As discussed last week, single parents can still honor the importance of sexual difference by acknowledging the unique difficulties their families face, but two persons of the same sex who raise a child are unable to do so.This is disingenuous (I am being polite). This is not about the best interests of children. Rather, the bishops are trying to re-litigate marriage equality. It's also bullshit. There is no research to support the bishops' claim that the children of same-sex parents are disadvantaged. Quite the contrary. Just this week a study in the Netherlands concluded:
Two men or two women who claim to replace a mother and a father reject the vital role that parental sexual difference plays in the development of a child, especially the child’s sexual identity. Children look to their parents to figure out what it means to be a boy or a girl and how to relate to the opposite sex.
There were no significant differences found on any assessment of children’s psychological well-being in female same-sex and male same-sex parent households versus different-sex parent households.This is consistent with studies conducted in the United States.
For more than 20 years (DOMA passed in 1996) these same people have been claiming that same-sex marriage has dire consequences. Those negative effects never seem to materialize. The blather continues:
When there is not a model in the home of one sex or the other, one of these developmental tasks the child faces necessarily and by definition is made incredibly difficult. How can John understand what it means to be a man when he primarily only sees two women interacting? How can Anna understand her worth as a woman if her two caregivers are both men? As adults, it can be hard to remember what it is to be a child, completely dependent on our parents and constantly absorbing things (largely unconsciously) that shape our understanding of the world.This opinion is based on what exactly? Apparently faith because they then acknowledge that this view is not supported by any research:
These things aren’t quantifiable or really even “proveable”. We know by faith, in a way, that based on the Catholic understanding of who the human being is, being raised by two men or two women wounds a child. Of course, these wounds are not incurable; the Divine Physician is always ready to heal and transfom the hurts that we sustain as children. But that does not mean that we do not do all that we can as a Church and society to prevent predictable suffering.These things are not provable because they do not exist. Just because they are making a judgment based on faith doesn't mean that it should not be supported with evidence. The “Catholic understanding of who the human being is” seems to be incorrect.
Too much of the discussion around marriage redefinition revolved around the supposed “rights” of adults to sexual and social “fulfillment” in a recognized legal partnership rather than the rights of children to know and be raised by their parents. (Or, ironically, one of the Justices argued that “children of same-sex couples” had the right for their “parents” to be recognized by the State, ignoring the fact that, by nature and rights, there are no “children of same-sex couples” except those procured by an unjust system.)
- There are numerous quantifiable and provable benefits of same-sex marriage for adults, their children and the state and;
- There are no quantifiable and provable consequences of same-sex marriage.
The position of the bishops amounts to “God does not want gay people to marry.” Very compelling. Perhaps they should at least lose the pretense that this something to do with children.
One of the reasons that it is hard to explain and defend the Church’s position on marriage is that, as a society, we have conceptually separated two things that should be together: marriage and having children. We must help our contemporaries to see that these two things belong together, so that we can minimize the damage that will be done to young lives by the choices of adults.Perhaps the reason that it is hard to explain and even harder to justify is the fact that the Church's position makes no sense at all. The last sentence of that paragraph makes even less sense given the fact that the damage exists solely in the minds of unmarried celibate men who don't raise children and who are unable to offer any evidence to support their position. How do they propose to minimize damage that doesn't exist?
|The original fight against|