Vatican Blasts Gay Unionsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001121/wl/vatican_family_gays_2.htmlTuesday November 21 2:01 PM ET
Vatican Blasts Gay Unions
By FRANCES D'EMILIO, Associated Press Writer
VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican has blasted lawmakers for giving legal recognition to so-called ``de facto'' unions - including those between homosexuals - and said attempts to allow adoption by gays were ``a great danger.''
A 77-page document made public Tuesday by The Pontifical Council for the Family was built heavily around similar denunciations over the last few years by Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II.
Italian gay groups, stung over the summer by the Vatican's moves to try to block gay pride events in Rome, denounced the latest pronouncement on homosexual unions.
``God's plan has nothing to do with the lay state,'' said Franco Grillini, a former president of the gay-rights organization Arcigay.
The Vatican's council on family matters also presented a proposal to make sex crimes against children, including ``sex tourism'' exploitation, crimes against humanity.
But the bulk of the positions presented Tuesday hammered away at unions between gays as well as legal recognition for unmarried heterosexual couples.
While not citing any particular country, the Vatican spoke of ``great concern'' about lawmakers' efforts ``in many countries with an ancient Christian tradition'' to give legal status to unmarried couples.
Earlier this month, Germany granted legal recognition to gay couples, following similar moves over the last decade by other Western European countries.
``De facto unions are the result of private behavior and should remain on the private level,'' the Vatican said. It described as a ``serious sign of the contemporary breakdown in the social and moral conscience,'' political efforts to give institutional status to de facto couples.
It said attempts to legalize the adoption of children by homosexual couples added ``an element of great danger.''
-- (Convers@tion.starter), November 21, 2000
I agree,``De facto unions are the result of private behavior and should remain on the private level,'' the Vatican said. It described as a ``serious sign of the contemporary breakdown in the social and moral conscience,'' political efforts to give institutional status to de facto couples.
It said attempts to legalize the adoption of children by homosexual couples added ``an element of great danger.''
Actually, this'll probably be a pretty short thread, as no one in their right mind would disagree with this.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 21, 2000.
Gay people, like straight people, can be terrific parents. They can also be lousy parents, just like straight people. Sexual orientation is no predictor of the sort of parent one is.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 21, 2000.
Are these the same authorities that insist that the sun dropped from the sky in 1917? Just wondered?Best wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 21, 2000.
I agree, Tarzan. Remember that movie with Robin Williams where his son came to dinner with his fiance and Robin tried to hide the "gayness"? I forgot the name of it.OTOH, I wouldn't expect the Vatican to rule any other way.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 21, 2000.
Tarzan & Z,You are both as moronic as they come. I pity those that have to be around either of you in real life.
-- Two (liberal@ss.holes), November 21, 2000.
Tarzan,Can you PROVE that homosexuals are equally good at being parents as normal parents are, or is that just your opinion? I'd be interested in seeing the research (if you have it) to back up your claim.
And no, it's not up to me to prove that they are UNequal, homosexuals can't be BIOLOGICAL parents by definition, so they are not "normally" parents to be considered as part of any control group, but are rather an experimental arm to be contrasted with the heterosexual norm.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 21, 2000.
Frank:Now I don't want to get into this argument but I have to comment.
You said: homosexuals can't be BIOLOGICAL parents by definition
Actually, this is incorrect. The technology now exists so two lesbians could act as real, biological parents. Don't know if this will be done; but I suppose if it can, it will.
Now back to the regular discussion.
Best wishes,,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 21, 2000.
Z,Talk about a red herring! You might as well say that with cloning technology a SINGLE female can be a biological parent! Is single parenting "natural" too?
Nope.
BTW, I'm Catholic, and have never heard of the 1917 thing, what is it?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 21, 2000.
Oops,Obviously I meant, "Is single BIOLOGICAL parenting "natural" too? "
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 21, 2000.
Frank:You said: You might as well say that with cloning technology a SINGLE female can be a biological parent! Is single parenting "natural" too?
Yep, parthenocarpy [literally, virgin fruit] exists naturally in organisms that can also reproduce sexually, so it is natural. Asexual reproduction is very common, and in many organisms is the only means of reproduction. Actually, there have been many reports of parthenocarpic reproduction in humans; but none have been verified. There is always the suspicion that that is what the daughter tells her father :^)
1917 thing; Miracle of Fatima in Spain; I've read all of the recent releases from Rome, dealing with the history and the, so named, third secret. I gave a flippant response above, but one can get the whole story from those documents.
Best wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 21, 2000.
Anita, it was The Birdcage, which I believe was a U.S. remake of the French original, La Cage Aux Folles (sp?). I posted a response here.
Sorry, back to the discourse.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 21, 2000.
It said attempts to legalize the adoption of children by homosexual couples added "an element of great danger".It went on to say that, compared to this, exposing them to AIDS-infected pedaphilic priests would be a walk in the park.
-- Father Fellatio (@ .), November 21, 2000.
Frank:Obviously I meant, "Is single BIOLOGICAL parenting "natural" too? "
Frank
We have been talking for too many years. I knew what you meant without explanation.
Best wishes,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 21, 2000.
Can you PROVE that homosexuals are equally good at being parents as normal parents are, or is that just your opinion?First of all, gay people ARE normal people, they just have a different sexual orientation. They are no more defined by their sexual attraction than you or I.
Second of all, I said, Sexual orientation is no predictor of the sort of parent one is. If you have statistics that sexual orientation IS a predictor of the sort of parent one is, you are invited to produce it. Or is that just your opinion?
The Vatican said, "...attempts to legalize the adoption of children by homosexual couples added ``an element of great danger.'' You said no one in their right mind would disagree with that. Do you have proof that gay adoptive parents add "an element of great danger" in their children's lives, or is that just your opinion?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 22, 2000.
"Let me behold naught but beauty, naught but good, naught but truth, naught but Thine immortal fountain of bliss." - PY
-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 22, 2000.
Z,You have been living in C(K)linton's America too long. Having a background in biology, I'm sure you'll agree that rules that apply to one species don't apply to another!
If I just wanted to say something was natural because it occurred in nature somewhere, I could say that basically ANY means of reproducing DNA is natural. That doesn't mean that they are a natural means of reproduction for Humans, though. But somehow, I think you knew that ;-) .
Tarzan,
You obviously didn't read my post. I think that it is up to you in this case (given the reason in my original post) to prove your opinion in this issue, and not for me to prove that a group of people who can't naturally produce children make or don't make good parents.
In any event, you're entitled to your personal opinion.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 22, 2000.
Frank:Having a background in biology, I'm sure you'll agree that rules that apply to one species don't apply to another!
We were discussing biology. Based on a discussion of that field, I don't agree.
You keep wanting to mix Theology and Biology. Doesn't work.
Best wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 22, 2000.
Okay Frank.Here's what the APA had to say about the issue. Cut and paste the link, I'm too tired for HTML. You'll find an interactive bibliography at the end.
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 22, 2000.
One more thing, Frank.By referring to "people who can't naturally produce a child" are you equating gay and lesbian parents with those who are heterosexual and sterile or infertile?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 22, 2000.
Z, you said,Having a background in biology, I'm sure you'll agree that rules that apply to one species don't apply to another!
We were discussing biology. Based on a discussion of that field, I don't agree.
I don't understand your position (truly). When referring to Human reproduction, without the aid of technology, what do you consider as "normal" outside of heterosexual reproduction? I really can't understand what you disagree with (from a biological definition of parents).
Tarzan,
I remember there was a psych study done in the (30's?) where after noting that young children raised in orphanages didn't progress like "normal" children, they took some children out of the orphanage and had them raised for several years by prostitutes who were given the choice of that or jail. The theory was that the prostitutes wouldn't be "good" mothers necessarily, but it would be a contrast with the institutional environment of the orphanage, and a controllable fascimile of a normal home environment.
As it turns out, the children raised by the prostitutes did much better than their orphanage counterparts, meaning that ANY parenting is better than NO parenting. What am I getting at? It's good to have parents.
Unfortunately, I've also read a fair number of studies put out by psychologists (if you'll remember up until the DSM III homosexuality was listed as a Mental Illness), and have something for you to think about.
"No study to date has EVER shown that eating one black olive a day as therapy is less effective in curing cancer than surgery and/or chemoradiation."
I actually didn't think anyone would bother with the infertile heterosexual couple, or I would have addressed it. They are a slight deviation from the norm, much as a myopic person is to someone with 20/20. Psychologically however, I wouldn't have any reason to think that they would be different from their normal counterparts, as infertility can be caused by many things, and in all likelihood at least one of the parents is still "normal". OTOH homosexuals by definition have something so biologically (and psychologically) wrong with them that they are (as a group) selected out of the gene pool. To me, this would indicate that biologically and psychologically they are not fit to be parents, unless proven to be FIT.
Now don't trot out some case report of the most loving homosexual couple you've ever seen and say "see, look how great they are!" and pretend that's the way everyone is. This is not something that society should condone, fun argument or not.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 22, 2000.
Frank:That is why I don't get into these discussions. I have 35 years of considering these things. A BS, MS and PhD. I have taught honors courses in the area at a major university.. What you are doing is trying to overlay biology with theology. In a biological sense, you are no different than a nematode; and no different than a chimp. Everything else you bring up is Theology or Philosophy. The summation of what has flowed through the human mind over time.
Now, I am not suggesting that these approaches have no value [that is a subjective choice]; I am just saying that these are not biology.
By-the-by: my interest in 1917 stems from my interest in mysticism in the church; see I am interested in Philosophy.
Best wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 22, 2000.
"I remember there was a psych study done in the (30's?) where after noting that young children raised in orphanages didn't progress like "normal" children, they took some children out of the orphanage and had them raised for several years by prostitutes who were given the choice of that or jail." What, no citation? Come on, Frank, you can do better than that. "As it turns out, the children raised by the prostitutes did much better than their orphanage counterparts, meaning that ANY parenting is better than NO parenting. What am I getting at? It's good to have parents." That, of course, is not the point of the APA study. Since you obviously missed it the first time around, here it is again:
Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth. "Unfortunately, I've also read a fair number of studies put out by psychologists (if you'll remember up until the DSM III homosexuality was listed as a Mental Illness), and have something for you to think about. Of course homosexuality was once considered a mental illness. And women who wanted careers were said to have penis envy. Times change, Frank. Medicine marches on. Try not to get too attached to discredited theories, even if they do bolster your religious beliefs. "No study to date has EVER shown that eating one black olive a day as therapy is less effective in curing cancer than surgery and/or chemoradiation" Do you ever get dizzy from all that spin, Frank? Your analogy fails, because the APA isn't just claiming that no study has shown negative effects, but ALL studies have shown NEUTRAL to POSITIVE effects. Say it with me, Frank. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth. AS LIKELY, not "hasn't been shown to cause harm yet" but AS LIKELY. Now, I'm sure you'll argue that since it's still possible for negative affects to be shown, gays and lesbians should be denied the chance to have children and children who are available for adoptions should be denied loving homes. That argument would, of course, be bullshit. "I actually didn't think anyone would bother with the infertile heterosexual couple, or I would have addressed it. They are a slight deviation from the norm, much as a myopic person is to someone with 20/20. Psychologically however, I wouldn't have any reason to think that they would be different from their normal counterparts, as infertility can be caused by many things, and in all likelihood at least one of the parents is still "normal". OTOH homosexuals by definition have something so biologically (and psychologically) wrong with them that they are (as a group) selected out of the gene pool. To me, this would indicate that biologically and psychologically they are not fit to be parents, unless proven to be FIT." What, exactly, is wrong, Dr. Frank? If there's a biological error, then does this mean you are arguing for a biological component to homosexuality? We know that there is something "so biologically wrong" with infertile people that they have been selected out of the gene pool, whether that selection was from illness or birth. Yet there is nothing wrong with the plumbing of most gays and lesbians except that their plumbing can't produce children with their partners. You would use biology as a hammer to beat some people up and a tool to help others. What a duplicitous, ridiculous argument.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 22, 2000.
Z,With all due respect, I wasn't asking about your interpretation of where I was headed with the data, but just pointing out that heterosexual reproduction is the ONLY normal method BIOLOGICALLY in humans. My question was if you disagreed with THAT, not my analysis of homosexual "parents". You then said,
In a biological sense, you are no different than a nematode; and no different than a chimp. Everything else you bring up is Theology or Philosophy.
Here I must disagree on a BIOLGICAL basis (not a theological one). Consider Radopholus for example: females can reproduce with or without males, and so they are most definitely NOT like humans with regards to reproduction (even me). Please reconsider, if your example is off, so might your point of view be. :(
Tarzan,
You should have given the whole conclusion in the "Gay and Lesbian parenting" section at the APA:
D. Conclusion
In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and
relatively scarce. ((((And who is performing the studies (hence getting these conclusions -- Frank's comment )))) Less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers. Little is known about development of the offspring of gay or lesbian parents during adolescence or adulthood. Sources of heterogeneity have yet to be systematically investigated. Longitudinal studies that follow lesbian and gay families over time are badly needed.
Given the "looseness" for getting a psych paper published, to me, that says it all. No data or biased data at the present time.
Times change, Frank. Medicine marches on. Try not to get too attached to discredited theories, even if they do bolster your religious beliefs
That's exactly right Tarzan, don't get too attached to what YOU believe in (rather than what you've proven) as tomorrow what you believed to be true could be proven wrong.
but ALL studies have shown NEUTRAL to POSITIVE effects.
Positive effects???? Please show me the study that showed homosexual parents were better than heterosexual ones.
If there's a biological error, then does this mean you are arguing for a biological component to homosexuality? We know that there is something "so biologically wrong" with infertile people that they have been selected out of the gene pool, whether that selection was from illness or birth. Yet there is nothing wrong with the plumbing of most gays and lesbians except that their plumbing can't produce children with their partners. You would use biology as a hammer to beat some people up and a tool to help others. What a duplicitous, ridiculous argument.
Hardly, silly one, that's the point! A normal couple (through illness or "plumbing" as you say) can't conceive a child. This psychologically is MUCH different from someone who is ABLE to biologically produce a child but MENTALLY is not able to do so due to their bizarre attractions.
Again, you're entitled to your beliefs,
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 22, 2000.
Hey, I almost forgot.I'm going to be out of town next week, but will bookmark this & check in on my return, will continue if anyone's interested.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 22, 2000.
Frank:Here I must disagree on a BIOLGICAL basis (not a theological one). Consider Radopholus for example: females can reproduce with or without males, and so they are most definitely NOT like humans with regards to reproduction (even me).
Now give me the evidence for all living organisms. You know that at the DNA level, you are barely distinguished from a chimp. Same for me.
By-the-by, why do you avoid discussing mysticism in the church.
Best Wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 22, 2000.
Frank:By-the-by 2; the Roman Church was way out of touch when it came to astronomy, back when. At present, they are out of touch with biology; but I must admit, not as out of touch as the conservative Protestant religions. You are still into theology. You need to let go.
Best wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 22, 2000.
Ok you guys!I have hesitated to chime in here. Let me say upfront, THANK YOU TARZAN, you have echoed my sentiments more precisely than I could have. Well spoken.
On this Thanksgiving Day, I offer the following: "It doesn't matter who you love, or how you love, but that you love"-Rod McKuen
Happy Thanksgiving all. May you, each and every one of you, find the love in your heart to accept the fellow human beings that walk this earth, no matter their differences. We travel this road together, on the same journey.
-- Aunt Bee (Aunt__Bee@hotmail.com), November 23, 2000.
Given the "looseness" for getting a psych paper published, to me, that says it all. No data or biased data at the present time.
Another hit-and-run by Frank the "Expert". You can't attack the evidence directly, so you attack the entire field. Well, I suppose that's one way to admit defeat.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 23, 2000.
This is one of those hopeless debates between observation on one side, and definition on the other. The terminology may appear to overlap in places, but the *meaning* does not.Frank, like the Vatican, defines homosexual marriage and parenting as wrong. Period. Not "bad", which is a matter of measurement and degree. WRONG. Observations and experience, of whatever nature, need not apply to a matter of definition. And there's nothing inherently wrong with using a definition, so long as we recognize that Frank's position is NOT based on experience.
Frank's approach does have a danger, however. When definitions clearly conflict with reality, they run into problems, just like Earth being defined as the center of the universe couldn't hold against the reality. Sooner or later, the Franks of the world will be reduced to the position that, OK, these things really aren't socially disruptive, the children are often well raised, the relationships are as stable and responsible as any others, but it's still wrong by definition. And that's fine, but tends to relegate those with unrealistic definitions to the fringes of society.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 23, 2000.
Frank,"It said attempts to legalize the adoption of children by homosexual couples added ``an element of great danger.''
Actually, this'll probably be a pretty short thread, as no one in their right mind would disagree with this."
If I was still 'speaking' to Flint, I'd have to agree with his assessment that:
"Frank, like the Vatican, defines homosexual marriage and parenting as wrong. Period."
& if I had the years that Z's had logged in the studies of odd- ologies or-ocarpies, I might weigh in with his statements.
Lucky for you, perhaps, I can only speak to the personal wisdom I've earned through several decades of knowing families who've welcomed me in to know how very much they valued and fostered each of the individuals in their tapestry, and by consequence for me to know how as a family they didn't fit the average Hallmark image.
What are the consequences of your opinion, or the official position? Will fewer children be adopted into families? Why is that a preferrable fate in your eyes?
-- flora (***@__._), November 23, 2000.
I just have to ask the big questions cause it's just driving me crazy and experts are on line now so here goes. If the adopted kids are straight in their genes and nothing is crooked or out of whack. What do they think or say or whatever when they observe their daddy and daddy kissing each other on the lips or accidently see them playing pokeman together in the bedroom? We've all had our kids walk in unexpectedly. Or if mommy and mommy are connected to the same electric fun thing? I know you might say there're other things to see in a household like violence or worse but when they start getting the sexual thoughts and urges they aint going to know whether to sit or stand when they pee. I've always wondered about that!
-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), November 23, 2000.
Boswell-Here's a link to a website for the children of gay and lesbian parents. Cut and paste, I'm too tired for HTML tonight.
http://www.colage.org/
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 23, 2000.
Boswell,I am no authority, so take my comments with a rather large grain of salt - 'kay? I've known several individuals who were unfortunate young victims of molestation. Not one of those offenders was an avowed homosexual.
Just my two cents.
PS - If I've muddied the waters, I've also know several individuals who grew up healthily in homes which might not have been the mainstream that you're used to, or assume to be so { & no, I can't think of one who turned out to be gay - 'not that there's anything wrong with that'}.
-- flora (***@__._), November 23, 2000.
Flora-It's worth mentioning that most gay people grew up in households where they had straight parents. If children automatically acquired the sexuality of their parents, we'd have a whole lot less gay people running around.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingignthroughthejunglewithouta.net), November 23, 2000.
Tarz,Ain't that the truth! After having realistically seen these issues in flesh & blood form for years, it still sets me back to see things from such an 'educated man's' take - like Frank's - & I think he's even from my state!
This is going to be an awful pronouncement - but the older I get, the more the old saw of 'give me a child 'til they're seven...' rings true to form. {Good Grief, not that it is correct!}.
-- flora (***@__._), November 23, 2000.
Vermont and gay civil unionshttp://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002nDT
-- (an@older.thread), November 23, 2000.