What proof suggests that two homosexual men will raise warped children?
Warped is quite the strong word. But the reality is that the studies that have been put forth to support the idea that there is no developmental impact on children of homosexual couples have been shown to be fundamentally flawed, suffering from methodology deficiencies that would not be tolerated in the rest of the scientific world. But they are being used as justification for revising the standards for appropriate situations in which to place adopted children. The state may be right, but it doesn't have the basis for the position besides politics.
Religious affiliation should never be held a higher priority than the priorities of a secular state.
You're right, I do disagree with that .. especially considering the war-mongering, civil rights denying, environment destroying priorities of the secular state in which I live.
But the reality is that the studies that have been put forth to support the idea that there is no developmental impact on children of homosexual couples have been shown to be fundamentally flawed...
I would suspect that any study into solo parents, or parents that physically chastise or athiest parents would be found to be fundamentaly flawed. Since there does not seem to be any perfect way to raise a child. I have to admit, I am suspicious of these findings you speak of.
especially considering the war-mongering, civil rights denying, environment destroying priorities of the secular state in which I live.
If you are speaking about Umerika. Then I would question it as a secular state. On paper maybe. But I see no evidence of it being close to a secular state.
I have to admit, I am suspicious of these findings you speak of.
The findings simply hold that the body of studies out there are, for the most part, methodologically flawed, suffering from small sample size, non-longitudinality, etc.
But I see no evidence of it being close to a secular state.
Then the question becomes even more pertinent as to why I should put it before my religious affiliation.
Are you suggesting that the state's anti-discrimination law is comparable to the conservative "war-mongering, civil rights denying, environment destroying" agenda?
The religious argument against homosexuality, rooted not in fact but in emotion, can only devolve into, and therefore always leads to, hyperbolic comparisons of this sort, meant ostensibly to show (since non-religious people "can't see for themselves") how 'destructive' homosexuality is...
I guess it's just hard for me to reconcile my experience of knowing many good and loving queer parents, with the kind of intolerance that would lead an organization to take its toys and go home like this.
John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” may be “Gnostic and heretical,” according to this writer:
http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/SnakeOil.html
This is very interesting on Gary Wills’ criticisms of John Paul II. Please note the response of the Pole, who thinks it quite legitimate for a critic of th e late Pope to mention the role of his Polish ethnicity in describing his world-view:
This article presumes that “complementarity” is just “patriarchalism” and homophobia writ large, whereas I think it has mostly to do with anxiety to preserve the ecclesiastical power structure:
The pope upholds his particular view of the complementarity of the sexes (which he finds revealed in the Genesis creation narrative commanding procreation) and concludes that in the church there exists a female Marian principle (no ordination) that complements a male Petrine principle (ordination). Granted, John Paul II has made efforts to defend the goodness and sacredness of married heterosexuality in his prolific writings, but his insistence upon gender complementarity and the ban on contraception ensure that his teachings fail the needs of ordinary persons. The pope's romantic rhetoric is not received beyond a minority.
While Christian teachings and understanding of sexuality and gender have been evolving over the centuries, at this point we are caught in both an underestimation of the positive power of sexuality to engender love, unity and transformation in committed couples, and an overestimation of the moral, psychosocial and theological significance of gender identity (mostly female). [I personally attribute this to the late Pope’s exaggerated and unnecessarily anti-ecumenist cult of the VIRGIN Mary.] These inadequacies are systemically interrelated and thwart change. Authorities fear that if the ban on contraception and procreative gender complementarity is relaxed, then the way is opened to homosexual unions, which would further threaten gender complementarity, which in turn would threaten the ban on women's ordination, and so on.
I should hasten to add, though, that I believe that the late Pope is to be given a great deal of credit for BEGINNING this re-visiting of traditional Catholic sexual morality. Although I believe his teachings are “half-baked” regarding gender roles and identity (“complementarity” being too narrow an understanding of the impact of gender on affectivity and identity, and also too narrow an image of God’s or even Jesus’ nature), I also believe that, in the fullness of time, a more mature, charitable and civilized attitude toward same-sex and transgendered love WILL arise.
We could actually start with a more historically accurate understanding of the encounter between Jesus and a centurion who wanted his catamite-slave (as all in the crowd of 1st-century Roman subjects would have understood the nature of that relationship) to be cured and who reached the Saviour’s heart with his plea and his gentle, trusting "queer" faith.
Are you suggesting that the state's anti-discrimination law is comparable to the conservative "war-mongering, civil rights denying, environment destroying" agenda?
No, I am saying that this state has provided me with no basis to put it, nor its values, ahead of my religious affiliations. Any use of the state for the determination of "right" and "wrong" has to deal with the fundamentally flawed nature of our state.
The religious argument against homosexuality, rooted not in fact but in emotion, can only devolve into, and therefore always leads to, hyperbolic comparisons of this sort, meant ostensibly to show (since non-religious people "can't see for themselves") how 'destructive' homosexuality is...
But you have missed the point that I was actually making...
I guess it's just hard for me to reconcile my experience of knowing many good and loving queer parents
I grew up in a broken home, but that did not change the fact that I grew up in a loving home with good parenting. But that fact doesn't change the detrimental developmental effect that it had on me either.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 05:46 am (UTC)Warped is quite the strong word. But the reality is that the studies that have been put forth to support the idea that there is no developmental impact on children of homosexual couples have been shown to be fundamentally flawed, suffering from methodology deficiencies that would not be tolerated in the rest of the scientific world. But they are being used as justification for revising the standards for appropriate situations in which to place adopted children. The state may be right, but it doesn't have the basis for the position besides politics.
Religious affiliation should never be held a higher priority than the priorities of a secular state.
You're right, I do disagree with that .. especially considering the war-mongering, civil rights denying, environment destroying priorities of the secular state in which I live.
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 08:09 am (UTC)I would suspect that any study into solo parents, or parents that physically chastise or athiest parents would be found to be fundamentaly flawed. Since there does not seem to be any perfect way to raise a child. I have to admit, I am suspicious of these findings you speak of.
especially considering the war-mongering, civil rights denying, environment destroying priorities of the secular state in which I live.
If you are speaking about Umerika. Then I would question it as a secular state. On paper maybe. But I see no evidence of it being close to a secular state.
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 08:42 pm (UTC)The findings simply hold that the body of studies out there are, for the most part, methodologically flawed, suffering from small sample size, non-longitudinality, etc.
But I see no evidence of it being close to a secular state.
Then the question becomes even more pertinent as to why I should put it before my religious affiliation.
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 08:34 am (UTC)The religious argument against homosexuality, rooted not in fact but in emotion, can only devolve into, and therefore always leads to, hyperbolic comparisons of this sort, meant ostensibly to show (since non-religious people "can't see for themselves") how 'destructive' homosexuality is...
I guess it's just hard for me to reconcile my experience of knowing many good and loving queer parents, with the kind of intolerance that would lead an organization to take its toys and go home like this.
For Your Greater Edification...
Date: 2006-03-12 06:20 pm (UTC)The legacy of John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body,” which this writer sees as a “stunted teaching”:
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives/032103/032103q.htm
John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” may be “Gnostic and heretical,” according to this writer:
http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/SnakeOil.html
This is very interesting on Gary Wills’ criticisms of John Paul II. Please note the response of the Pole, who thinks it quite legitimate for a critic of th e late Pope to mention the role of his Polish ethnicity in describing his world-view:
http://www.therevealer.org/archives/daily_000267.php
This article presumes that “complementarity” is just “patriarchalism” and homophobia writ large, whereas I think it has mostly to do with anxiety to preserve the ecclesiastical power structure:
The pope upholds his particular view of the complementarity of the sexes (which he finds revealed in the Genesis creation narrative commanding procreation) and concludes that in the church there exists a female Marian principle (no ordination) that complements a male Petrine principle (ordination). Granted, John Paul II has made efforts to defend the goodness and sacredness of married heterosexuality in his prolific writings, but his insistence upon gender complementarity and the ban on contraception ensure that his teachings fail the needs of ordinary persons. The pope's romantic rhetoric is not received beyond a minority.
While Christian teachings and understanding of sexuality and gender have been evolving over the centuries, at this point we are caught in both an underestimation of the positive power of sexuality to engender love, unity and transformation in committed couples, and an overestimation of the moral, psychosocial and theological significance of gender identity (mostly female). [I personally attribute this to the late Pope’s exaggerated and unnecessarily anti-ecumenist cult of the VIRGIN Mary.] These inadequacies are systemically interrelated and thwart change. Authorities fear that if the ban on contraception and procreative gender complementarity is relaxed, then the way is opened to homosexual unions, which would further threaten gender complementarity, which in turn would threaten the ban on women's ordination, and so on.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2003_01_06/2003_03_21_Callahan_StuntedTeaching.htm
Luke Timothy Johnson on American Catholicism and on the “Theology of the Body”:
http://www.catholicsinpublicsquare.org/papers/fall2001commonweal/johnsonpaper/johnsonpaper.htm
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=200
I should hasten to add, though, that I believe that the late Pope is to be given a great deal of credit for BEGINNING this re-visiting of traditional Catholic sexual morality. Although I believe his teachings are “half-baked” regarding gender roles and identity (“complementarity” being too narrow an understanding of the impact of gender on affectivity and identity, and also too narrow an image of God’s or even Jesus’ nature), I also believe that, in the fullness of time, a more mature, charitable and civilized attitude toward same-sex and transgendered love WILL arise.
We could actually start with a more historically accurate understanding of the encounter between Jesus and a centurion who wanted his catamite-slave (as all in the crowd of 1st-century Roman subjects would have understood the nature of that relationship) to be cured and who reached the Saviour’s heart with his plea and his gentle, trusting "queer" faith.
(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: In Your Defensiveness, You're Becoming a Proponent of OBVIOUSLY "Un-Christian" Cruelty!
Date: 2006-03-12 08:49 pm (UTC)No, I am saying that this state has provided me with no basis to put it, nor its values, ahead of my religious affiliations. Any use of the state for the determination of "right" and "wrong" has to deal with the fundamentally flawed nature of our state.
The religious argument against homosexuality, rooted not in fact but in emotion, can only devolve into, and therefore always leads to, hyperbolic comparisons of this sort, meant ostensibly to show (since non-religious people "can't see for themselves") how 'destructive' homosexuality is...
But you have missed the point that I was actually making...
I guess it's just hard for me to reconcile my experience of knowing many good and loving queer parents
I grew up in a broken home, but that did not change the fact that I grew up in a loving home with good parenting. But that fact doesn't change the detrimental developmental effect that it had on me either.