Five Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children
Blogged by James Preece on 27th February 2012
Dr. Trayce L. Hansen is a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice. Unfortunately, her "reasons" why same-sex marriage will harm children are based on the premise that men and women are different.
She says...
Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.
[link]
Nonsense!
As every married man knows - women are exactly the same as men!
Somebody should revoke her license to be a psycologist.
She is excluding herself!
Besides, as somebody is sure to point out - many children grow up in single parent households without a mother or a father and they seem to manage okay so why on earth would we want to aim at what is best for children when we can intentionally give them something they can mostly seem to manage okay with.
Reader Comments
+8
Chyrsostom said...
What a pity that the mothers and fathers of those who write approvingly about "same sex marriages" had not confined themselves to relations with the same sex!
St Athanasius- pray for us.
Ss Thomas More and John Fisher - pray for us.
St Jude - pray for England.
+
+4
New Friend said...
Chyrsostom
Do you therefore believe that homosexuals have a choice over whether they feel as they do?
Do you also feel that the parents of homosexuals, or of those who have any sympathy for their right to marry, should not enjoy a full loving relationship, according to their own sexuality?
Or were you trying to be funny?
+
+1
shieldsheafson said...
Perhaps Plato was talking about "same-sex marriage"
Socrates: "And when the orator instead of putting an ass in the place of a horse puts good for evil being himself as ignorant of their true nature as the city on which he imposes is ignorant; and having studied the notions of the multitude, falsely persuades them not about "the shadow of an ass," which he confounds with a horse, but about good which he confounds with evil-what will be the harvest which rhetoric will be likely to gather after the sowing of that seed?"
Phaedrus: "The reverse of good."
+
+10
Catherine said...
Today, when "new family models" are spoken about uncritically, the word "family" is used in the plural, and there is also a tendency to redefine the concept of marriage itself. By departing from the fundamental notion of the union-communion of two persons of different sexes who give themselves to each other in an exclusive way without reservation or time limitations, the ambiguous terms are multiplying in an effort to define the "new family models". Thus, one speaks of the "single-parent family", "recomposed family", "de facto unions" or even "homosexual family". These so-called "new models" are deceptive.
First, the expression "single-parent family" contains a contradiction in terms. A child always has two parents. To speak about a "single-parent family" is to deny the existence of the absent parent, usually the father, and to give credit to the growing matriarchal model.
Second, regarding the so-called "recomposed" family, it should be noted that since it is the result of a failure, it is conceived of and desired according to the model of the nuclear family. But behind a so-called "recomposed" family, there is a "broken" family that remains, and many times this is the family that is important to the children.
Talking too much about the "single-parent family" or the "recomposed family" and attempting to extend the notion of family to homosexual couples has resulted in emptying the idea of family of its meaning. There is a tendency to no longer present the family as a simple "union between two persons" with no further specification. The consequences of this deliberate vagueness are grave, especially for the children. Indeed, all too often family questions are seen today almost exclusively from the viewpoint of the adults and their interests. Children are the first victims, often in very painful conditions, of these "new models" that are neither new nor models.
THE FAMILY AND LIFE IN EUROPE Cardinal ALFONSO LÓPEZ TRUJILLO RIP
Former President of the Pontifical Council for the Family
+
+4
Grant Lewin said...
Catherine - not every child has two parents. My mother died when I was 8 years old so I grew up in a single parent family... and it wasn't a broken family. I wasn't the only one in this situation in my class as there were around 5 others children like me for various reasons eg my best friend's dad died in the Falklands war.
+
+7
James said...
If my mother had died when I was eight years old or if my father had died in a war, I would have considered my family to be missing something important.
Do you really think of your mothers death as no loss? Was your mothers absense so insignificant that you would intentionally inflict similar circumstances on others?
+
+1
New Friend said...
James
I am sure that Grant will answer your question himself but did you read my reply to Catherine?
No-one intentionally does these things, but they happen. If they do then then we have to cope. The "family" can mean many different things to different people in different circumstances. You seem to be suggesting that only one model works, and belittling others. I can assure you that just isn't true. The family models I witness on a daily basis here work very well, and they are used because of a combination of circumstances. Poverty forces people to share homes. The need to find work forces parents overseas. The extended family copes with these things very well, and in many cases very much better than the man/woman/children model that you enthuse about. Just because this is the traditional English family doesn't mean that other family styles cannot work as well, or better. I would not have believed it either, until I came here. Now I have seen it with my own eyes I do.
+
+5
James said...
"No-one intentionally does these things"
When the state legislates to allow a child to be placed with two fathers - they intentionally deprive that child of a mother.
+
+1
New Friend said...
James
As I am sure you realised I was referring to the natural events that caused people to lose a parent and how the family adjusted in such circumstances. It isn't the state depriving the child of it's mother. That has already happened and the state is doing it's best to repair things. I am no expert on adoption, having had very little experience of it. My limited knowledge suggests that there is a shortage of prospective parents for many categories of children. If that is true is it better, in your opinion, for a child to be placed in a loving home, albeit one which consists of folk of the same sex, than to be brought up in an institution?
I note that no comment has been made about my description of how the "family" has successfully evolved here in the Philippines to become something very much more than the conventional man/woman/children model you enthuse over. As this is a predominently Catholic country I would have hoped that you would find inspiration in this and that this would encourage a broader view to be taken. Here many actual parents are missing permanently, or for lengthy periods, but the family still functions well, with so many other members available to fill the gaps. The children don't seem to mind, nor do they suffer. It is just an accepted, normal way of life. No-one here argues that families should consist just of a husband, wife and their children. Anyone who suggested that would be thought totally crazy.
+
+13
pattif said...
My son grew up in a single parent family, because my husband died when my son was a baby. There wasn't a single day of his childhood when I didn't have cause to reflect on the fact that God knew what he was doing when he designed two parent families.
Even now, I am conscious that, when my son comes to marry and have children, he will be entering unknown territory, because he has had no role model to observe in action.
+
+2
Catherine said...
Grant
I am sorry as I would be for any child who had to suffer the absence of on eof their parents trhough death or otherwise. Which is why the Church wisely speaks of 'lone parent' NEVER single parent because theere is always another parent somewhere alive or dead who is part and parcel of that child's make ujp and story and identity. It is wholly unrealistic to pretend it is not so and doesn't matter. Ask anyone adopted at birth or childhood and who later feel the compelling need to seek out their birth parents. Natural law you see. Always a good thing even if it's painful to embrace but ultimately liberating and deeply rewarding to our huam flourishing.
+
+4
New Friend said...
Catherine
In an ideal world, where every parent was loving and responsible, the bond between the parents was strong and never broken, and no-one ever died, some of the things you say might have credibility.
The real world is not like that and isn't going to become like it any time soon. We need to find practical, fair and equitable solutions for real problems.
Here in the Philippines the concept of "family" is extremely strong. The "family" is the most valued thing in Filipino society, and is what I admire most about this country. However the concept of "family" here goes much wider and deeper than just a bond between a man and a woman, and I believe there is much to be learned from it. The family unit here normally includes the grand parents, many brothers and sisters, married, with partners (lots of broken marriages, no divorces, so with new partners) or still single. Children produced by couples, or by single girls, are all welcomed into the family as equals. They are cared for by everyone. It is almost as usual for an aunty to be responsible for the daily care of a child as for the mother to be. Siblings and cousins grow up together. There are lots and lots of gay men and women within these family units, some alone, some with partners. They are totally accepted and play as active a role in the care and nurture of the children as anyone else. Living in the locality will be second cousins, step cousins, and relationships which go back generations. All are regarded as family. All of this produces an array of multi faceted relationships. Strong bonds are formed, but not always mother or father to child, especially if there are many, and there usually are.
The concept of the "family" also extends further as it embraces the whole local communities, who are fierce in their determination to protect themselves and each other. Live within a family here and you will not starve unless the whole community starves. It is only those who place themselves outside of this who lose that benefit. Sharing is a way of life here and it touches me every day.
I suppose my point is that whilst you are right to see the family as vital to us, that this is not always in the way you describe it. It can be bigger than that and there is no reason why anyone needs to be excluded.
+
+3
Catherine said...
first of all I personally did not say what you say I said. I was merely quoting the Magisetrium which is wiser than I but with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Of course families blighted with all sorts of sufferings and misfortunes including divorce and family breakdown have ways and means of suataining God given human bonds through blood and indeed are very loving in those relationships often heroic in terms of the virtues exercised by the lone parent. This is why John Paul II spoke eloquently of 'family fecundity' in terms of our spiirutal gifts in loving one another through painful and dark times and describing faithful and faith-filled families as capable of 'releasing formidable energies' and in te same document Familiaris Consortio Blessed John Paul II states:
"An even more generous, intelligent and prudent pastoral commitment, modelled on the Good Shepherd, is called for in the case of families which, often independently of their own wishes and through pressures of various other kinds, find themselves faced by situations which are objectively difficult....
For those who have no natural family the doors of the great family which is the Church-the Church which finds concrete expression in the diocesan and the parish family, in ecclesial basic communities and in movements of the apostolate-must be opened even wider. No one is without a family in this world: the Church is a home and family for everyone, especially those who "labor and are heavy laden."
and that is why his words of 30 years ago are more urgent than ever today
"This is an injunction that calls for concrete action.
Loving the family means being able to appreciate its values and capabilities, fostering them always. Loving the family means identifying the dangers and the evils that menace it, in order to overcome them. Loving the family means endeavoring to create for it an environment favorable for its development. The modern Christian family is often tempted to be discouraged and is distressed at the growth of its difficulties; it is an eminent form of love to give it back its reasons for confidence in itself, in the riches that it possesses by nature and grace, and in the mission that God has entrusted to it. "Yes indeed, the families of today must be called back to their original position. They must follow Christ."
+
+1
New Friend said...
Catherine
I wonder, did you actually read what I said to you about my real experiences in a Catholic country? It seems to me that your description of a loving community based "family" is being followed here in the Philippines but rejected in the UK. There you want to exclude people from the family. You don't want homosexuals involved. You just want the traditional 2 parent family, the one you are familar with, to be the model of choice.
Just because it is traditional does not mean it is best, nor does it mean it is the only one which works. Lighten up, be a little open minded and think for 2012 and not for 1912. We need solutions for today, and today is not the same as yesterday. There are lessons to be learned from here, which I had not realised until I came here. I know better now.
+
+2
Catherine said...
The trouble with being open minded my friend is that one's brains tend to fall out..... I rest my case!
+
+1
New Friend said...
Catherine
Cheap point, often made, and not very clever. Being open minded is merely a state of mind, not a physical condition.
Being open to new thinking seems a thoroughly positive thing to me. If you reject it, what have you lost? If you accept it, then you gain. If you don't consider it then you deny yourself the opportunity of that gain.
Silly me. I forgot. Catholics already have all the answers don't they? They don't have to consider anything new. They just look it up.
+
+2
Catherine said...
“The Church, in her concern for man's authentic development, urges him to have full respect for human values in the exercise of his sexuality. It cannot be reduced merely to pleasure or entertainment, nor can sex education be reduced to technical instruction aimed solely at protecting the interested parties from possible disease or the “risk” of procreation. ..
It is irresponsible to view sexuality merely as a source of pleasure, and likewise to regulate it through strategies of mandatory birth control. In either case materialistic ideas and policies are at work, and individuals are ultimately subjected to various forms of violence. Against such policies, there is a need to defend the primary competence of the family in the area of sexuality .” Caritas in Veritate – n44
and
Address to Bogota meeting 03/2011
"no effort will be useless in working so that every family, founded on the indissoluble union between a man and a woman, will carry out its mission.
to be a living cell of society
a seedbed of virtues
a school of constructive and peaceful coexistence
an instrument of concord
a privileged realm in which human life [is] received and protected, in a joyful and responsible way, from its beginning to its natural end
It is also worthwhile to continue to encourage parents in their right and fundamental obligation to educate the new generations in the faith and in the values that dignify human existence"
+
+15
Catherine said...
and furthermore...
"Today, the need to avoid confusing marriage with other types of unions based on weak love is especially urgent. It is only the rock of total, irrevocable love between a man and a woman that can serve as the foundation on which to build a society that will become a home for all mankind."
BENEDICT XVI
TO MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL JOHN PAUL II INSTITUTE
FOR STUDIES ON MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
ON THE XXVth ANNIVERSARY OF ITS FOUNDATION
+