NOM BLOG

Vatican Spokesman: "Catholic Church Will Not Give Up its Defense of Marriage"

 

A strong statement from the pope's spokesman Fr. Lombardi, SJ in response to recent international efforts to redefined marriage. Here is what he said about the context in the United States:

In the United States, some of the referendums held on the same day as the presidential elections in various States have, for the first time, delivered an outcome favourable to same-sex marriages. It is therefore clear that in western countries there is a widespread tendency to modify the classic vision of marriage between a man and woman, or rather to try to give it up, erasing its specific and privileged legal recognition compared to other forms of union.

It is nothing new. This we had already realised. Nevertheless, the matter does not cease to amaze: Because we should be asking if this really corresponds to the feelings of the people, and because the logic of it cannot have a far-sighted outlook for the common good. Not only the Catholic Church is saying this; it was pointed out clearly by the Chief Rabbi of France in a well-reasoned statement. It is not, in fact, a question of avoiding unfair discrimination for homosexuals, since this must and can be guaranteed in other ways. It is a question of admitting that a husband and a wife are publicly recognised as such; and that children who come into the world can know, and say they have, a father and a mother.

In short, preserving a vision of the human person and of human relationships where there is a public acknowledgement of monogamous marriage between a man and woman is an achievement of civilisation. If not, why not contemplate also freely chosen polygamy and, of course, not to discriminate, polyandry? It is not expected, then, the Church will give up proposing that society recognise a specific place for marriage between a man and a woman.

18 Comments

  1. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Dan,

    http://www.comres.co.uk/poll-digest/11/margin-of-error-calculator.htm

    A small sample reduces accuracy, means scientists cannot conclude there is a difference.

  2. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    It's not my fault that men and women are different and inherently parent differently, It's not my fault that each person born acts like his parents. Thus, it makes sense t o encourage parents to stay with their kids.

    First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage. That's how things have worked for thousands of years. Now you're saying the baby doesn't matter.

  3. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    I've made my arguments as convincingly as I know how. Have a great day people!

  4. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    I don't think gay parenting is relevant to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Marriage is about anticipating the creation of children, establishing a stable mother-father union for any children conceived by the couple. Since homosexual couples cannot procreate, there is no need to establish a stable union; any children to be raised by homosexual couples will have been stripped from one or both parents.

    Even if homosexual couples are proven to raise more successful children than heterosexual couples, it is still a travesty to intentionally deprive a child of one or both parents and give it to a homosexual couple. Part of what makes kids "do better," is their happiness in knowing that the people who created them did not abandon them. Moreover, in a world of men and women, children raised in a household of a man and a woman are more likely to develop healthy adult relationships with members of the opposite sex.

  5. Michael Worley
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    OK, I agree with the potential irrelevance.

  6. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Fedele Razio #130
    Yes, those are facts but one is not necessarily related to the other. And that is the problem with the current study. He compared intact families with those of divorce. He also through in the same sex aspect although this is never verified. We need more studies that look at stable same sex families compared to stable opposite sex families. Until then, meta analysis will have to do and it all points that there is no difference in stable families.

  7. MarkOH
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA "Marriage is about anticipating the creation of children"

    SO, now it's the EXPECTATION of procreation. You guys sure love to dance around whether marriage is about procreation or not. Because if it IS all about procreation, you just can't justifying allowing infertile couples to marry while denying the same rights for same sex couples. Other than animus, I mean.

  8. Ash
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    The discussion has nothing to do with marriage rights when you are LOSING the argument, Dan. If you thought it was irrelevant it might have helped to shut your trap about the topic, especially since you don't know what you're talking about.

    @Michael, the arguments you made about the parenting literature are actually pretty well known on both sides amongst people who are familiar with the literature. But like you said, it's sort of an insider secret, kept from the Dans of the world.

    Some ways to get the message out is to break ground in media coverage of this field, and to keep publishing new studies and critiques of the older studies.

  9. Dan
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    I find it terribly amusing and endearing that the anti-gay crowd has exactly one researcher who supports their claim that straights are better parents. And this researcher is universally condemned by his peers (except the religious ones with an anti-gay animus). Not only that, but this one researcher states that marriage for gays would be beneficial to their children!

  10. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    "I find it terribly amusing and endearing that the anti-gay crowd has exactly one researcher who supports their claim that straights are better parents."

    Homosexual researchers conduct biased studies to try to prove that homosexual couples are good parents. Straight researchers know that moms and dads are the best environment for raising kids; they don't feel the need to conduct studies.

    Homosexuals spend their lives trying to rationalize their existence as normal. Their time would be better spent living the lives based on the way they are biologically constructed instead of making up data to support their disordered mental condition.

    Keep those "studies" coming; maybe someone will actually believe them some day. Kids who grow up in stable mother/father households would never even think about how changing their upbringing. Kids brought up by homosexual couples always wonder what it might have been like if their real parents had raised them.

  11. Preserve Marriage
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    "Catholic Church Will Not Give Up its Defense of Marriage"

    Wow, I bet homosexual special rights lobbyists are shaking in their boots (after the Catholic Church's 'Herculean' effort we just saw).

  12. AM
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    "I find it terribly amusing and endearing that the anti-gay crowd has exactly one researcher who supports their claim that straights are better parents."

    No, he found that the married biological family is the best environment for children. Just like every other respectable study has found.

  13. Chairm Ohn
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 1:59 am | Permalink

    What are the possible sources of children attained by same-sex households?

    Gary Gates of the pro-gay Urban Nstitute has estimated that perhaps 4% of children in such households were adopted. That entails government intervention to assign a second parent to a child. It has no sexual basis arising from whatever an all-male or an all-female scenario might engage in.

    So the pro-gay emphasis is unwarranted.

    The use of so-called "donor" sperm, ova, or surrogates might account for 1% of children in same-sex households -- or less. This also depends on government intervention for enabling legislation or court fiat. Also, it lacks a same-sex sexual basis.

    So the pro-gay emphasis is still unwarranted.

    Both of these sources for children come with the pre-requisite of parental relinquishment whereby either mom or dad or both give their children up. The parent relinquishes parental status, however, the relinquisher remains a parent for purposes of incest laws, marriage laws, intestate laws, and so forth. That lingering partial parental status does have a sexual basis in the nature of human procreation but not in same-sex sexual behavior. Note that this relinquishment is pre-emptive in the example of the "donor". Pre-emption is ham-fisted. For example the lingering partial parental status is often obfuscated by "anonymous donor" arrangements. Anyway, the "donor" is shielded from the child and the child is shielded from her mom or dad.

    There is no sexual basis for that either. The pro-gay emphasis is unwarranted.

    About 5% of the very tiny population of children residing in same-sex households was attained via adoption and "donation". Both sources are extrinsic to the same-sex scenario (nonsexual or sexual). The vast majority migrated to such households from the procreative relationships of their mom and dad (usually marriages).

    Such a move is the consequent of the pro-gay emphasis andnot the other way around. This, too, is unwarranted.

    So 100% of same-sex parenting scenarios are not intact for unarranted reasons. No matter if the children had been attained as infants.

    The lack of either mom or dad is a structural factor. And same-sex sexual behavior is not a structural factor. At least, according to the lack of a social-scientific narrative that it could be structural. Splitting either mom, dad, or both from their children born to them is the basic structural feature of non-intact families.

    When it comes to the use of "donors" there is also the obvious fact that the adults do not act in the best interests of the child, because the decision to attain a child and to split from mom or dad or both is made prior to the existence of a specific child and her interests. That choide, we are told, is well-planned. T is intentionally predicated on the nonfertility of the one-sexed structre of the pro-gay scenario. But no research has shown that same-sex sexual behavior is a structural factor for parenting.

    That adult choice creates a structural factor. The practice points outside of the adult's relationship. The inclusion of children depends on lack of an intact family. Intentionality is the supposed excuse rather than the best interests of a child already existing.

    On the other hand procreative justice anticipates the child born of her mom and dad. The child has a birthright to know and to be known by and raised by her mom and dad. Justice commands that we speak for the child because the child is voiceless and dependant. We have the responsibility to see this from the child's perspective, as best we can. To over-ride that for the adultcentric approach is to put procreative justice aside.

    Gay advocates speak as if this is warranted by their pro-gay emphasis. But they do not go so far as to claim that same-sex sexual behavior is a structural factor. Instead they talk vaguely of gay identity as a definitive feature of this parenting scenario.

    The flipside of the child's birthright is that both mom and dad are responsible to one another and to their offspring (barring dire circumstances or tragedy). This is responsible procreation which is a coherent set of principles. Parental status is, presumptively, based on the nature of human procreation (and thus its two-sexed sexual basis) and not an arbitrary government intervention. Specially not a government intervention against the child's birthright and against responsible procreation.

    The provision for responsible procreation is at the core of marriage as a social institution. It is combined with integration of the sexes. These are structural factors of intact families. But this coherent combination is rejected outright by those whose pro-gay emphasis puts procreative justice aside.

    The Catholic Church teaches the marriage idea as a good in itself and as essential to the common good of society. A priest who makes this case for marriage would make a sound moral argument ... and would do so whether he wore his collar or not. The truth is discerned via reason rather than via the emotivism of the pro-gay emphasis and its identity politics.

    It is very odd that SSMers depend so heavily on an unwarranted pro-gay emphasis. It goes to show that children and marriage are being used as means to a much different end than the common good.

    Also the context for same-sex parenting that is gaycentric is that more than 95%of the adult homosexual population does not reside in same-sex households with children. About 10% of the adult homosexual population resides in same-sex households -- stability is not a feature of same-sex sexualized relationships so not so well researched. It just is not very common.

    But why study something just about as rare as unicorns? That's a metaphor. Just like SSM, to a significant extent, is merely a metaphor for marriage. Its symbolism, if entrench as newly imposed orthodoxy over and above procreative justice, would corrupt all that it touches.

  14. Chairm Ohn
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 2:10 am | Permalink

    How would SSM (or civil union or domestic partnership or registered partnership etc) directly protect and strengthen a one-sexed relationship?

    What is supposedly protected or strengthen by SSM?

    How would your answers fit the assertion that "gay parenting" is irrelevant to the right of "gay couples" (what does that term objectively mean anway?) to SSM?

    It must be adultcentric, the "gay family". But why must the same-sex scenario be gay?

    Valid reasons to stand against favoritism for the gay identity group will likely be illustrated in your answers to these basic questions.

    Whatever your answer, why must SSM to be designed for the same-sex sexual relationship? What has that sort of sex got to do with it? Or is it, like parenting, irrelevant to the demand you'd impose on all of society?

  15. Fedele Razio
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 3:41 am | Permalink

    MarkOH #156

    "We need more studies that look at stable same sex families compared to stable opposite sex families."

    Thank you for aknowledging the need to decide having in mind the goal of the good for the kids.

    But:

    - in a statistical analysis you can't shape the sample in order to obtain the outcomes you desire.

    - the population here is "the kids".

    Now, fact3 is: same sex households are far less stable than opposite sex households.

    You can reach the conclusions by yourself.

  16. Posted November 16, 2012 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    I have no idea whether in some strange way it might be of benefit to have academics assess the "outcomes" of a given set of parenting circumstances.

    Perhaps this might be of interest to someone, for some reason.

    What would be insane, would be to take the "data" of such a study- whatever "outcome" it reports- and use it to suggest that a child is better off when deprived of the love of its own mother and father.

    That is the moment where quackademics trump reality, and it seems we are a progressively quackademicized bunch of oatmeal-minded dupes.

    See the marriage votes in MN, MD, MN, and WA for specific examples.

    We do not need a study to establish whether a child is entitled to the love and nurture of its own mother and father.

    Such a truth is immune to statistics, to social science, to debate.

  17. Chairm
    Posted November 18, 2012 at 4:02 am | Permalink

    Dan has not provide a logical reason to favor the gay subset of nonmarriage. Mislabelling that subset and according it with the special status of marriage is to impose a falsehood and it would depend on a legal fiction propped up by an arbitrary exercise of governmental power

    What is essential to the type of same-sex relationship that the SSMer has in mind? Why is it essential and does it merit special status?

  18. Michael Worley
    Posted November 20, 2012 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    “Throughout history, marriage has first and foremost been an institution for procreation and raising children. It has provided the cultural tie that seeks to connect the father to his children by binding him to the mother of his children. Yet in recent times, children have increasingly been pushed from center stage."

    W. Bradford Wilcox and Elizabeth Marquardt, eds., The State of Our Unions: Marriage in America (2011), 82.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.