It’s raining on the pro-homosexual “marriage” parade…

It’s a tough slog to read Mark Regnerus’ study “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.” But, it’s required if one is to properly evaluate whether the findings are the result of “good” social science methods or “junk” social science methods.

The Motley Monk evaluates the study as “good social science,” the findings of which are going to fuel a lot of acrimony on the part of those advocating so-called “homosexual marriage.”

The key finding?

According to Regnerus:

While it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior need have nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent, the data evaluated herein using population-based estimates drawn from a large, nationally-representative sample of young Americans suggest that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number.

It appears anecdotally that children don’t need a married mother and father to turn out well as adults.  Furthermore, the data gathered in the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) indicates there are many children who “have proven resilient and prevailed as adults in spite of numerous transitions, be they death, divorce, additional or diverse romantic partners, or remarriage.”  That said:

[The] NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day. Insofar as the share of intact, biological mother/father families continues to shrink in the United States, as it has, this portends growing challenges within families, but also heightened dependence on public health organizations, federal and state public assistance, psychotherapeutic resources, substance use programs, and the criminal justice system.

Whoa!  The best home environment in which to raise children is one with a married mother and father who remain married?

There’s more:

  • There are “statistically significant” differences in 25 of 40 outcomes between adult children who grew up with married, heterosexual parents and those who grew up with a mother who had a homosexual relationship.
  • Households led by parents of either sex who are engaged in homosexual relationships demonstrate greater household instability.
  • Children from lesbian households demonstrate more physical and mental health problems, more instability in romantic relationships, and lower average income as adults. In addition, children from these households also demonstrate higher levels of unemployment, smoking, need for public assistance, and involvement in crime.

The critics haven’t allowed these findings to go unchallenged…so much so that a group of 18 eminent social scientists have criticized the “sustained and sensational criticism” voiced by the mainstream media concerning the study’s findings.  Asserting that the study is “not without limitations,” the scholars claim that much of the criticism is “unwarranted.”

According to Catholic News Service, the study’s findings are consistent with other studies of homosexual couples in countries like the Netherlands and Sweden and are “parallel” to those of the American Institutes for Research sociologist Daniel Potter.  Potter studied homosexual parenting and children’s academic achievement, finding that children in homosexual parent families scored lower than their peers in married households with both biological parents.

Interestingly, much of the criticism has nothing to do with the study’s methodology but with the how study is being used to promote an anti-homosexual “marriage” agenda.

 

 

To read the study, click on the following link:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

To read the Catholic News Service article, click on the following link:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/scholars-defend-findings-of-difficulties-among-same-sex-parented-children/

To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, click on the following link:
http://themotleymonk.blogspot.com/

36 Responses to It’s raining on the pro-homosexual “marriage” parade…

  • And there’s this review about the methodological problems of studies arguing gay parents are fine for children:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

  • I wonder how the courts will react to this in combination with Loren Marks study?

  • “I wonder how the courts will react to this in combination with Loren Marks study?”

    They would first declare gay marriage a tax. Then they would make everyone get one.

  • @Phillip
    Nice one!

    But since this is about scientific studies, I wonder will the US now face the prospect of having judges decide what is good science? O that Regnerus’ & Marks studies are not relevant science in the context of current US policy in relation to ‘inclusiveness’?

    In which case, what Chief Justice Roberts said about it not being the Court’s job to save the people from the consequences of their electoral decisions becomes particularly relevant.

  • What child would want a fake father or a fake mother?

  • Father Levi: “In which case, what Chief Justice Roberts said about it not being the Court’s job to save the people from the consequences of their electoral decisions becomes particularly relevant.” That is precisely the Supreme Court’s job, to bring Justice to our nation, not to applaud the punishment or the denigration of our nation as the HHS mandate does.

  • THANK GOODNESS! I’m so tired of our 2007-2011 textbooks calling “family” a “social construct,” — something you make up– like your hair — every morning. hope the curriculum changes to reflect this study. i’m sure i’ll be referencing it often.

  • Thanks for the link but I have got a nagging feeling that it will not be read by those who have jumped on the pro-homosexual marriage bandwagon.
    Then again, they are the ones with the closed minds.

  • It’s the homosexualist sham marriage parade.

  • “Then again, they are the ones with the closed minds.”

    True. I gave a talk six months ago citing the substantial data on the negative effects of fatherlessness on children’s cognitive and emotional development. Afterwards, I had some come up to me and deny the conclusions. This without being able to deny the validity of the research.

  • Truly I have stumbled upon the cyber-temple of the Pharisees … How would Christ look upon this sickening effort to shame and demean people who have promised to be faithful to one another and then often adopt children–usually those least wanted–from minority, addicted mothers–and made the lifelong commitment to raise them?

    In your desperate desire enforce the accreted rules regulations on how love may be expressed piled up by two millennia of closeted or asexual bureaucrats, you’ve violated the greater law–to love others as you wish to be loved and to love god above all else.

    This was the law Christ cited when the Pharisees attempted to trap him by asking which of laws of the Torah was greatest. Its simplicity is devastating in it’s demand on the human person and wildly enraging to those who mistake exacting piety with righteousness.

    How about instead of fetishistically weighing your rhetorical stones (“They could not deny the validity of the research…” “What child would want a fake mother or a fake father?”) here with such obvious savor–you drop them–and open your hearts to these people made by your lord who you so delight in spurning?

    My wife and I have three beautiful children. We were born Roman Catholics. I had little or no interaction with Gay or lesbian couples until one moved around the corner from us and their two children became playmates of our children at the local tot park.

    When I first learned of the kids background, I defaulted to humor, then was a little nervous–(would my children become gay because they see their friends have two parents of the same sex?–twelve years later–answer:NO.) Finally I actually took them to a birthday party for one of the Gay couple’s kids–surprise–the party was amazing and these kids’ parents turned out to be fun, smart, interesting people, who though burdened with being made different by god in a very core way from the majority of people, chose to love, and to try to build a family unit as they were. After that, my heart was changed about what this site shamefully calls “so-called homosexual marriage.”

    I believe that that change was inspired by god. No doubt those here believe it was instead the work of Satan. And that “God didn’t make these gay people that way–their sinful choices did.”I comfort myself in knowing that over time this kind of heartlessness will wane as more and more people actually meet and interact with committed gay couples — and like other prejudices in an evolved society– this one falls by the wayside.

    There is so much suffering in the world. Could all the energy used to hang on to and desperately legitimize your prejudice against these people be employed to ease that suffering–rather than to increase it?

    I understand you are proud to “live against the grain/against an evermore sinful culture.” You believe there is not ENOUGH judging and shaming in the world. So be it. But save for the money changers, that’s not how Christ spent his time. Yes, your Magisterium or whatever Imperial Roman Bureaucratic knock-off that your obsessive obedience to convinces you that you are righteous tells you there are not enough people on the planet and not enough decrying of those who are different and thus this is an evil you must fight to your last cruel breath.

    But I dare a single one of you to have attended a birthday party like I did then and come away with the hardened hearts on display here. Judge ye not, heroic, scientific condemners of “so called homosexual marriage”-lest you be judged –for the pain you cause in your brothers and sisters.

    Christ sees you here. He sees the hurt you cause. Present him your studies. Bring him your rational arguments in Latin handed down by the highest levels of the magisterium.

    I pray god, he binds them up as whips like the sinews he found in the temple and drives you away as he did those moneychangers.

  • “Truly I have stumbled upon the cyber-temple of the Pharisees …”

    Why how unPharisee of you to condemn those who have the termerity to disagree with you!

    “How would Christ look upon this sickening effort to shame and demean people who have promised to be faithful to one another and then often adopt children–usually those least wanted–from minority, addicted mothers–and made the lifelong commitment to raise them?”

    Probably that we are doing our best to follow the teachings of His Church.

    “In your desperate desire enforce the accreted rules regulations on how love may be expressed piled up by two millennia of closeted or asexual bureaucrats, you’ve violated the greater law–to love others as you wish to be loved and to love god above all else.”

    As Christ said to the women caught in adultery: “Go and sin no more.” Love is not a license to sin or to ignore sin.

    “This was the law Christ cited when the Pharisees attempted to trap him by asking which of laws of the Torah was greatest. Its simplicity is devastating in it’s demand on the human person and wildly enraging to those who mistake exacting piety with righteousness.”

    Christ said a great many things while He walked among us, including granting to Peter the power to bind and to loose. He never breathed a syllable indicating that He would condone sin or call sin no-sin.

    “How about instead of fetishistically weighing your rhetorical stones (“They could not deny the validity of the research…” “What child would want a fake mother or a fake father?”) here with such obvious savor–you drop them–and open your hearts to these people made by your lord who you so delight in spurning?”

    Christ made us all, and all of us have sinned. He created us and not our sin, and his act of creation does not condone our sins.

    “My wife and I have three beautiful children. We were born Roman Catholics. I had little or no interaction with Gay or lesbian couples until one moved around the corner from us and their two children became playmates of our children at the local tot park.”

    Born Roman Catholics, and I rather suspect have a large chip on your shoulder regarding the Church. The bitterest anti-Catholic bigots are often former Catholics.

    “When I first learned of the kids background, I defaulted to humor, then was a little nervous–(would my children become gay because they see their friends have two parents of the same sex?–twelve years later–answer:NO.) Finally I actually took them to a birthday party for one of the Gay couple’s kids–surprise–the party was amazing and these kids’ parents turned out to be fun, smart, interesting people, who though burdened with being made different by god in a very core way from the majority of people, chose to love, and to try to build a family unit as they were. After that, my heart was changed about what this site shamefully calls “so-called homosexual marriage.” ”

    That people who may in other ways be good are enmeshed in terrible sins says absolutely nothing about tolerating those sins.

    “I believe that that change was inspired by god. No doubt those here believe it was instead the work of Satan.”
    Nah, I think it was your own doing, just like this rant of yours.

    “And that “God didn’t make these gay people that way–their sinful choices did.”I comfort myself in knowing that over time this kind of heartlessness will wane as more and more people actually meet and interact with committed gay couples — and like other prejudices in an evolved society– this one falls by the wayside.”

    The Church has been around for 2000 years, and I wouldn’t bet on it. The gay friendly culture we now inhabit is much more likely to go by the wayside as fashions change, while the teachings of Christ remain.

    “There is so much suffering in the world. Could all the energy used to hang on to and desperately legitimize your prejudice against these people be employed to ease that suffering–rather than to increase it?”

    Actually it is possible to do a great many things at the same time, as the endless charitable works of Catholics indicate. I have been a volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center for over a decade. There is plenty to do in this world and Catholics do their best to help those in need.

    “I understand you are proud to “live against the grain/against an evermore sinful culture.” You believe there is not ENOUGH judging and shaming in the world.”

    We are against sin and for the teachings of Christ.

    “So be it. But save for the money changers, that’s not how Christ spent his time.”

    Actually he spent his time founding the Church you bash and dying on the Cross to free us from sin, which you seem to view as a waste of time.

    “Yes, your Magisterium or whatever Imperial Roman Bureaucratic knock-off that your obsessive obedience to convinces you that you are righteous tells you there are not enough people on the planet and not enough decrying of those who are different and thus this is an evil you must fight to your last cruel breath.”

    Boy, that contempt for the Church just eats away at you doesn’t it? As Christ said to one of his interlocutors, you are very much mistaken.

    “But I dare a single one of you to have attended a birthday party like I did then and come away with the hardened hearts on display here. Judge ye not, heroic, scientific condemners of “so called homosexual marriage”-lest you be judged –for the pain you cause in your brothers and sisters.”

    We do no favors for those we love to pretend that their sins are not sins, just as we do ourselves no favor when we ignore our own sins.

    “Christ sees you here. He sees the hurt you cause. Present him your studies. Bring him your rational arguments in Latin handed down by the highest levels of the magisterium.”

    Actually I pray to Him every day. Do you? I follow Him in love and joy. Judging from your heated language I rather suspect that love and joy in regard to Christ and His Church may be sadly lacking in your own life, and if that is the case I truly pity you.

    “I pray god, he binds them up as whips like the sinews he found in the temple and drives you away as he did those moneychangers.”

    Ending your rant with a curse fits in with the rest of what you wrote.

  • “”What child would want a fake mother or a fake father?”” A fake mother and a fake father, like a fake husband and a fake wife sucks the life out of innocent, virgin, children, stifling their souls and their spirit, reducing their humanity to a physical body with no joyful, human soul. The joy of life is not a birthday party, where the homosexual couple was living high off the children’s innocence. The joy of life is the reality of knowing and living the life God has created for one, living the truth in LOVE, and passing the joy of life on to the next generation, endowing children with glory, celebrating their innocence, filling their souls with Christmas blessings. God loves and creates. Satan sucks the life out of the human being’s soul.

  • Let’s see:

    Ad hominem attack–check. Sorry, no chip here… Just horror at the inhumanity.

    Hilarious use of “bigotry” Check. Love the identity politics–you’re a regular Al Sharpton! Or Andrea Dworkin! Yes responding to your intolerance is bigotry….

    Joy? LOL. Yes, lot’s of Joy” here. Much like the ecstasy Torquenada experienced no doubt!

    The Church he founded…”) LOL Squared …. Christ was opposed to the Roman empire–he wasn’t interested in aping it. MEN created the corporation you believe someone can be “bigoted” against. Not Christ.

    As for taking comfort in shaming the minority and the weak, because the church has “been around for 2000 years,” good luck with that–it’s rapidly on the way to extinction on every continent but Africa. If that’s how you justify you cold, cruel world view, I guess it becomes less sustainable as it shrinks. In case you haven’t noticed that’s been the trajectory for about the last 500 years …

  • The only work I see of Satan here is the hating so pleasurably indulged in… Ugh…

  • I have to say I am floored how “joyful” Donald actually carries out my argument. What were the Pharisees about? Not god, but their “church”–their man-made vanities. Your rage is like their rage at Christ. Who didn’t walk the earth shaming the weak and marginal to “build his church” but by embracing them. Loving them. He didn’t stop the stoning and then pick up a stone for goodness sake… Which is precisely your M.O. when you use that “love the sinner/hate the sin” line.

    I don’t hate any church. I love Christ and I know he wishes me to love my fellow man. He wouldn’t love me sitting in some corner of cyberspace degrading people just trying to live their lives. People who do that and have the audacity to call anyone who stands up to it a “bigot.” Good grief…

  • One last thing before I let you get back to doing the will of the Lord here on earth by making a small group of people feel bad about themselves… do any of you righteous champions of God KNOW any gay couples? I highly doubt it. Otherwise such savagery in these remarks (“… sucking the life out of innocent virgin children”–wow now that’s a line a Catholic “bigot” might exploit unfairly…) would be impossible. To you, these people are just the necessary “other” that haters require like oxygen. Very sad.

  • I agree we have a tendency to build babel-like towers. We want power and control, but that is not the way of Jesus and the apostles, which of course led me in a Baptist direction. The situation in Acts and for the early church for some time was that they stood squarely against the world and its ammo opposing such tactics with the love of God. Jesus became king by paradoxically dying on the cross at the hands of sinners. How are we to conduct ourselves amid the world, then? In the same fashion. We do not seek power, control or glory, but to love our neighbors as ourselves, to humble ourselves to the point of servanthood, submitting to others as we submit to God. Having said that, one of the markers of God’s people has always been sexual purity. When God created Adam and Eve it was with the intention that men and women would sometimes marry and procreate. The idea of genital sexuality between people of the same gender, to quote N. T. Wright, was never a part of that plan. It was a product of ignorance as humanity became removed from God and grew unenlightened in their thinking. In short, they no longer knew the purpose of their existence and of sexuality in particular. So a Christian cannot in good conscience accept homosexuality. God communicated through the writers of Scripture that it was a perversion of marriage. Homosexuality was never a part of the Jewish calling in the Old Testament era. It was never a part of the Christian life in New Testament times, and we know from the general tenor of the Bible that it is not a valid alternative lifestyle.

  • Ad hominem attack–check.

    For starters, you don’t even seem to have a comprehension of what an ad hominem attack actually is. No surprise, considering the bone dry ignorance on display.

    I’ll let Donald respond to the particulars of your argument, though there’s honestly not much to respond considering the dearth of actual argumentation. I’ll merely note how sad it is that you rely on one of the oldest, and frankly most pathetic tropes used against Catholics. It’s ironic that you call us Pharisees considering your own selective citation of Scriptures in order to justify your worldview.

    Jack, you come off as a deeply hate-filled man. I’m sure you justify your rage and bile because in your mind it’s being aimed at those who “deserve.” Well, there’s another word that Jesus often used that certainly is apt here: hypocrite.

  • He wouldn’t love me sitting in some corner of cyberspace degrading people just trying to live their lives.

    Nah, you’d never do that. Instead you would just degrade their beliefs, mock them, and berate them. It’s a good thing you’re above it all.

  • “Ad hominem attack–check. Sorry, no chip here… Just horror at the inhumanity.”

    Thank you for proving that you do not understand ad hominem and that you do have a chip on your shoulder against the Church.

    “you’re a regular Al Sharpton! Or Andrea Dworkin!”

    Any other names you wish to pick at random as you flail about for an argument?

    “Much like the ecstasy Torquenada (sic) experienced no doubt!”

    Which one? The Torquemada who helped found the Spanish Inquisition under Ferdinand and Isabella or the Torquemada who spoke out against abuses of the Spaniards against the Indians in the New World. My guess is that what little you know about the many Torquemadas of Spanish history is limited to the one you saw in Mel Brooks’ History of the World.

    “The Church he founded…”) LOL Squared …. Christ was opposed to the Roman empire–he wasn’t interested in aping it. MEN created the corporation you believe someone can be “bigoted” against. Not Christ.”

    No, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, as the New Testament and the writings of the Church Fathers attest. To dispute that is to be at war not with the Church but with History.

    “it’s rapidly on the way to extinction on every continent but Africa. ”

    The cry of anti-Catholic bigots all through our history. The Church is dying and will soon be extinct. The Church will be here and flourishing long after you are ashes and those petty causes you support are remembered only by antiquarians.

    “In case you haven’t noticed that’s been the trajectory for about the last 500 years …”

    We can therefore assume that you have not read much history of the past 500 years.

    “Not god, but their “church”–their man-made vanities.”
    Which actually summarizes your position well. You substitute your opinion for the teachings of Christ.

    “Your rage is like their rage at Christ. ”

    I will leave to our readers to discern who is filled with rage in this back and forth.

    “He didn’t stop the stoning and then pick up a stone for goodness sake… Which is precisely your M.O. when you use that “love the sinner/hate the sin” line. ”

    Acutally that isn’t my line but Christ’s, or do you think He was just flapping His gums when He said “Go and sin no more.” ?

    “I don’t hate any church.”

    That is a bald faced lie. By your own statements it is clear that you hate the Catholic Church.

    “do any of you righteous champions of God KNOW any gay couples?”

    I do. I have represented some in legal matters, just as I have represented adulterous couples and people guilty of various crimes. Some of these people I have liked and some I have not, but this did not influence my professional duty to them or my private opinions of the sins involved.

    “To you, these people are just the necessary “other” that haters require like oxygen. ”

    Time to take a good hard long look in the mirror Jack.

  • Who am I to attempt to argue with a man who has James Madison for his avatar photo?

    No doubt I’m out of my depth…

    “Ad hominem attacks: usually involve insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent’s personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent’s argument.”

    Yes Donald saying that …

    “You’ve got a chip on your shoulder against the church”–You don’t care about Jesus dying on the cross for our sins.”

    Response: No. I don’t. Yes I do. What does that have to do with creating posts to pick on some people on the margins of society in the name of Christ? Or responding to someone calling you out about it?

    I guess abolitionists were bigots against Plantation Owners because they were repelled by slavery. (Which those poor plantation owners justified by citing passages in the bible…to fight the bigotry) Those abolitionists must have had chips on their shoulders against large scale agriculture…

    Hmm all in all, Don’s responses seem pretty close to the definition, but then I don’t identify as a proud, clear-headed, no-nonsense intellectual in the Madisonian tradition.

    Umm, are you familiar with the term “prima facie case” Paul? Think those comments from Donald are just that… However, I’ll offer this definition of “prima facie” to save you the key strokes to let me know dismissively that, I don’t “have a comprehension of what it actually is.” (I guess that’s a Madisonian way of saying I don’t know the definition.)

    Prima facie ( /?pra?m? ?fe???.i?/;[1] from Latin: pr?m? faci?) is a Latin expression meaning on its first encounter, first blush, or at first sight. The literal translation would be “at first face” or “at first appearance”, from the feminine form of primus (“first”) and facies (“face”), both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts.

    Yep, it’s self-evident to me, (I’m no Madisonesque thinker of course), that Donald attacked me employing a personal argument not connected to the issue I raised. Which is “why be so cruel to people you do not know–seemingly in violation of the one commandment Jesus placed above all others?” “You ex-catholics are the worst anti-Catholic biggots” is personal and not germane. Well perhaps it is to someone who views their right to not love others as Jesus commanded above all as “bigotry.”

    So I think I do think I have “a comprehension” of this kind of attack, you masterful wordsmith. Because it’s a common technique used by folks on this site when being confronted by people outside their magisterial feedback loop. “You’re a bigot.” “You have a chip on your shoulder” “You hate the church.”

    Oh, and my favorite: “No, you’re a pharisee!” Dude, the lone, non-canonical voice calling out the crowd of hidebound traditionalists more concerned with piety than love of their fellow man–that guy’s not the Pharisee.

    Hypocrite? Wow, talk about chutzpah…Confronting a group of like minded bigots, asking them if they even know anyone from the group they condemn with such caviler cruelty–in the name of Jesus no less! I’m the hypocrite for being disgusted with it, eh?

    Well, if you feel it hurts you to be rejected in this hypocritical way, forgive me. Perhaps I got caught up in hating the “sin” of cruelty to others weaker than yourself and it spilled over to the sinners. I know–that’s nothing compared to two people “choosing” to be gay–because being part of such a small, hated minority is such an attractive choice….

    You want to be mean to people you do not know or understand, and say you do it in the name of god? Great. But then please stop trying to term my disgust as “bigotry” against the institution you wield as shield from the truth of your actions which are rooted in hate and fear of modernity.

  • Donald–

    Wow, your hating people you don’t know who mean you no harm in the name of god is definitely morally supported by how well-versed in the history of Torquemadas in the church you are. Hell that typo from me there pretty much invalidates any critique of what is going on in here.

    AND a Mel Brooks reference too? I’m guessing Jesuit education! Impressive. Well, with my very limited grasp of history, let me offer this: Tomas de Torquemada was as certain as you all here are that sending people to the rack or to death for being jews and heretics was his way to do the lord’s will on earth. Heck, he was fighting the permissive culture too–besides sorcery and apostasy he also racked and burned those accused of sodomy, polygamy and usury (oh well, no one’s perfect–who knew–he was a commie…) Still he was advancing god’s revealed will on earth…

    Al Shapton and Andrea Dworkin are the two most radical left practitioners of identity politics I could possibly think of. They regularly employ group identity as a weapon against opponents–call for welfare reform–you are racist against african americans. Ask that the Duke lacrosse rape case not be a rush to judgement–you’re a misogynist! (Nothing “random” about the choice–sorry you didn’t get it.) The humor in it for me is in Don’s desire to resort to their kind of tactics in the name of his conservative views. It’s precisely the kind of thing conservatives decry. But it’s right to the “bigotry” mattresses from the jump for Don!

    “At war not only with the church but with history”? Heavy… Gosh, guess the entire protestant world is at war with history then, eh? You want Catholic Church haters? Go google some fundamentalist websites, friend…Now, there you will find some bigotry.

    Anyway, pretty sure “readers here” will be with you guys. (And the group is always right–I mean hey, who doesn’t remember “Give us Barabbas?” Surely a mob of like-minded zealots can’t be wrong?) Of course it is silly to hope that anyone here will “examine their conscience” (remember that kids?) and maybe, maybe re-think being so vile and hateful to a group on the margins whom- if you got to know you might not be so quick to vilify.

    Nope, I know, you’ll all take one lesson from this: All together now: “He’s a Catholic Bigot!”

    Well, you can’t stone, or burn or rack these kind of folks anymore. Guess that’s progress… (I know–how dare I present a cartoonish shorthand of a part of Catholic history I have no understanding of…. it’s … bigotry!) Hope someone here will have a change of heart as I did. As a middle of the road person, someone who is culturally very like you, a happy husband and father of three kids (married in the Church–oh grit your teeth harder…) I did not start as some big fan of “the homosexual agenda” I just met a couple of people who gave me insight into the larger groups’ humanity.

    Yes attitudes expressed here do disgust me. But as your favorite President (not) likes to quote MLK, Jr., “The arc of history is long and it bends toward justice.” Hopefully some over time will bend with it…

  • “Wow, your hating people you don’t know who mean you no harm in the name of god is definitely morally supported by how well-versed in the history of Torquemadas in the church you are. Hell that typo from me there pretty much invalidates any critique of what is going on in here.”

    It demonstrates that your spelling is as sloppy as your thinking Jack, and that you don’t know what you are yammering on about. You attempted to draw in the Spanish Inquisition because you simply are unable to argue the issue on its merits.

    “I’m guessing Jesuit education! Impressive.”

    Nope, public schools and the University of Illinois. (If you google the term jesuitical on this blog you will find that I am not in sympathy with most contemporary Jesuits.) However, I have been known to crack a book in my spare time and actually try to learn something about a subject before I attempt to pontificate about it.

    “Tomas de Torquemada was as certain as you all here are that sending people to the rack or to death for being jews and heretics was his way to do the lord’s will on earth.”

    Actually the Spanish Inquisition was far more concerned about racial purity as the Reconquista reached its end game. Ironic since Torquemada came from a family of conversos. This would ultimately lead to the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 and the expulsion of the Moriscos in the Sixteenth Century. Torquemada is a poor choice for the point you are attempting to make as the Spanish Inquisition in his day was far more a tool of the State than the Church. Of course your analogy with opposition to gay marriage has no relevance to anything done by Torquemada unless one asserts that not allowing two men or two women to marry is equivalent to executing people,

    “But it’s right to the “bigotry” mattresses from the jump for Don”

    No, it is simply an assertion of fact based upon your statements. One simply can’t begin a discussion asserting extreme umbrage at a group and then be shocked when this umbrage is noted.

    “Gosh, guess the entire protestant world is at war with history then, eh?”

    Actually almost all the reformers believed that Christ established the Catholic Church. Many Protestant denominations still hold to that belief. The Reformers asserted that what was called the Catholic Church in their day was not the true Catholic Church, and that such corruption had existed for over a thousand years until Luther and Calvin miraculously came on the scene and restored the Catholic Church. It was a clever way to get around the fact that the historical record is clear that Christ established the Catholic Church.

    “Anyway, pretty sure “readers here” will be with you guys.”

    You’d be surprised. Our 835 subscribers and several thousand visitors each day can often be a fairly eclectic and fractious group.

    “Surely a mob of like-minded zealots can’t be wrong?”
    Truth is never a matter of counting noses. In religion it is simply a matter of following Christ.

    “He’s a Catholic Bigot!”

    Actually the term would be anti-Catholic bigot. Have you ever thought what a waste of time it is hating the Church of your birth? Reconcile with the Faith or move on, but wallowing in such an attitude does you no good.

    “Well, you can’t stone, or burn or rack these kind of folks anymore.”

    Actually it was the State jailing homosexuals until the day before yesterday from a historical perspective in this country. I wonder what the State will do the day after tomorrow?

    “a cartoonish shorthand of a part of Catholic history ”

    Yes you really do. If you wish to try for troll status on this blog you will have to brush up. We have high standards, even for our trolls.

    “Hope someone here will have a change of heart as I did.”

    I rather hope you will have a good confession and return to the Faith. As a matter of fact I think I will put you on the prayer chain at the crisis pregnancy center. Most of the volunteers there are Evangelicals, but they have helped me out with such requests before.

    “Yes attitudes expressed here do disgust me. ”

    Because we defend traditional Christian teaching and morality. I think that says a lot about you and little about us.

    “The arc of history is long and it bends toward justice.”

    I prefer this quotation from our first, and greatest President:

    “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

  • Citing “church fathers” as sources of why the current Roman Catholic Church is the church Christ meant to found here on earth … Now that’s some high-level argument.

    Why do I go on blathering in the face of that kind of logic/impeccable sourcing? Your standards are too high. That thoughtful dismissal of the reformation–deep.

    Not sure why a broad, fairly obscure quote about the value of religion is such a slam dunk for you, unless George Washington (he was our first president, right? I’m so slapdash, I always mix him up with Taft…) converted to Roman Catholicism after saying it. (Did I miss that, along with the Inquisition not being the work of at least SOME devout Roman Catholics who actually believed in what they were doing?)

    The point regardless, there, oh devout revisionist, was that persecution, regardless of how mild or extreme, of groups deemed “other” in western society have usually had a religious/moral justification like the ones you charming kids here spew along with all the hatin’.

    Yes, George Washington, religion undergirds morality. And learning is good. (Faber College motto there, Don…) But do you really want to hang your hat on such a general endorsement of “religion” ? There are religions now that have already begun to recognize gay marriage, religions that have a very different take on things than yours–so a quote saying we need “religion” to uphold the moral order of a republic doesn’t mean a nation needs your particular religious views in place to maintain moral order.

    Would you be disgusted by people being burned at the stake? Like to think so. But those folks ordering the burning would have seen your disgust as being due to their willingness to defend traditional christian teaching. You didn’t have the moral rigor needed to understand that…

    (Insert here: Burn”ing at the stake was really a tool of the state…”)

    I wish that I could go to reconciliation and confess my sin of coming to see the humanity of people who mean me (or you) no harm and are just doing their best to be who they are and find happiness. But sadly, that is not something I wish to reconcile over or feel the need to confess.

    I will however pray for you too, quietly, privately. Without any chains unfortunately, or candles lit for a quarter. (Actually think it’s a buck now …) I will pray that you will realize that traditional christian teaching has not actually been changeless, beyond that first, greatest commandment from Christ: Love others.

  • Attended a birthday party for a child of a gay couple: check.
    Still orthodox Catholic: check.
    Hate gays: no check.

    Epic fail, Jack. Thanks for flailing.

  • “Citing “church fathers” as sources of why the current Roman Catholic Church is the church Christ meant to found here on earth … Now that’s some high-level argument. ”

    Actually it is Jack. The writings by men such as Saint Ignatius, for example, provide the earliest documentation for the Catholic Church. Here is a link to an online source for the writings of many of them:

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

    “Not sure why a broad, fairly obscure quote about the value of religion ”

    It is a rather famous quote Jack, from Washington”s Farewell Address to the nation. Its significance is obvious in regard to the attempt by many, like you, who attack traditional morality founded upon the teachings of Christ.

    “along with the Inquisition not being the work of at least SOME devout Roman Catholics”

    The Inquisition, and you still fail to distinguish between the Spanish Inquisition and the Inquisition of the Church, has nothing to do with this discussion other than a brickbat you can hurl against members of the Faith of your birth.

    “The point regardless, there, oh devout revisionist, was that persecution, regardless of how mild or extreme, of groups deemed “other” in western society have usually had a religious/moral justification like the ones you charming kids here spew along with all the hatin’.”

    Persecution in the West Jack since the French Revolution has been invariably for political reasons. Doubtless this is due to the fact that many people, especially on the Left, adopt politics as a substitute religion, and believe that those who disagree with them must be evil people who should mend their ways or face the consequences.

    “wish that I could go to reconciliation and confess my sin of coming to see the humanity of people who mean me (or you) no harm and are just doing their best to be who they are and find happiness. But sadly, that is not something I wish to reconcile over or feel the need to confess.”

    Which is why you are trolling a Catholic website to bash those who support the teachings of the Catholic Church. Right.

    “Without any chains unfortunately, or candles lit for a quarter.”

    Not only a bigot Jack, but a sterotypical bigot. What was it Jack, a bad CCD experience? You always liked sleeping in, and it was a real hassle to get up for mass? Or did you just want to do some extravagant sinning, and it is a lot simpler to bash the Church instead of amending your life? Your hatred of the Church has little to do with the issue of gay marriage and a lot to do with you. As I have noted Jack, time for you to take a good hard long look in the mirror.

  • A more succinct reply to Jack:

  • “The only work I see of Satan here is the hating so pleasurably indulged in… Ugh…”
    A fake mother and a fake father, a fake husband and a fake wife lies about their sexual identity and surrenders their immortal soul to Satan, their rational soul to the devil for eternity with the Great Liar. Homosexual behavior is abuse and assault and battery of the human body and soul. And now, the homosexual agenda is to make everybody equal in lying and abuse, not lifting up the man to God but betraying “their Creator” to the devil.
    The American Psychiatric Association at one time diagnosed homosexuality as “arrested development” but changed it to “normal” under pressure from the North American Man Boy Love Association, a group that is still legally agitating for equal rights to impose rape of underage children, children who have not achieved the age of informed sexual consent at eighteen years. The homosexual agenda is militating to give every person the freedom to abuse little children in equality. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in her book, has advocated the legalization of sexual consent of all children aged fourteen years, uninformed as it may be. When her opinion was published, Ginsberg was professor of law at Rutgers University in New Jersey. The legislature, behind closed doors, on Christmas Eve brought the age of sexual consent down to fourteen years of age. The will of the people, with the power of the vote raised the protection of virginity and innocence of our children to sixteen years of age. It had been eighteen years of age, the age to vote, serve in the military, drive a car, and legally to consent to marriage. The rotten fruits of Roe. V. Wade: Disabuse individuals of their endowed, unalienable rights. Deny to minor children the freedom to mature, legally and spiritually to make informed consent. Disable the child to assume responsibility for his decision as an adult human being.
    The fact that militant liberals and progressives are unaware of is that when they remove the protection of the law from one group of persons, they remove the protection of the law from all persons, especially and including themselves. This is an indication of the deficit, the imprisonment of mind, body and soul the militant works upon the will of the people and the whole of society.

  • Getting back to Prof Regnerus’ study … from the video, he seems like a mild mannered man with no ax to grind; and it was of course very brave of him to publish these results in the current political climate. I think what he said at the end of interview was very important:

    ‘ … the thing that’s disappointing is that regardless of whether you’re worried about the politics or happy with the politics that can come from this, there is a lot of knowledge that can be had from the study itself. Because the things that it states are true and accurate empirically. I think maybe in the end that message reappear and reemerge if it can get over the politicization around it.’

    Ultimately the study was about trying to find out what is best for children. Hopefully the Professor will get his wish & people will try to use the study to make life better for children.

  • Jack: Homosexuals do what they do, know that what they do is not right, blame the Catholic Church for presenting the TRUTH, the TRUTH about what homosexuals do being evil and blame the Catholic Church for what they do. Jesus Christ said: “I testify to myself and my Father testifies to me” (two witnesses establish a judicial fact). The homosexual practicioner rejects fatherhood and/or motherhood and therefore, the FATHER in heaven cannot testify to the goodness of the homosexual act. The homosexual practitioner does not have a legitimate claim to the testimony of his Father in a court of law. If you will not hear the voice of your Father in heaven, and that is your free choice, may almighty God have mercy on your immortal soul.
    Mary

  • Jack: “Oh, and my favorite: “No, you’re a pharisee!” Dude, the lone, non-canonical voice calling out the crowd of hidebound traditionalists more concerned with piety than love of their fellow man–that guy’s not the Pharisee. ” When an issue is opened to the court, it is fair game. You. Jack, used the word “Pharisee” first and now you wee wee all the way home. Robert’s Rules rule. Actually, your behavior Jack is a prima facie Phariseeicism.

  • “Truly I have stumbled upon the cyber-temple of the Pharisees … How would Christ look upon this sickening effort to shame and demean people who have promised to be faithful to one another and then often adopt children–usually those least wanted–from minority, addicted mothers–and made the lifelong commitment to raise them?”

    Jack,

    I have read your comments and have missed the scientific studies that refute Regnerus’ and Marks’ studies on the harmful effects of same-sex parent homes on children. Could you provied those?

  • Jack: I do not expect to convert you, but I do expect a modicum of decency, courtesy and respect. Your behavior does your cause no good.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .