Simple question?

Quote: FrGamble

Third premise: it's preferable to place a child with a mom and a dad and it is not discrimination to do this.

Aneurysm :) You cannot state a conclusion with a premise.

Premise: same sex couples provide good outcomes for the children they raise
Second premise: Opposite sex coulpes provide good outcomes for the children they raise

Conclusion: three's no fundamental difference between same sex and opposite sex couples as far as good outcomes for children are concerned.

Quote:

Your conclusion by the way doesn't follow from your premises.

It's not my conclusion, it's yours. Of course it doesn't follow.

Quote:

But they did say you could not give preference to homes with a mom and a dad.

So you think an adoption agency should be free to discriminate because it's Catholic? Should a secular agency be allowed to discriminate against Catholic couples?

Quote: FrGamble

I happen to think teens can be called and held to a higher standard then the awful low standard society seems to thrust upon them causing so much emotional, physical, and spiritual pain. My advice would always and every time to save yourself for marriage. It is the only reasonable and safe thing to do.

So, I had some additional thoughts on your response to not suggesting birth control meaures to teens who might have sex anyway. In your case, at least a condom, if you can't approve anything else.

How would you feel about a secular counseling center that refuses to suggest abstinence as an alternative, but suggests all the other common methods?

Wouldn't you think it's kind of ridiculous to not give someone that option and help implementing it if such exists?

Quote: Nareed

Premise: same sex couples provide good outcomes for the children they raise
Second premise: Opposite sex coulpes provide good outcomes for the children they raise

Conclusion: three's no fundamental difference between same sex and opposite sex couples as far as good outcomes for children are concerned.

Check your pulse because again your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. It turns out that opposite sex couples provide better outcomes for the children they raise. I know there are studies that show the outcomes are equal but I think we have had a few thousand years trying the opposite sex route and again nature itself makes it pretty clear that children are meant to be raised by the a mom and a dad. I don't know for the life of me why this is a controversial or homophobic thing to say. It just seems like common sense. Having a male and female as parents is best for the development and raising of a child. Do you really doubt this? Here is the question I want to ask you point blank: If everything else is equal, is it better for a child to be raised with a mom and a dad versus being raised by two men or two women?

Quote:

So you think an adoption agency should be free to discriminate because it's Catholic? Should a secular agency be allowed to discriminate against Catholic couples?

First of all it is not discrimination to prefer to place a child in a home with opposite sex couple. That would be like saying it is discrimination to prefer to put children in a home with a backyard versus an apartment building. Second of all what fundamental difference does it make for the job of parenting is someone is an atheist, Catholic, black, white, yellow, or brown? It doesn't fundamentally effect the essential roles of motherhood and fatherhood at all. Your gender is fundamental to who you are and it is not discrimination to say that females make better mothers and males make better fathers!

Quote: rxwine

How would you feel about a secular counseling center that refuses to suggest abstinence as an alternative, but suggests all the other common methods?

I would be furious. This secular counseling center would be refusing the only method and idea that keeps young women and men free from unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and emotional hurt and pain. They would be foolish and going against not only common sense but reason and truth itself.

Quote:

Wouldn't you think it's kind of ridiculous to not give someone that option and help implementing it if such exists?

Not at all if that option leads to pain, emotional, spiritual, and physical. Why not help our young people control their passions and live reasonable, thoughtful, reflective, and respectful lives. Maybe we have lost the ability to teach this to our children because we as adults seem so unable to live it ourselves.

Quote: FrGamble

Not at all if that option leads to pain, emotional, spiritual, and physical. Why not help our young people control their passions and live reasonable, thoughtful, reflective, and respectful lives. Maybe we have lost the ability to teach this to our children because we as adults seem so unable to live it ourselves.

I think "Catholic girls' is the only religious stereotype I know of which focuses on probable whorishness -- most likely from the demented repression in their religious upbringing.

If so, I consider them victims though, not to put them down.

BTW, your anti-condom reasoning, as I recall, was one of the most ridiculous things I've seen you advocate. You're right up there with Mormon underwear on that one.

Can you tell me why you think that?

Quote: FrGamble

Can you tell me why you think that?

Because making a case against wearing a rubberized sheath over a penis is beyond the pale as far as ridiculous things to be against.

Quote: rxwine

Because making a case against wearing a rubberized sheath over a penis is beyond the pale as far as ridiculous things to be against.

It goes back to ancient times when men
used sheeps intestine. They make good
casings because they're water tight. They
make good condoms for the same reason.

Quote: FrGamble

Check your pulse because again your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. It turns out that opposite sex couples provide better outcomes for the children they raise. I know there are studies that show the outcomes are equal but I think we have had a few thousand years trying the opposite sex route and again nature itself makes it pretty clear that children are meant to be raised by the a mom and a dad. I don't know for the life of me why this is a controversial or homophobic thing to say. It just seems like common sense. Having a male and female as parents is best for the development and raising of a child. Do you really doubt this? Here is the question I want to ask you point blank: If everything else is equal, is it better for a child to be raised with a mom and a dad versus being raised by two men or two women?






First of all it is not discrimination to prefer to place a child in a home with opposite sex couple. That would be like saying it is discrimination to prefer to put children in a home with a backyard versus an apartment building. Second of all what fundamental difference does it make for the job of parenting is someone is an atheist, Catholic, black, white, yellow, or brown? It doesn't fundamentally effect the essential roles of motherhood and fatherhood at all. Your gender is fundamental to who you are and it is not discrimination to say that females make better mothers and males make better fathers!

Your logic is so flawed.

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.

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.

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

Why isn't your mind open to this possibility, in the face of this evidence?

Quote: FrGamble

I know there are studies that show the outcomes are equal but I think we have had a few thousand years trying the opposite sex route

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.

Quote:

I don't know for the life of me why this is a controversial or homophobic thing to say.

Were you born right this minute?

Quote:

Here is the question I want to ask you point blank: If everything else is equal, is it better for a child to be raised with a mom and a dad versus being raised by two men or two women?

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

Quote:

First of all it is not discrimination to prefer to place a child in a home with opposite sex couple. That would be like saying it is discrimination to prefer to put children in a home with a backyard versus an apartment building.

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.

Quote:

Second of all what fundamental difference does it make for the job of parenting is someone is an atheist, Catholic, black, white, yellow, or brown? It doesn't fundamentally effect the essential roles of motherhood and fatherhood at all.

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.