of mine had committed suicide in our home and a piously Christian cowboy coroner had banned me from my own home because I was not related to the deceased.
(newspaper account (http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/05.09.96/gay-kin-9619.html)). So my daughter and I were a comfort to each other.

Not long after my daughter moved in I met my current Registered Domestic Partner who is well known on this forum. So it came to pass that during her formative teenage years she was being raised by a same sex couple.

Today she is a highly respected Registered Nurse at a hospital in Massachusetts, doing well, and happily on good terms once again with her mother. Recently we had the extreme pleasure of attending her wedding ceremony, and she had made it very clear that she wanted to dance with all three of her Dads (her mother remarried). So I can say that at least one young lady, who spent a part of her childhood with same sex parents, is today a happy and well adjusted member of society. And thankfully neither she nor her husband are afflicted with any religious delusions.
</personal_anecdote>

[Belz...]

Women are weak but more compassionate. Men are less compassionate but are stronger physically...

I'll consider that a joke.

[Belz...]

Why not?

It's not like it was novel. Again, maybe radical at that time and place, but not new.

You DO know about Buddha, right ?

[CFLarsen]

It's not like it was novel. Again, maybe radical at that time and place, but not new.

I didn't say "new". I said "advanced".

You DO know about Buddha, right ?

Yes, I do. Buddha lived 500 years before the events described in the New Testament.

What is your point?

[Meadmaker]

I think there is a sufficient body of knowledge on this subject for a reasonable person to develop an informed opinion on the matter.


Indeed, and as long as your daughter's case is the norm, rather than the exception, progress will continue to be made in this area.

My only point is that it is a relatively new phenomenon, and bears watching. So far, there is no evidence of which I am aware that suggests there is a problem raising children by same sex couples.


On the subject of the Pope's opinions, as expressed in the message, my primary point is that what he actually said was something with which I think all thoughtful people would agree. On the other hand, when he referred to families, he referred only to "traditional" families, which might lead one to think that those same values so important to families were to be found in greater measure in traditional families than in other families, specifically in same sex families. That's a reasonable inference. However, it's not what he said, and by reacting so strongly to it, it seems to me that you are actually, in some sense, accepting his premise.

He says that anything that threatens opposite sex families is a threat to peace. He's right, isn't he? He just doesn't go far enough. I think most people here would go farther and say anything that threatens any family is a threat to world peace. Am I wrong?

I also think that the Pope has done a good job of describing the values that make for strong families. I think things like selflessness, affirmative commitment, mutual respect and "prudent management of interpersonal relationships" all contribute to strong families. Those values should be encouraged within families, and within our relationships that go beyond families.

As for my own opinion on the larger subject of gay marriage, I have described myself as a "reluctant supporter". I think it's a radical transformation of family life, which is something I consider incredibly important. As such, I am a bit suspicious of it. However, in the absence of evidence of harm, I don't think it would be right to deny people their wishes. If such evidence surfaces, I would reevaluate my support for this experiment.

[Robin]

Being liberal, my own opinion is that unless we know there are significant problems, we ought to allow people to live in any way that suits their fancy, unless there is reasonable evidence it is harmful to someone else. At the moment, no such evidence exists for gay marriage. On the other hand, it's a sufficiently new phenomenon, at least when describing open lives in significant numbers, that it bears watching. An awful lot of sociologists and psychologists will, and should, be watching the results of our experiments with non-traditional families.
Gay marriage is not a new phenomenon. As I have already pointed out, my friends have been in a gay marriage for 25 years. A couple of years ago they took advantage of the UK governments Civil Union law change to have the marriage legally recognised. Australian novelist Patrick White lived in a domestic gay relationship from 1948 until his death in 1990.

It is not an experiment, it is a pretty common fact.

The only new thing proposed is the belated legal recognition of this fact. It won't make more people gay. It might encourage more people to stop hiding their sexual preferences and possibly more gay people will be encouraged to form stable partnerships. But that is pretty much their business. It is not mine or yours or the business teams of social engineering sociologists and psychologists.

[Fiona]

He says that anything that threatens opposite sex families is a threat to peace. He's right, isn't he? He just doesn't go far enough. I think most people here would go farther and say anything that threatens any family is a threat to world peace. Am I wrong?


I do not entirely agree, unless you mean in the trivial sense that anything which threatens any social institution is a threat to peace

[qayak]

Do you care to make any assumptions on whether or not that model was the family ideal the Pope was referring to?

Do you think it might be considered, even by the Pope, who never married, an abberation, or a failed marriage?

No, I don't think it could be construed this way. The Vatican sent people to Ireland to fight against legalizing divorce under any circumstance. The pope is not interested in reality, he is interested in pushing his screwed up view of the world onto everyone, not just Roman catholics. After all, not everybody in Ireland is catholic.

The Vatican never modified their conditions for divorce, they just said "Never!" So, even though they are fully aware that many marriages are violent and "failed" they do not allow people a second chance. Under your aunt's circumstances, the Rcc would have insisted she remain with the first abusive husband, that he was the head of the house, and she better get into line!

The question I have is how does the pope become the arbitor of marriage and family relations when he has never been married nor had children? Supposedly, he has never had sex, but I am betting that is probably only true if you modify the statement to read, "Never had sex with a consenting adult."

Here's my thought: the Pope assumes that most marriages (even though he has never married) are like the one's my mom and my dad's sister have, or m y cousin's second marriage, not the one's my aunt and your mom had.

Do you really think so? Do you not think he is aware of women's shelters and dometic violence? Or do you suppose he just ignores these things because they cannot be reconcilled with his deluded view of the real world?

[Moon-Spinner]

Oh, how I long for that other Pope, you know, that one that came before this one. Not that I cared about anything he said, but at least when he was in the news, it wasn't for making Bats#!t crazy statements. I mean, his statements were usually just inane, just not totally bats#!t crazy...

[Robin]

I also think that the Pope has done a good job of describing the values that make for strong families. I think things like selflessness, affirmative commitment, mutual respect and "prudent management of interpersonal relationships" all contribute to strong families. Those values should be encouraged within families, and within our relationships that go beyond families.
Did we really need the Pope to tell us about selflessness and mutual respect? Perhaps we can handle the bleeding obvious without the help of God's vicar. "Prudent management of interpersonal relationships" could mean almost anything, same with affirmative commitment.

On the whole the message was an incoherent and rambling attempt to imply that the Church's socially conservative ideology was somehow necessary for world peace.

But a family is a family, a society is a society. There are different dynamics and challenges behind both. In a society there will always be people that you don't respect but you still have to live with them.

Our leaders are not our parents and they are not in authority over us, quite the contrary we are their bosses, they simply have temporary responsibility for some areas of the running of the country.

The Pope says that it is necessary that families have shared spiritual and ethical values and the implication is that this is also a necessary pre-condition for peace. But the challenge of a society and especially the global community is that we will disagree, often quite strongly, on matters of spirituality and ethics. The challenge is living together despite this.

[qayak]

He says that anything that threatens opposite sex families is a threat to peace. He's right, isn't he? He just doesn't go far enough. I think most people here would go farther and say anything that threatens any family is a threat to world peace. Am I wrong?

You are wrong. this would suggest that the people who follow the Rcc model are the most peace loving people on the planet. Definitely not true. There are other models from other cultures which work very well in society and are no more, and arguably a lot less, of a threat to world peace than the Rcc model and culture is.

And it is absurd to even suggest that anything that threatens any family is a threat to world peace. It can be shown that the religious view of women's role in the family and society is one of the biggest contributors to violence in the world. Educate women, allow them to vote and have equal say in society is much more likely to improve the level of peace in the world than to follow the bigotry and hatred of the leader of the Rcc.

[Darth Rotor]

No, I don't think it could be construed this way. The Vatican sent people to Ireland to fight against legalizing divorce under any circumstance. The pope is not interested in reality, he is interested in pushing his screwed up view of the world onto everyone, not just Roman catholics. After all, not everybody in Ireland is catholic.
We who read the newspapers tend to notice that. ;)
The Vatican never modified their conditions for divorce, they just said "Never!" So, even though they are fully aware that many marriages are violent and "failed" they do not allow people a second chance. Under your aunt's circumstances, the Rcc would have insisted she remain with the first abusive husband, that he was the head of the house, and she better get into line!
You are wrong in some detail. There is a thing called an annulment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment) My aunt didn't need one, she was not Catholic, my cousin did, she had become one, and she got an annulment. No, it's not easy, and since I am not familiar with Irish marriage law beyond that, I can only say, based on what I seem to recall from the news (memory foggy) . . .

How does Denis Leary make a joke about Divorce finally being approved in Ireland in the mid 1990's, and you stand up and shout about the Rat Man in 2007, a Pope for less than three years, and the Rat Man's fight against divorce in Ireland?

As I understand it, he lost. Right? Or his predecessor did? Was dear old Rat Man there for the Pope in his role as Cardinal? ?????
The question I have is how does the pope become the arbitor of marriage and family relations when he has never been married nor had children?
I have already mentioned that. When you can answer my question about your oddly juxtaposing facts (or my history being a bit fractured) we can proceed.

DR

[qayak]

We who read the newspapers tend to notice that. ;)

You are wrong in some detail. There is a thing called an annulment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment) My aunt didn't need one, she was not Catholic, my cousin did, she had become one, and she got an annulment. No, it's not easy, and since I am not familiar with Irish marriage law beyond that, I can only say, based on what I seem to recall from the news (memory foggy) . . .

How does Denis Leary make a joke about Divorce finally being approved in Ireland in the mid 1990's, and you stand up and shout about the Rat Man in 2007, a Pope for less than three years, and the Rat Man's fight against divorce in Ireland?

As I understand it, he lost. Right? Or his predecessor did? Was dear old Rat Man there for the Pope in his role as Cardinal? ?????

I have already mentioned that. When you can answer my question about your oddly juxtaposing facts (or my history being a bit fractured) we can proceed.

You will note that I said "The Vatican" sent people . . ." not "The Rat sent people . . ."

The fact is, the Vatican sees itself as a continuous line from god - Jesus - pope. They are not like a government that changes every few years to a different administration, with different views on politics and policies. who cannot be held liable for the previous administration. The Vatican is one continuous line of rule regardless of who the present pope is. It was set up this way as a form of control. The Vatican uses it and I would be remiss to not view their role in the same manner. So, regardless of who the actual pope was for the vote, it is the view of the Rcc and the position of the current pope, unless he changes it.

Did The Rat change the Vatican's stance on divorce? No, so that is the position of the Rcc and the current pope. Regardless of how the vote went in Ireland, the Rcc stance on divorce hasn't changed.

As a further example, The Rat did change the Rcc stance on evolution from that of the previous pope. So, no longer can one say that the Rcc embraces Darwin's theory.

Annullment is not a divorce.

[Worm]

He says that anything that threatens opposite sex families is a threat to peace. He's right, isn't he? He just doesn't go far enough. I think most people here would go farther and say anything that threatens any family is a threat to world peace. Am I wrong?


You're not wrong, but I do think that it's slightly disingenuous to think that he wasn't trying to push his agenda of family=man+woman and anything else is wrong.

whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community

This is true, taken out of context. But taken in context, knowing what he means by 'family' - it's just wrong.


We cannot forget that the family comes into being from the responsible and definitive “yes” of a man and a women


Well, no it doesn't, and the implication that anything else isn't a 'family' is insulting to me, and many others.

To borrow a couple of quotes that Darat kindly provided :

Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of new life ... constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace

Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

Seems pretty clear to me. Certainly there is a case to be argued that he didn't quite mean everything that isn't one man, one woman is a threat to peace, although I think that's exactly what he was saying. But it seems crystal clear that he thinks gay marriage (or homosexual unions..whatever you want to call them) are a threat to his special version of familes, and therefore a threat to peace.

[Robin]

Seems pretty clear to me. Certainly there is a case to be argued that he didn't quite mean everything that isn't one man, one woman is a threat to peace, although I think that's exactly what he was saying. But it seems crystal clear that he thinks gay marriage (or homosexual unions..whatever you want to call them) are a threat to his special version of familes, and therefore a threat to peace.
In fact I think the Pope would be pretty disappointed if Catholics did not understand that as part of his message.

[Meadmaker]

Seems pretty clear to me. Certainly there is a case to be argued that he didn't quite mean everything that isn't one man, one woman is a threat to peace, although I think that's exactly what he was saying. But it seems crystal clear that he thinks gay marriage (or homosexual unions..whatever you want to call them) are a threat to his special version of familes, and therefore a threat to peace.


That's a very good way of putting it. I sometimes participate in threads not because I feel strongly about them, but because I can't quite figure out what bugs me about the topic. You've helped me crystallize my thoughts.

In this case, a lot of people wouldn't see the difference between your first description and your second description. I see a huge difference between them. I think the Pope was saying the latter. He is saying that gay marriage, and even more so all the other ways that people might opt out of regular old marriage are a threat to families, and therefore a threat to peace. Of course, they are only one threat among many. Also, they are an indirect threat, and they are not the primary threats he was addressing, but all those modern forms of human sexuality that are newly accepted within the last century are among the many threats that families face today, according to the Pope.

In my opinion, that's not quite correct. Instead, I would say that many aspects of our new world require some sort of thought about how to rework the family and retain all the benefits that it offered.

[Robin]

Instead, I would say that many aspects of our new world require some sort of thought about how to rework the family and retain all the benefits that it offered.
I have no idea why you think we should rework the family and I am not aware of anyone who has suggested that we should attempt such an odd project.

I doubt anybody in the gay movement has ever suggested that we do. Instead, what is being proposed is providing some legal recognition of an existing and quite common institution - it is not a radical idea and it will not involve "reworking" any families.

[bluess]

I was just put in the amusing position of trying to explain the 'anti-' arguments to Mr.Blue. After I described them to the best of my ability, and with a minimum of invective, he just shook his head. "We all have such little time on the planet. Why would anyone go out of their way to make someone else unhappy on such an unimportant topic? Hearts call out to each other, who cares about the body they are carried in?"

[DoubtingStephen]

Hearts call out to each other, who cares about the body they are carried in?

Mr Blue is a very wise man.

[Slimething]

Mr Blue is a very wise man.

Aye to that. Mr. Blue should run for god. He's got my vote.

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's a good description, sniping. Yes, in a message about world peace and how nations must emulate families to be strong, the Pope took a couple of offhand swats at gay marriage, divorce, and contraception......[snip]Your glass is half full Mead and mine's half empty. I don't think sniping at gay marriages 6 or so times in such a short speech which very specifically focuses on morals is as minor as you think. I have already said a few times I get your point about taking the "morals" out from between the connection and going for gay marriage directly threatens world peace, but the connection is blatantly there whether it is the focus of the speech or just one of the focuses.


Would you agree the speech says immorality threatens world peace?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
ETA: Interesting study. http://www.zmag.org/0026.htm
It's a few years old, but I'm surprised I haven't heard more about it. ....I didn't look at the study but just from the news reported there, the first thing that comes to mind is d'uh, the child of a lesbian is certainly more likely to carry the genetic code for female homosexuality and that has not been ruled out.

But there is a much more important point here. If you are going to start with this kind of analysis, even the suicide one, and use it to remove kids from homes or deny perfectly good parents adoption privileges based on statistics, then why aren't you doing the same for heterosexual couples?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Indeed, and as long as your daughter's case is the norm, rather than the exception, progress will continue to be made in this area.

My only point is that it is a relatively new phenomenon, and bears watching. .....I have news for you boy, this ain't a new phenomena. The only thing new are requests to formalize the relationships.

And even if it were new, so what? I'm sure the bell curve of well being is mostly overlapping the bell curve for those hetero households. The best gay household has to be a hundred fold better than the worst tolerated hetero household.

[qayak]

That's a question that is difficult to answer, but I've been asked it before. If I were to see, for example, a significant difference in suicide rates among teenagers raised by gay parents, I would be likely to ban gay marriage. How significant is significant? Basically, anything that can be measured accurately enough to be certain it isn't a phenomenon of faulty measurement.

But, gay marriage didn't cause the suicides. What are you going to do, remove all children from gay parents because they have an increased likelyhood of committing suicide? Shouldn't you be removing all children with gay parents? Isn't your suggestion the equivilent of removing all chidren from white families and putting then with Asian families because Asians have a lower risk of heart attack?

On the other hand, I'm not sure how I would react if I saw that suicide rates were lower among teenagers raised by gay parents. I certainly wouldn't ban heterosexual marriages, but it would make me very likely to be more enthusiastic in supporting gay marriage.

And you have no problem with this double standard? I would think it should be a pretty good indication that your moral compass is pretty F'ed up.

ETA: Interesting study. http://www.zmag.org/0026.htm
It's a few years old, but I'm surprised I haven't heard more about it. I wonder if there is any follow up. This, in my mind, is not sufficiently significant to "ban" gay marriage.

You didn't hear much about it because it cannot be construed in any way, shape, or form to be an excuse to ban gay marriage, in fact, it is ammunition in favour of gay marriage and this is why: The varation between children INSIDE each group is greater than the variations in children BETWEEN the two groups.

It also blows the pope's theory that traditional families are the best bet for world peace. Or did you fail to read this part: "Children [Raised by lesbians] of both genders were found to be more sexually and culturally tolerant than their peers."

Or this part: "If the findings from “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” were taken to their logical conclusion, however, many progressives would have to admit that the report is an implicit critique of heterosexual parenting. Stacey and Biblarz found that “nonbiological lesbian co-mothers” are “more skilled at parenting and more involved with the children than stepfathers” and that “lesbian partners in two-parent families...enjoy a greater level of synchronicity in parenting than do heterosexual partners.”

[blobru]

Well I for one would like the Pope for his long-standing opposition to gay marriage (http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2005/06/07/pope_says_gay_unions_are_false/), especially his deep concern for the suffering children of those false unions:

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.


Meanwhile, another snippet of 'take one' of the Pope's Nuovo Anno address:

16b. For any claim to moral authority is a remarkable one. Whence does the Church’s derive then? Where does the Church acquire the extraordinary right to presume to tell others how to live? Clearly not from the intangible alone, for God chooses not to touch everyone’s heart. No, it is only by the very tangible, infrangible miracle of full-blooded priest on altar boy and altar boy on priest action that this blithe ability to arbitrate on family values for each and all is borne. For without it, Catholicism would be a risible anachronism, bound to a set of millennia-old values that even It cannot pretend to comprehend or care about any longer if It ever did. So let us in the ninth year of the third millennium in the era of our Lord and Savior hearken back to a holier time (circa 1500 -- preschism), when men were men, women were women, priests were priests, and altar boys were altar boys, especially when they as helpless orphans were taken in by the Vatican and dressed up like naked cherubs to be leavened forth like yeasty, zesty spermatozoa out of the Pope’s birthday cake laughing and giggling until lovingly chased down, cornered and pounced upon by the blessed, tumescent and equally naked Holy Father or perhaps one of His pet cardinals and gently but sternly indoctrinated in the ways of righteousness by same in the midst of what seemed to be a never-ending succession of inspirited, concupiscent celebrations. Yes, let us return to those halcyon days my children. For it is thence and nowhere else that the Catholic Church arrogates this what would otherwise be ludicrous imposture of spokesman for the entire world on matters of love, peace, marriage, family, justice and Truth. And which is why I say again, “Amen -- and pass the sausage!”


So tithe generously this Christmas season, won't you? Only the Catholic priesthood can save children from the violence of same-sex households.

[Fiona]

You are wrong in some detail. There is a thing called an annulment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment) My aunt didn't need one, she was not Catholic, my cousin did, she had become one, and she got an annulment. No, it's not easy, and since I am not familiar with Irish marriage law beyond that, I can only say, based on what I seem to recall from the news (memory foggy) . . .


DR

Just to pick up on this with an anecdote:

My friend is a devout Roman Catholic. She had the misfortune to fall in love iwth a man who was divorced and has children. That man was married in a protestant church, though he was not himself devout. When they came to marry, the catholic church refused to marry them on the grounds that he was already married. My friend decided to marry him anyway but was then excommunicated. This made her deeply unhappy because the community of the church is very important to her. They sought and eventually got an anullment, then got "properly married" in the church. Happy ending? Only if you do not believe the church's teaching; because now his children are bastards since they were born of a marriage which never existed. I doubt this matters to his former wife or to them. But in all seriousness does that seem kind to you? necessary? For me it stinks and no amount of theology can make it look decent

[Meadmaker]

I have no idea why you think we should rework the family and I am not aware of anyone who has suggested that we should attempt such an odd project.

I doubt anybody in the gay movement has ever suggested that we do.

I beg your pardon, but changing the concept from "a man and a woman" to "two people" is reworking the family.

ETA: In fact, that's the whole point of gay marriage. When asked why it's so important, people cite things like hospital visits and inheritance rights. People are denied the chance to visit partners in hospitals because "only family" are allowed. Wills get caught up in probate because the partners are "not relatives". People can't buy homes together without filling in a whole lot of paperwork because they are "not family". Someone might lose custody of a child they raised after a partner's death because a judge places the child with a "family" member. The whole bloody point of having same sex partners get married is so that they can be recognized as family.

[Meadmaker]

Would you agree the speech says immorality threatens world peace?

Yes.

ETA: I'll go one step further. I'll agree with the Pope that immorality threatens world peace. He and I would disagree on just what constitutes "immorality", but I think the core of his speech is accurate.

[Darat]

I beg your pardon, but changing the concept from "a man and a woman" to "two people" is reworking the family.

Sorry but it isn't - the concept of a family being defined as "a man, a woman and their children" is the newer concept; the very word we use "family" indicates in its origins that is does not mean "a man and a woman". ETA: See the etymology of the word.

[Meadmaker]

Sorry but it isn't - the concept of a family being defined as "a man, a woman and their children" is the newer concept; the very word we use "family" indicates in its origins that is does not mean "a man and a woman". ETA: See the etomoylogy of the word.

We were editing at the same time. See my edit of the post you quoted.

[Darat]

...snip... The whole bloody point of having same sex partners get married is so that they can be recognized as family.

You have a valid point that "gay marriage" is at least partially about redefining the accepted legal definition of the word "family". However that is missing the point of what families actually have been in the past and are today. Families have always been defined by society in a very loose manner - pretty much as "that group of people that live together or closely associate with one another", society has never limited it to "one man and a woman". However the legal definitions of who can be counted as a member of a family have been subjected to many changes over the years. Anyone wanting to limit the family to mean just "a man and a woman" is the one going against literally thousands of years of recorded human history.

ETA: I would say the Pope and the RCC confuse marriage to mean family - but the two are not synonyms. (Don't forget that for the RCC marriage was not even considered a sacrament till about 500 years ago.)

[Meadmaker]

But, gay marriage didn't cause the suicides.

For emphasis, there are no suicides to speak of. This is hypothetical. It was an example of the sort of thing that should be observed to see what differences there are, if any, between children raised by same sex couples and children raised by opposite sex couples.

Isn't your suggestion the equivilent of removing all chidren from white families and putting then with Asian families because Asians have a lower risk of heart attack?

Again, I emphasize that I was speaking hypothetically, because we have no real evidence of any statistically significant difference between children raised by gay parents and those raised by straight parents, at least I am not aware of anything beyond a very few preliminary and inconclusive studies.

However, no. It isn't the same, and it would not take much thought to figure out the differences.

It also blows the pope's theory that traditional families are the best bet for world peace. Or did you fail to read this part: "Children [Raised by lesbians] of both genders were found to be more sexually and culturally tolerant than their peers."

But we can discount this because the variation within the groups is greater than the variation between groups.;)


The study says what it says. It was well conducted, but with a small amount of data. The thing I find interesting about it was that an awful lot of people shout at the top of their lungs that children raised by gay parents are not more likely to be gay. This study, if confirmed by further research, suggests that they are, in fact, more likely to engage in homosexual activity. That's neither good nor bad, in my opinion, but it is interesting.

[kmortis]

Sorry but it isn't - the concept of a family being defined as "a man, a woman and their children" is the newer concept; the very word we use "family" indicates in its origins that is does not mean "a man and a woman". ETA: See the etymology of the word.

From (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=family):
family Look up family at Dictionary.com
c.1400, "servants of a household," from L. familia "household," including relatives and servants, from famulus "servant," of unknown origin. The classical L. sense recorded in Eng. from 1545; the main modern sense of "those connected by blood" (whether living together or not) is first attested 1667. Replaced O.E. hiwscipe. Buzzword family values first recorded 1966. Phrase in a family way "pregnant" is from 1796. Family circle is 1809; family man, one devoted to wife and children, is 1856 (earlier it meant "thief," 1788, from family in slang sense of "the fraternity of thieves").

From (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/family):

Main Entry: fam·i·ly
Pronunciation: \ˈfam-lē, ˈfa-mə-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fam·i·lies
Etymology: Middle English familie, from Latin familia household (including servants as well as kin of the householder), from famulus servant
Date: 15th century

1: a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : household
2 a: a group of persons of common ancestry : clan
b: a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock : race
3 a: a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation : fellowship
b: the staff of a high official (as the President)
4: a group of things related by common characteristics: as a: a closely related series of elements or chemical compounds
b: a group of soils with similar chemical and physical properties (as texture, pH, and mineral content) that comprise a category ranking above the series and below the subgroup in soil classification
c: a group of related languages descended from a single ancestral language
5 a: the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family <a single-parent family>
b: spouse and children <want to spend more time with my family>
6 a: a group of related plants or animals forming a category ranking above a genus and below an order and usually comprising several to many genera
b in livestock breeding (1): the descendants or line of a particular individual especially of some outstanding female (2): an identifiable strain within a breed
7: a set of curves or surfaces whose equations differ only in parameters
8: a unit of a crime syndicate (as the Mafia) operating within a geographical area

It's important to note, that the original Latin concept of family was closer to our current meaning of household. Not only was it Dad, Mom, and kids, but also included all the extended family that lived with them, any servants that were in the employ of the Father. As can be seen, our concept of just blood relatives comes from the mid-to-late 17th century. So, it's not so much of an expansion of the word family, but rather a re-expansion.

[Belz...]

I didn't say "new". I said "advanced".

I can't use words that you don't use in my posts ?

Yes, I do. Buddha lived 500 years before the events described in the New Testament.

What is your point?

That it wasn't 'advanced' because it was at least 500 years too late.

[Robin]

I beg your pardon, but changing the concept from "a man and a woman" to "two people" is reworking the family.
Gee that's funny. Before my friends' same-sex marriage was legally recognised my marriage consists of a man and a woman (plus two kids), and after their marriage was legally recognised our marriage still consists of a man and a woman (now plus three kids). I fail to see how ours got "reworked". It still seems the same to me. In other words a few extra rights to them did not take away from our rights one iota.
ETA: In fact, that's the whole point of gay marriage. When asked why it's so important, people cite things like hospital visits and inheritance rights. People are denied the chance to visit partners in hospitals because "only family" are allowed. Wills get caught up in probate because the partners are "not relatives". People can't buy homes together without filling in a whole lot of paperwork because they are "not family". Someone might lose custody of a child they raised after a partner's death because a judge places the child with a "family" member. The whole bloody point of having same sex partners get married is so that they can be recognized as family.
No the whole bloody point of anybody (gay or otherwise) getting married is because two people love each other and want to spend their lives together (the Pope seems to overlook that). The whole bloody point of legal recognition of marriage is the rights you mention above.

This is what you fail to realise, gay marriage (or whatever people prefer to call their committed, long-standing live-in relationships), is not something that can be conferred by the state, it is already a common fact of life, and has been for quite some time now. The only change suggested is for the state to stop living in denial and finally recognise these unions.

So nothing about the family has changed, simply the legal rights associated with them.

[kmortis]

Gee that's funny. Before my friends' same-sex marriage was legally recognised my marriage consists of a man and a woman (plus two kids), and after their marriage was legally recognised our marriage still consists of a man and a woman (now plus three kids). I fail to see how ours got "reworked". It still seems the same to me. In other words a few extra rights to them did not take away from our rights one iota.

WAIT! Your gay friends' marriage caused you to have a third child? And you DON'T call that a modification? Those insidious gays. Making you support a third child of your own making.
* kmortis shakes fist
BASTARDS!!!!!

[Robin]

WAIT! Your gay friends' marriage caused you to have a third child? And you DON'T call that a modification? Those insidious gays. Making you support a third child of your own making.
* kmortis;3266136 shakes fist
BASTARDS!!!!!
But to be completely fair to them no major wars broke out in the household.

[Worm]

Yet....

[Robin]

Yet....

You might have a point there - I don't like the way the eldest keeps on referring to me and the missus as the "axis of evil"

[Meadmaker]

No the whole bloody point of anybody (gay or otherwise) getting married is because two people love each other and want to spend their lives together (the Pope seems to overlook that).


He doesn't overlook it. He sees it and doesn't agree with it.

This is what you fail to realise, gay marriage (or whatever people prefer to call their committed, long-standing live-in relationships), is not something that can be conferred by the state,

Actually, it is. Love exists with or without the state. People live their lives with or without the state. Long before anyone ever had an idea about putting together a government, men and women (and presumably men and men) were living their lives together, having sex, and begetting and raising children.

Until someone came up with a piece of paper like a marriage license, or the equivalent for their culture, not one of those people were "married", because "marriage" is a condition created by and defined by society.

[Robin]

He doesn't overlook it. He sees it and doesn't agree with it.
Interesting statement, since I was clearly including marriage between a man and a woman. He doesn't think they have anything to do with love and wanting to spend lives together? No, probably not.
Actually, it is. Love exists with or without the state. People live their lives with or without the state. Long before anyone ever had an idea about putting together a government, men and women (and presumably men and men) were living their lives together, having sex, and begetting and raising children.

Until someone came up with a piece of paper like a marriage license, or the equivalent for their culture, not one of those people were "married", because "marriage" is a condition created by and defined by society.
Defined by society, not the state. I am part of society, so are you. Language is also created by people. If two people enter a partnership that they call marriage and sufficient people go along with it then it is a marriage. We define the state, the state doesn't define us.

[Meadmaker]

Interesting statement, since I was clearly including marriage between a man and a woman. He doesn't think they have anything to do with love and wanting to spend lives together? No, probably not.


He doesn't think that is (in my words) "the whole bloody point." The official Catholic view of marriage wouldn't be described that way.

[Herzblut]

Yes I did say that. In what way does this comment about what I think is in the best interests of people and society suggest to you that I would deny freedom of speech to the Rat in a Hat?

So, it's a purely hypothetical remark without touching reality?

[DoubtingStephen]

So, it's a purely hypothetical remark without touching reality?

False dichotomy. Ignored.

Heard about any new gay-marriage based wars lately?

[Herzblut]

False dichotomy. Ignored.

The dichotomy isn't false. But say: what exactly did you want to express?

[Herzblut]

To borrow a couple of quotes that Darat kindly provided :

Be aware those two quotes are retrieved from two different texts:

The first quote is from the pope's Jan 2008 "Day of world peace" message to the world. Intended audience is mankind itself basically.

The second is pulled from a 2003 text written by former Cardinal Ratzinger, directed towards a different (much smaller) audience.

That's an illegitimate method, combining selected quotes from arbritrary different texts. That way, you can "prove" anything you want.

[qayak]

For emphasis, there are no suicides to speak of. This is hypothetical. It was an example of the sort of thing that should be observed to see what differences there are, if any, between children raised by same sex couples and children raised by opposite sex couples.

Yes, I am aware of that. But the fact remains, the gay marriage of the parent would not be the cause of the suicide. Two people getting married does not cause the suicide of a third.

However, no. It isn't the same, and it would not take much thought to figure out the differences.

It is exactly the same. Taking children away from gay parents because of an increased incident of suicide is exactly the same as taking them away from white parents because of an increased incident of heart disease.

The study says what it says. It was well conducted, but with a small amount of data. The thing I find interesting about it was that an awful lot of people shout at the top of their lungs that children raised by gay parents are not more likely to be gay.

Well, this study says EXACTLY that. However, there is another study which says that children BORN TO gay parents are indeed more likely to be gay. Twice as likely, in fact.

However, the likelyhood still more than 90% that any child born to a gay parent is going to be straight.


This study, if confirmed by further research, suggests that they are, in fact, more likely to engage in homosexual activity. That's neither good nor bad, in my opinion, but it is interesting.

"An argument must be either for or against something to have any meaning." I believe it was Darwin that said that. Which makes me wonder, what the point of your statement here is? Why is it interesting? Children raised by lesbian parents are more open sexually and culturally so it isn't any surprise that this would be the case.

I would ask if it was shown that children raised by gays had a 90% chance of being gay, would you be against gay marriage and gays raising children?

I mean, 90% of children raised catholic become catholics so shouldn't you also be against religious indoctrination of children? ;)

[Herzblut]

ETA: In fact, that's the whole point of gay marriage. When asked why it's so important, people cite things like hospital visits and inheritance rights. People are denied the chance to visit partners in hospitals because "only family" are allowed. Wills get caught up in probate because the partners are "not relatives". People can't buy homes together without filling in a whole lot of paperwork because they are "not family". Someone might lose custody of a child they raised after a partner's death because a judge places the child with a "family" member. The whole bloody point of having same sex partners get married is so that they can be recognized as family.
I think it's the major point in terms of practical relevance. And as such it's hugely important. Didn't DS talk about when his partner had died he was denied access to their shared apartment because he wasn't a "relative"?

[Meadmaker]

Yes, I am aware of that. But the fact remains, the gay marriage of the parent would not be the cause of the suicide. Two people getting married does not cause the suicide of a third.

If it were shown that there is a high correlation between some sort of negative psychological trait (e.g. committing suicide) and the circumstances in which one is raised, I, for one, think that would warrant the state to intervene in some manner. The specific form of intervention might be different depending on the severity of the negative effects, and the frequency of occurrence.

If kids raised in any particular sort of family are shown to be screwed up pretty regularly, I don't have a problem with state intervention to prevent it. I have no problem, for example, with periodically checking on Amish children to make sure that their unconventional upbringing is not causing them psychological problems. If it were shown that Amish children were more likely to commit suicide than their English counterparts, I would have no problem with the state intervening in some manner to prevent that.

I feel the same way about gay marriage.

"An argument must be either for or against something to have any meaning." I believe it was Darwin that said that. Which makes me wonder, what the point of your statement here is? Why is it interesting?

Because people, usually supporters of gay marriage, so frequently say that it is not so. This study is several years old, and you have apparently seen other studies with similar findings, and yet people insist that children of gay parents are just like everyone else. Apparently, they aren't.

I would ask if it was shown that children raised by gays had a 90% chance of being gay, would you be against gay marriage and gays raising children?

No. At least, I think not. It's hard to answer because we do have sufficient data to say that your hypothetical situation is not real, and its difficult to project onto the situation that imagines it to be real.

The point is that gay people might want to raise children, and in general I think people should be allowed to do what they want to. The exception is that if it is shown to harm others, your right to follow your own path should be limited. If it can be shown that it is somehow harmful to be raised by gay parents, I don't have a problem limiting their rights. As yet, we have no evidence of such harm, and so their rights should not be limited, in my opinion.

[Herzblut]

Well, this study says EXACTLY that. However, there is another study which says that children BORN TO gay parents are indeed more likely to be gay. Twice as likely, in fact.

Hardly believable. What does it say about in how far the observation is caused by heredity or by education?

And sorry, for my understanding, how can a child be born to gay parents? Would you describe a concrete scenario?

[Worm]

Be aware those two quotes are retrieved from two different texts:

The first quote is from the pope's Jan 2008 "Day of world peace" message to the world. Intended audience is mankind itself basically.

The second is pulled from a 2003 text written by former Cardinal Ratzinger, directed towards a different (much smaller) audience.

That's an illegitimate method, combining selected quotes from arbritrary different texts. That way, you can "prove" anything you want.

I was aware of the different sources. I wouldn't say it was an illegitimate method however. The quotes are not taken out of context, the one simply illustrates an example from the other. The Pope is simply down on gay marriage, any way you read it, he doesn't like it and has said so.

[Fiona]

http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-141.htm

I was thinking about Meadmaker's assertion that same sex marriage would be a reworking of the family and I came across the letter linked above. I found it quite informative and I thought maybe some of you would not have come across it before, as I hadn't

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes.

ETA: I'll go one step further. I'll agree with the Pope that immorality threatens world peace. He and I would disagree on just what constitutes "immorality", but I think the core of his speech is accurate.Pope Ratz: "Immorality threatens world peace. Gay marriage is immoral. Gay marriage threatens world peace." That's what we've been trying to tell you he said.

I know you want to give Ratz a pass on this and I know you think, "gay marriage threatens world peace", is too much of a stretch to be a valid portrayal of the speech, but sheesh, Mead, given the rules of logic, it is at least one of the things said in that speech.

[bluess]

http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-141.htm

I was thinking about Meadmaker's assertion that same sex marriage would be a reworking of the family and I came across the letter linked above. I found it quite informative and I thought maybe some of you would not have come across it before, as I hadn't


Wow. That was a wonderful piece to read, thanks for the reference, Fiona.

[Meadmaker]

Pope Ratz: "Immorality threatens world peace. Gay marriage is immoral. Gay marriage threatens world peace." That's what we've been trying to tell you he said.

I know you want to give Ratz a pass on this and I know you think, "gay marriage threatens world peace", is too much of a stretch to be a valid portrayal of the speech, but sheesh, Mead, given the rules of logic, it is at least one of the things said in that speech.


Taken with his other writings, it can be inferred that he believes that. Certainly, that's true. However, that wasn't the message of this speech.

Furthermore, this speech made a whole lot of sense, by itself anyway.

Finally, DoubtingStephen still seems to think that the lack of wars started as a consequence of gay marriage somehow refutes the Pope's speech. He alluded to that again in his message posted at 1:27 am today. He's wrong, on several counts.

Let me ask this. You and I both agree that the Pope said, in this speech, that immorality threatens world peace. I have said that I agree with the Pope on that count. Immorality threatens world peace. Do you agree with me and the Pope on that count?

[Meadmaker]

http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-141.htm

I was thinking about Meadmaker's assertion that same sex marriage would be a reworking of the family and I came across the letter linked above. I found it quite informative and I thought maybe some of you would not have come across it before, as I hadn't

For those who don't want to click on the link, the thesis can be summed up in its last sentence:

'In short: this mantra of "3,000 years of unchanging history" can and ought to be summarily dismissed."

Exactly how this statement relates to my assertion that defining a pair of homosexual lovers as a "family" would be a change to traditional views of "family", whether as enshrined in law, custom, or attitude, is something I haven't quite grasped.

The concepts and customs of "marriage" and "family" have certainly changed over the centuries. Including same sex unions within those definitions would be another change.

[Worm]

Let me ask this. You and I both agree that the Pope said, in this speech, that immorality threatens world peace. I have said that I agree with the Pope on that count. Immorality threatens world peace. Do you agree with me and the Pope on that count?

He did say that, and for I for one agree with him. Unfortunately, that's not all he said.

If he had just said 'immorality threatens world peace', I'm not sure anyone would argue with him. But he went on to define 'immorality', and by his terms, any relationship that isn't one man, one woman is immoral. Any family not based on one man, one woman, is immoral.

The first part was good, but you can't ignore the second part. He started well, then he blew it.