Simple question?

Quote: Dalex64

You know there are studies, but you choose to disbelieve them.

You know what common sense seems to tell you. While that is common, it makes no sense.

Are you really saying that it doesn't make sense to you that a mom and a dad is a better situation in which a child is to be raised than two men or two women? Is that not logical or reasonable to you? I recognize that there are studies out there. I also recognize that none of them make the argument that the opposite sex model of raising children is obsolete and we should go to a same sex couple model.

Quote:

Then you claim years of tradition as justification that it is better. This is another logical fallacy - all it means is it is traditional, and now in recent times some non-traditional things are happening, and they do no worse!

Clinging to tradition holds society back. We MUST do non-traditional things, to find better ways. It is true that not all non-traditional things are an improvement, but no-change is stagnating and repressive.

This is not only a logical fallacy in the other direction of what you accuse me off but of a much more dangerous variety. Why must a non-traditional thing that may do no worse being forced to be accepted at the same level as a traditional thing that is of obvious and time-tested value. Need I remind you that families and kids are at stake here. I do not see any study saying that we should move away from the traditional model only studies that give the surprising results that they seem to be just as good.

Quote:

So at issue here is a non-traditional thing that seems to be no worse, against common sense, and backed by scientific studies.

No it is not really a versus type of situation. You have a non-traditional thing that goes against common sense but is backed by recent scientific studies and you have a traditional thing that jives with common sense, has worked for thousands of years, is natural, and is also backed by scientific studies, some of which claim that it is still better and none of which say it is worse than the non-traditional thing. Catholic Charities dares to prefer this traditional model and the government takes away necessary funding. Why isn't your mind open to the possibility that this awful and prejudiced move is based by some kind of social agenda and not what is best for these kids? What is more in forcing Catholic agencies to shut down or go against what they believe the government does nothing to provide for these kids? It is a tragedy and it goes against logic and common sense, but as you have said and shown, it is not that common.

Quote: Nareed

Well, we have a few thousands of years worth of experience of using chants, spells, magic and herbs to treat disease, while synthesized drugs, diagnostic tools, surgery and such are fairly recent. I suppose someone with cancer would be crazy to try one of these new-fangled oncologists at all.

So you are saying here that traditional marriage is like an old spell or chant and same sex couples are synthesized drugs and surgery? Come on??? You can't make such a glaring prejudicial statement and think you will be taken seriously.

Quote:

Were you born this minute?

just a doge of the question.

Quote:

If everything else is equal, it makes no relevant difference.

Another dodge. Equal does not mean the same. Two men are different than a man and a woman. If you had a loving mom and dad and a loving homosexual couple who both applied for adoption at the exact same time and you had to make a decision who would you place the child with?

Quote:

Favoring people with a backyard would be discriminatory. Granted environment counts, but not everyone's situation allows for a yard for a variety of reasons. Excluding people who live in apartment buildings would be unfair.

You are mixing all kinds of things up in your answer. Favoring people with a backyard is NOT discriminatory and is fair. Excluding people who live in apartment buildings is discriminatory and is unfair. If you grant that environment counts why would you not want the best environment for the child? sometimes people try to be so fair and political correct that they end up becoming unfair and tyrannical.

Quote: Nareed

Well, I wouldn't want to place a child with a Catholic couple. They'd teach them a sexual-repressive morality and keep them ignorant of modern birth control options.

Modern Catholics are OK, they no longer
go to mass and ignore most of what the
Church teaches. They're harmless now.

Quote: FrGamble

Are you really saying that it doesn't make sense to you that a mom and a dad is a better situation in which a child is to be raised than two men or two women? Is that not logical or reasonable to you? I recognize that there are studies out there. I also recognize that none of them make the argument that the opposite sex model of raising children is obsolete and we should go to a same sex couple model.

It does not declare the old way is obsolete. It says the new way is no worse so in terms of outcomes that is not a reason not to continue with both.

When what we think makes sense is contradicted by confirmed and reproducable scientific studies, then we should re-evaluate what we think about what makes sense.

Opinions should not be more important than facts.

Quote:

This is not only a logical fallacy in the other direction of what you accuse me off but of a much more dangerous variety. Why must a non-traditional thing that may do no worse being forced to be accepted at the same level as a traditional thing that is of obvious and time-tested value. Need I remind you that families and kids are at stake here. I do not see any study saying that we should move away from the traditional model only studies that give the surprising results that they seem to be just as good.

Again it does not say we should abandon the old way, just that the additional new way isn't harmful to the kids. You and the church seem to be opposed to additional options that are no worse and are not harmful to the children.

Quote:

No it is not really a versus type of situation. You have a non-traditional thing that goes against common sense but is backed by recent scientific studies and you have a traditional thing that jives with common sense, has worked for thousands of years, is natural, and is also backed by scientific studies, some of which claim that it is still better and none of which say it is worse than the non-traditional thing.

Agree, neither is worse than the other. So you advocate sticking with tradition for the sake of tradition, and preventing equally qualified people from participating in favor of selecting less qualifed traditional people.

Quote:

Catholic Charities dares to prefer this traditional model and the government takes away necessary funding. Why isn't your mind open to the possibility that this awful and prejudiced move is based by some kind of social agenda and not what is best for these kids? What is more in forcing Catholic agencies to shut down or go against what they believe the government does nothing to provide for these kids? It is a tragedy and it goes against logic and common sense, but as you have said and shown, it is not that common.

It isn't just about the kids, it is also about non-traditional parents, and aparently catholic charities is opposed to that so the government is taking action in the name of equality.
If government funding is necessary, and the government no lomger provides the funds, then they either need to conform to the government's conditions, get the government to change the conditions, or find alternate means of funding.

Quote: Dalex64

It does not declare the old way is obsolete. It says the new way is no worse so in terms of outcomes that is not a reason not to continue with both.

But it is also not a reason to abandon the traditional practice of placing a child with a mom and a dad.

Quote:

When what we think makes sense is contradicted by confirmed and reproducable scientific studies, then we should re-evaluate what we think about what makes sense.

Opinions should not be more important than facts.

I agree and I recognize that the recent studies show that same sex couples can do a good job in raising children. In my parish I have good examples of this. It has been a mind opening experience for me. I hope we continue to study these things.

Quote:

Again it does not say we should abandon the old way, just that the additional new way isn't harmful to the kids. You and the church seem to be opposed to additional options that are no worse and are not harmful to the children.

Again this is not true. Myself and the Church only prefer the old way that is not in any study throughout history has been shown to not be harmful to kids. Is that a problem?

Quote:

Agree, neither is worse than the other. So you advocate sticking with tradition for the sake of tradition,

I do not advocate sticking with tradition for the sake of tradition. Didn't you just say traditional families works just as good? How many times has something recent been studied and said to be just fine only later to be found to not be as good as it was originally claimed to be. You know as well as I do how politically charged this issue is I wonder, not unreasonably I think, that this charged atmosphere might not lead to the most objective studies. Besides that how long have we been studying this issue, do you think it would be reasonable to wait a little longer for continued research over time?

Quote:

and preventing equally qualified people from participating in favor of selecting less qualifed traditional people.

Let me be very clear. This is just a scare tactic akin to the false dichotomy that Nareed recently presented about an agency giving a child to abusive and alcoholic parents over a loving same sex couple. This is not and has not happened. We are talking about an preference between two qualified families one with a mom and a dad and one with a same sex couple. The preference for a Catholic charity will be for the mom and dad, if there really is no one else than other options become viable. I still don't see what is wrong with that.

Quote:

It isn't just about the kids, it is also about non-traditional parents, and aparently catholic charities is opposed to that so the government is taking action in the name of equality.

I've heard of the analogy of if a Jewish Deli is asked to provide ham sandwiches. They are equal to other types of meat and people want to have ham sandwiches. Is it right for a Jewish Deli to be asked by the government to start providing ham sandwiches in order to get its license to sell food?

Quote:

If government funding is necessary, and the government no lomger provides the funds, then they either need to conform to the government's conditions, get the government to change the conditions, or find alternate means of funding.

If the government wants to have vulnerable children adopted and an agency is doing that in ways that scientific studies show are good for the children and there is no shortage of moms and dads who want to adopt why do they feel it necessary to force an agency to offer something different than the their traditional way of doing things.

Quote: FrGamble

So you are saying here that traditional marriage is like an old spell or chant and same sex couples are synthesized drugs and surgery?

I'm saying if you're going to declare something sacrosanct without any justification other than tradition, you'll need no help looking foolish.

Quote:

You can't make such a glaring prejudicial statement and think you will be taken seriously.

Apparently you think you can.

Quote:

Two men are different than a man and a woman. If you had a loving mom and dad and a loving homosexual couple who both applied for adoption at the exact same time and you had to make a decision who would you place the child with?

Everything else being the same, it would make no significant difference for the child involved. So any arbitrary criterion would do. Assuming, naturally, the criterion is NOT to choose the straight couple every time. But then in real world situations, adoption agencies usually place more than one child over their existence.

Quote:

You are mixing all kinds of things up in your answer. Favoring people with a backyard is NOT discriminatory and is fair.

Yes, it is. Or do you figure all families living in apartment buildings should have their children removed, unless the parents agreed to relocate to a place with a backyard?

Is this a Christian thing? Did Jesus have a fetish for backyards?

Quote:

Excluding people who live in apartment buildings is discriminatory and is unfair.

Make up your mind.

Quote:

If you grant that environment counts why would you not want the best environment for the child?

Not to the exclusion of everything else. The quality of parents counts more than the environment.

Quote:

sometimes people try to be so fair and political correct that they end up becoming unfair and tyrannical.

Meaning they don't cater to your every whim.

Quote: Nareed

I'm saying if you're going to declare something sacrosanct without any justification other than tradition, you'll need no help looking foolish.

I agree that just going on tradition is foolish. However if tradition is shown to be correct and that a mom and a dad is good for a child then there is no reason or justification for abandoning or going against tradition.

Quote:

Yes, it is. Or do you figure all families living in apartment buildings should have their children removed, unless the parents agreed to relocate to a place with a backyard?

Is this a Christian thing? Did Jesus have a fetish for backyards?

Of course not having a backyard is not essential but it is preferable if possible. I'm just using this as an example of something that might be taken into account when choosing to place a child with a family.

Quote:

Not to the exclusion of everything else. The quality of parents counts more than the environment.

Yes, the quality of parents is paramount.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption

Please review the history of adoption. The practice of welcoming young children into a family as full members, our modern practice of adoption, seems to have only been happening for 200 years or so.

It looks like the traditional purpose of adoption was to extend political power and family dynasties, by adopting much older people as heirs, not beloved sons an daughters.

The church's first pass at managing abandoned children:
" Initially, the clergy reacted by drafting rules to govern the exposing, selling, and rearing of abandoned children. "
Selling?!?

After that, they were adopted by the church itself and placed in monestaries.

The modern practice of adoption seems to have been formalized in law by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1851. Even then they still didn't get it right:
""Officials of the BFA noted that, although the asylum promoted otherwise, adoptive parents did not distinguish between indenture and adoption; "We believe," the asylum officials said, "that often, when children of a younger age are taken to be adopted, the adoption is only another name for service""

Modern adoption law seems to have come about in Minnisota in 1917.

Now, with only 100 years of tradition to look at, I will point out something that should be obvious - children could not be placed with same-sex married couples because same-sex married couples did not legally exist. Arguing the tradtional selection of option A over option B during a period of time usually implies that both options existed during that time.

Quote: FrGamble

I really don't know if you are lying or just misinformed. However the miracle of Orvieto was immediately reported to the Archbishop and examined for its authenticity. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the beautiful prayers we use for the Feast of Corpus Christi based on this miracle. You can still see the blood stained corporal (cloth used at Mass) today.

UFO sightings are often reported immediately to the authorities. Now I would expect an Archbishop to be "a believer" so I doubt he investigated as anything but a believer.

Quote: FrGamble

However if tradition is shown to be correct and that a mom and a dad is good for a child then there is no reason or justification for abandoning or going against tradition.

Correct? Ok. anyone who doesn't know someone who had a messed-up childhood with a mother and father raise your hand.

As to the rest, if knowledge and experience show same sex parents do as well as straight parents, what, other than prejudice, is the reason for upholding tradition?

Quote:

Yes, the quality of parents is paramount.

Make.up.your.mind.