Thu 23rd Oct 2014 | Last updated: Wed 22nd Oct 2014 at 18:57pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

The evidence is coming in. As the CDF predicted, allowing children to be adopted by ‘parents’ in gay unions is not in their best interests

A peer-reviewed study in a respectable journal has been conducted by a US academic who was accused by gay activists of misconduct, then vindicated

By on Tuesday, 18 September 2012

The CDF has said: 'The absence of sexual complementarity in [same-sex] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children'

The CDF has said: 'The absence of sexual complementarity in [same-sex] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children'

Earlier this year, in Faith magazine, I asked this question: “Are ‘gay rights’ now the most prominent defining issue delineating — at least in Europe and the US — the gulf between the Catholic Church and the modern world?” This was a rhetorical question inviting the answer, yes: and in the months that followed, I have, it seems to me, been proved right. Related issue after related issue has arisen in public life, in Parliament and in the courts of law, both national and international: here in the United Kingdom, both North and South of the border, the debate has centred on the issue of gay marriage: so I don’t apologise for returning to the subject yet again, so soon after writing about Nick Clegg’s accusation that those opposed to it are bigots.

It is one of those questions that currently seems more and more to be proving, a secularist would say, how out of touch Catholics are with the modern world. To which we would reply, well, not out of touch at all: but certainly, in many ways, and not for the first time, diametrically opposed to contemporary values — though we are hardly alone this time: as I write, the Coalition for Marriage petition against gay marriage has reached a total of 600,783 signatures and by the time this is in print, that total will be considerably higher — you can check its current level and sign the petition while you are about it if you haven’t already done so. I am not sure, but I think that this is the highest ever total for an online petition, and is many, many times the total of the equivalent pro-gay marriage petition, which exists but which keeps a very low profile for that reason.

We will be proved right, in the end, as we were over eugenics in the last century: Hitler dramatically proved us right, and eugenics suddenly went underground. But for most of the first half of the century, only Catholics opposed it: Chesterton was the only major writer who wrote against it, nearly all the rest were enthusiastic supporters. But the trouble with waiting for history to prove us right is that there have to be so many walking wounded — or worse —first.

As I wrote in this column in 2010 about the enforced closure of our adoption agencies: “We are currently passing through a kind of cultural blip, in which these things go unchallenged (except, as usual, by the Catholic Church). Our descendants will look back and marvel at our gullibility. But in the meantime, in the name of human rights, of liberation from “outworn shibboleths” (remember them?) there will be many human casualties. “Oh Liberty,” in the famous words of Madame Roland as she mounted the scaffold, “what crimes are committed in thy name!”

Why is the Catholic Church against, not only gay marriage but all gay unions? It is worthwhile to remind ourselves why. It was spelled out by the CDF, in a document turgidly entitled “Consideration regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons”: the title indicates that the document was published (2003) before most countries had actually done it. “Legal recognition of homosexual unions,” it said, “would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage”. And one of the main effects of this devaluation would, said the CDF, be in its effects on the children adopted by those contracting such unions. The reasons for this are simple enough:

“As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.”

Pretty bigoted stuff, Nick Clegg would undoubtedly say: but what, Mr Clegg, if the CDF has got it right? The trouble, as I have already suggested, with waiting for history to prove us right is that there have to be so many casualties first. But already, the evidence that the CDF has indeed got it right is beginning to come in, from the USA: though those registering the evidence are of course going though the fires of calumny from gay activists, including accusations of academic dishonesty (why is it we can’t call them bigots?). As the Baptist Press reports: “The University of Texas at Austin has cleared sociology professor Mark Regnerus of academic misconduct after he was excoriated by some in the media over a study showing that parents’ homosexual relationships can have negative effects on children.

“Regnerus made headlines in June when his study was published in the widely respected journal Social Science Research. According to his findings, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts.

“They are also more likely to require more mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.”

How many years will it be before such findings are acted on? I fear that despite the academic evidence (this is not the only such study), it will take some years before public opinion supporting gay marriage (in the US, currently, this is a majority: here, I’m not sure, evidence is conflicting) goes into reverse, and even longer before gay couples are no longer allowed to adopt children. This is not the beginning of the end: but as Churchill famously said after El Alamein, it may be the end of the beginning. In the end, the Catholic Church, not for the first time when it has defied the Spirit of the Age, will be proved right. But what a lot of suffering is caused before finally the penny drops when the human race gets it wrong as spectacularly as it has this time.

  • Lewispbuckingham

    Practically we withdrew our children from a local Catholic primary school for a number of reasons, one being that all the teachers, bar one, were women. We were looking for better gender balance so that our children would have the opportunity of seeing that people of opposite sexes could work together, and the opportunity of having them as role models during education.
     But be careful of psychology dept research. I am sure a raft of studies will be quoted, especially from Australia and the past president of the AMA, that shows that gay people have as much success as anyone else in raising children if not better.
     At the moment there is a FOI in process about some Psych research at University of Western Australia that purports to show climate sceptics don”t believe in the Moon landings. The problem is to get hold of the meta study and repeat the maths and experiment to make sure its all above board, as the quoted survey looks deficient.
     This would have to be done with the studies that will be used, including the one from Texas,to ensure validation.

  • gabriel_syme

    Good article.  How, I think Wm Oddie is optimistic that gay adoption might ever be reversed, even if there was overwhelming evidence of the harm it causes.

    Gay activists would be quite happy for children to suffer confusing or damaging environments, just so long as gay couples could continue to mimick heterosexual ones in this hideous way.

  • paulpriest

    Whoah Dr Oddie please….

    You’re right but you need to make sure you’re right for the right reasons…

    Yep – keep central the argument structure of Eugenics & other evils, The ‘Consideration ‘ [incidentally what's also notable about it is its prohibition on 'restrictive'/incrementalist legislative lobbying tactics - priceless for pro-lifers] and the fundamental principles inherent within humanae vitae…[and you can also throw in Anscombe's holistic integrity principle too]

    But please also keep in mind GKC’s condemning of reverse induction  i.e.  ‘thinking backwards’

    Sure the evidence provides a corollary; but it may be equally be attributed to the normative greater wealth of homosexual couples [the spoilt rich kid syndrome] , parental marital breakdown and restructuring within a new same-sex parental structure – all manner of things…

    …and we can’t afford to pin our flags to false masts.

    Remember the farce of the 1980s studies which had children raised by lesbian couples being the most psychologically stable and socially ‘flourishing’? Sure it was feminist misandrist propaganda but all of us in academia at the time were bombarded with it from all corners…

    [of course this was blown out of the water when civil partnership/SS marriage legislation came in and acrimonious lesbian divorce rates were 170% the heterosexual average]

    Don’t forget we also have the ‘utiliporn’ of women justifying the health benefits of early abortion when it comes to cancer risk reduction and a better complexion; we have all manner of studies pertaining to consequentialist ‘benefits’ or ‘detriments’ and we should have nothing to do with them except as exigent/peripheral supports to an argument…

    Homosexual couples are not going to be banned from adopting children while the ideological system remains – irrespective of any evidence suggesting harm or deprivation to the kids.

    What we need to worry about more is national Catholic Church assimilation into this tabletista mindframe where irrespective of what the Pope or CDF says the general response is – ‘we’re more pastorally sensitive and inclusive’ [sic!]

    Need I remind you about the Civil Partnership fiasco?

    During the Papal Visit +Vin says the Church does not oppose them.
    He repeats this at the end of last year…

    At which time during your twice-published outrage [and the vocal opposition of other bloggers/commentators etc]
    Catholic Voices produces its ‘defence of +Vin’s non-opposition to CPs’ by one Greg Daly [still available and uncountered on the CV website]

    The Vatican intervenes & orders His Grace to retract/clarify his position
    +Vin obfuscates/equivocates and meanders his way round what was technically a clarification but it did anything but clarify…
    Meanwhile the 2003 CBCEW deposition ‘strongly opposing’ Civil Partnerships is re-issued and Westminster Archdiocese implies this is now the precedential position…

    Not so Catholic Voices who issued no retraction and continued to promote the ‘non-opposition’ revisionism…to the extent that only last week a representative declared [outrageously and mendaciously] that:

    “Rome has not officially spoken on the issue – and therefore this is a matter of personal informed conscience and prudential judgment”

    …little wonder we can have the Tina Beatties of the establishment running around saying Same-Sex marriage is ay-ok!

    …and while we’re on the subject:

    What is the point of arguing against Same-Sex marriage as a redefinition of marriage
    When those so-called ‘defenders’ of marriage are redefining it themselves?

    Sure we’ve gone through this before at length elsewhere on these threads but timeless Catholic teaching states:

    The purpose [ENS] of marriage is unifying spiritual and physical love; the aim {TELOS] is for that love to acheve its end in overflowing and being open to God’s gift of Life – thus that unity can reflect [in its single family nature of distinct persons] the fulness of love within the Blessed Trinity

    So why are our so-called defenders of marriage saying:

    “The purpose of marriage is the bearing and raising of children” ? As if we’re loveless breeding stock?

    Thus gravely scandalising all our infertile/menopausal couples – fully-married and fully living out its purpose within their natural limits…

    Is it simply that they refuse to address the awkward ‘insensitive’ ‘non-media friendly’ argument against same-sex marriage that yes marriage is about love – but it has physical and spiritual expressions and needs a complementarity to achieve its natural end – but mutual masturbation isn’t lovemaking and no two same-sex individuals can consummate a marriage?

    Is it the case that our media commentators would prefer to lie about the nature of marriage than be seen as potentially homophobic in regards to homosexuals’ sexual activity?
    Sure as hell looks like it!

  • scary goat

    Offfffffffttttttttttttt. Studies, more studies, even more studies….proving this, that and the complete opposite.  Lies, damned lies and statistics.  I suppose I must be a bigot, but how hard is it to see the obvious? Isn’t nature in front of our faces?  Couldn’t a 6 year old see it……even without sex-education? The emperor has no clothes. I don’t suppose this comment is very helpful really.  It’s just frustration at the ridiculousness  of it all.  Mad world. 

  • Meena

    In the near future, gay people (of both sexes) will be able to have their OWN (100% their own) children.

    The procedures must be made available on the NHS. I have very little doubt that they will.

  • JabbaPapa

    The extravagant expense of any such obscenity cannot be justified as compared to the nil cost of natural procreation.

    Oh, besides — what you’re saying is biologically possible only for lesbians, not your sodomite bum chums…

  • JabbaPapa

    The incoherence of this post is accurately representative of the pro-death “philosophy” behind this political agitation.

  • paulpriest


  • W Oddie

    You say that I need to make sure I’m right for the right reasons. Of course there’s a lot more to this question than what I have drawn attention to in this blog: the effect on the children. But it’s an important PART of what you call “the right reasons”: how can that be denied? The CDF, under Card. J Ratazinger certainly thought so. Now the evidence is coming in that he got that right. What’s wrong with my saying so? Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. 

  • paulpriest

    Sorry – yes the CDF is right – grounded in moral principle – predicting axiomatic socio-cultural repercussions and long-term consequences.

    The evidence so far seems to corroborate, vindicate, substantiate…but what if it was for instance revealed after a series of case studies that boys achieved higher grade scores with two male ‘parents’ or girls had less chance of teen pregnancy with lesbian parents? Or that kids reared by same-sex parents lived 10 years longer?

    It’s the moral principle that matters…and the rational conclusion that it will not, cannot come to any good…but it doesn’t matter whether it ostensibly does or doesn’t because in the reality of it all – behind that mystic veil it’s tearing lives and communities apart in ways we cannot possibly imagine or be able to measure by mere social science case study.

    Remember in ‘Eugenics & Other Evils’ – the madman doesn’t defy the world – he denies it!

    …I just worry that you Dr Oddie still think we live in a sane world where evidence corroborating something was good enough to give the argument some credence.

    Remember what the Oxford Study on the Abortion/Breast Cancer link did?
    29 of the case studies didn’t give the ‘correctly desired ideological no-link answer’ so they simply removed them from the report…

    ..we don’t need to retire to Bedlam any more – we’re all bunked there…

  • Garethj1980

    Rather an unbecoming comment for such a pretentious pseudo-intellectual such as yourself. Disappointing, but hardly surprising.

    Stay classy, JabbaPapa!

  • JabbaPapa

    My purpose in this world is not to please the unrighteous.

  • Cestius

    Suspect that any study showing adverse affects from not having a parent from each gender would be ruthlessly suppressed and denied, the researchers and authors hounded, shunned and urged to recant. So we’ll never know what the real position is.

  • Maggie

    Even if you’re against gay marriage, it’s not very Catholic of you to judge people just because they sin differently than you. Yes it does say in the Bible that being gay is a sin and I’m not denying that. But did you know it also says not to cut your hair or get tattoos? I’m sure you’ve done at least one of those things if not both. So instead of writing about taking gay rights away, why don’t you write about how we as Catholics should love everyone?

  • scary goat

     Ok, hang on a minute.  Who is judging gays for their sins? I didn’t see that in the article. And which gay rights is anyone proposing to take away? I didn’t see that in the article either. And who is saying they don’t love everyone? I didn’t see that either. All that has been said here and elsewhere on other threads is that gay sex isn’t marriage and gays cannot have children.  All this article does is suggest that it may not be healthy for children to be brought up by gays….confirming, by the way, what the CDF has already said.  What’s un-Catholic about that? Would you care to clarify please?

  • Alexander VI

    “it will take some years before public opinion supporting gay marriage (in the US, currently, this is a majority: here, I’m not sure, evidence is conflicting) goes into reverse,”

    Dream on Bill, dream on……

  • Brtg

    It all seems to me that as far s the gay gay ideologues are concerned , there is no fixed human nature to speak of,and the fact that we as humans are sexed is purely arbitrary.If children of gay couples develope ambiguities about there sexual identity, or identify themselves as gay I do not think they would see that as a problem As far as I can see ,there are no ‘aughts’ about sexual identity in their mind and thinking as all is outcome orientated and sexuality is seen as just ‘is’ and nothing more. There are deep anthropological differences at play here where the issue is presented as a social justice issue and no more and thus the church is easly outmanoeuvred

  • Meena

    But this is true. Reasonably soon (maybe in 10 to15 years) it will be possible to clone a male or female human being as a fairly routine procedure (it’s possible to do it now). 

    When the cost comes down, from the presently estimated figure of around £50,000 to £100,000, to a more “affordable level”, I’m sure the NHS will offer it.

    There is no pseudo-intellectual process involved in saying this. The demand for this service will bring it into being. The technical issues involved are already well-understood and there is no bar to it becoming routine – it’s presently only a matter of unit cost, and some legal constraints, which, without any doubt, will soon be swept away.

  • Proteios

    I am seeing this entire issue differently. We all sin. Yes, sadly. We all recognize our error and our weakness at confession. This is not equivalent to saying that something is no. Longer a sin. We should love our rothers and sisters and know we all need each other. I certainly wouldn’t say my sins should be condoned, so I don’t have to confess them or stop sinning to grow closer to God. I think we see this issue differently, one through faith. The other through the lens of Sowing respect to others and caring for their soul as condoning anything they do. These are not the same and shouldn’t be. I need your prayers, for I am a sinner. Don’t change our beloved Church’s teachings for me.

  • Atwomey

    Actually, the problem is actually how few studies there are about same-sex families there are. Compared with the academic output of studies into, say, orthogonal polynomials or laser spectroscopy the subject is virtually untouched. Anyone who tries to do so (like Regnerus) finds that the data sets just aren’t there, and they get academically electrocuted for their troubles. No, bien pensent folk have already come to their conclusions about same-sex parenting and don’t want anything as tawdry as evidence to intrude on them.

  • Recusant

    Actually, given the size of government debts (they haven’t gone away you know!) I find it much more likely that the NHS will get swept away in the next 10-15 years than human cloning taking place.

    In my opinion, we are entering an age of war – Japan/China, Iran/Israel and Russia/Ukraine spring to mind – and making any grand predictions on what we will be doing in 15 years is futile.

  • Meena

    It’s the moral principle that matters…”

    I can see that this might be the basis of any belief or stance.
    But all too often it isn’t.
    The Pope, for example,  talks of the ineffectiveness of the use of condoms in trying to prevent or lessen HIV rates in Africa. His argument is dismissed by the world’s medical authorities such as the World Health Organisation.
    But the point is that if the Pope’s argument is that condom use is MORALLY WRONG then he should be sticking to THAT argument. Never mind the numbers. If condom use is wrong in your belief, then obviously it is wrong in your belief, and THAT’S why you shouldn’t use them.

    You, PP, do the same thing here. The Catholic moral point about abortion and breast cancer  (which I believe is misguided) is that abortion itself is always wrong. Whether this goes along with increased rates of breast cancer or not – or even with decreased rates of breast cancer – is surely not the point for the Catholic. The Catholic position is surely that abortion per se  is always wrong. It is this idea that Catholics should be trying to put over in order to be consistent with their moral view.
    The incidence of breast cancers is irrelevant. 

  • Meena

    “..and no two same-sex individuals can consummate a marriage?”

    That is a matter of law. When same sex marriage becomes law it will be possible for it to be consummated. 

  • Meena

    “ sex isn’t marriage and gays cannot have children.”

    When the law is changed gay marriage will be a recognised form of marriage.

    Gay people can have children. Presently they do so through sperm or ovum donation. However in the near future they, as individuals, will be able to have children (clones) that are 100% their own individual children.

  • Meena

    The prediction is not mine. It however represents opinion in the bio/medical field.

    If the NHS ceases to exist then the treatment will still become available through whatever means of medical provision are available, or become newly available.

    [Yes war might well re-focus all our minds. In my view by far the most likely seed of war lies in the Middle East.
    There are some religious Jews and fundamentalist Islamics who are trying hard to bring it about - inspired by their religious righteousness.]

  • Meena

    My purpose in this world is…”  

    We have all heard that one before.

  • awkwardcustomer

    You’re absolutely right.  Hey.  Never thought I’d say it, but you’ve hit the nail on the head.

    It’s the moral principle that matters.  Gay sexual relations are wrong, whether in a ‘marriage’, civil partnership or other, because Sodomy is wrong.  The ‘sin of the Sodomites’ is one of the sins that ‘cry to heaven’, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 1867. 

    Forget the surveys and all the sentimental talk about ‘love’, so called.  Catholics should be arguing from the moral principle instead of endlessly disputing the findings of surveys.  Are they/we just too timid and mealy-mouthed to come out and say it. I made this point on another thread, and the same old discussion continues.

    Come on William Oddie, Archbishop Vincent Nichols and all those polite, well brought up people at Catholic Voices.  Say it.  ‘The sin of the Sodomites cries out to heaven’.

  • maxmarley

    The dog in the street must wonder if the inmates have taken over the asylum.
    The same dog in the street knows that this sodomy thing is society going barking mad.
    In the doggie world nature calls the tune.
    Nature can be so unforgiving for those fools who want to rewrite the laws of nature.

  • paulpriest

     If you’d bothered your backside to read the comments in the thread in which you were so actively involved you would fully know I made that exact point about abortion & breast cancer [thought you'd have noticed I made same allusion in reverse only three posts away!!!]

    Actually you seem to be quite remiss regarding the condom arguments…Check the Uganda vs Botswana & Philippines vs Thailand hiv rates – difference is in policy and promotion of cultural and educational change…not merely flinging condoms at the problem and hoping the problem will go away when all it did was not reduce the risk – merely stretch out the amounts of seroconversions over an extended period.

    condoms promote indiscriminate sexual activity and false security.

    Now I apologise to all sensitive readers but as the indictment was thrown at us let’s engage in a little of what Dr Oddie was attempting.
    The Church says condoms are not merely wrong but they are definitely not safe [and we have the Cochrane report & Harvard's hiv expert Edward Green to corroborate this] so let’s check the stats on a local level:

    Statistics have shown that at least 28% of the 12.9% of London gay men with hiv contracted it while engaging in ‘safer sex’ practices [70% of all men contracting hiv claim they contracted it while engaging in condomistic sex - [self]deceit limit is estimated at 60%] yet the normative epidemiology of the virus plus the normative rate of sexual activity is only 85% of the real figure of seroconversions  – condoms promoted a furtherance of sexual activity beyond regular levels ironically leading to a higher rate of infection than if they hadn’t been used!! It’s a farcical scenario [and it's even worse in Brighton] We may speak of culturally induced hiv rates in violently oppressive misogynistic areas like sub-saharan africa – but it’s a culture of gay-friendly ‘safer sex’ advocacy in the west that has aggravated the rate of seroconversion – the culture with condoms was supposed to make gay men 233% safer – instead it made them 17.5% less safe…[an ironic but lethal side-effect also being an estimated quarter of them becoming contra-culturally versatile having false confidence in condoms and increasing their risk of seroconversion tenfold]

    It’s like the teen pregnancy rate and the horrendous abortion rate – the easiest way to reduce the rate is to educate young women that irrespective of their use of contraception they should still abstain from penetrative intercourse while ovulating…
    …so why aren’t they doing it?
    Why is there no massive campaign by BPAS and Marie Stopes & the NHS et al to inform and educate and warn women of the risks due to failed contraception?
    Ideological despotism!!
    Pig-headed dogmatism that they must not dare go against the principle of the right to indiscriminate sexual activity as a ‘reproductive’ right that artificial contraception has granted them…
    ..except it hasn’t.
    But they simply dare not pragmatically admit it…

    So it’s highly ironic that the Church is being accused of intolerable cruelty and material co-operation with the deaths of many when it’s actually the ‘anything goes’ culture which has sold out the many in the name of ideological purity….

  • paulpriest

     are you going to require diagrams to explain how?
    it might distinctly lower the tone but might I ask how two women are going to consummate a marriage? or the estimated 20-40% of homosexual men who don’t engage in anal homosexual activity?

    this whole conversation is becoming farcical…

  • Oconnord

    When was the term “peer reviewed ” changed to mean ” endorsed by a Texan university”?

  • Johanne

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science has called for a total ban on human cloning. They write:

    “AAAS endorses a legally enforceable ban on efforts to implant a human cloned embryo for the purpose of reproduction. The scientific evidence documenting the serious health risks associated with reproductive cloning, as shown through animal studies, make it unconscionable to undertake this procedure.” 

  • Lewispbuckingham

     Remember dolly the sheep.

  • W Oddie

    It was the journal publishing the research which peer reviewed it

  • W Oddie

    Possible or not, that’s not the point. The point is that if professor Mark Regnerus is right, “children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts, and a whole series of other major problems”. If he’s right, in other words, God help the children.

  • JabbaPapa

    Your snobbishness and implicit racism are quite obnoxious.

  • JabbaPapa

    That’s an extremely poor metaphor — Canis lupus familiaris is one of the most mutation-prone species on the planet, hence one of the most prone for individuals of that species to be affected by the genetic mutation that is one of the causes of homosexuality.

    Not that any actual facts will cause homosexualist activists to simultaneously claim that they were just “born that way” and simultaneously that it is “not” a genetic disorder of their DNA, and therefore technically and theoretically curable as any other genetic pathology might be.

    NOT that I’m suggesting that homosexuality should be eugenically eradicated from our own species !!!! Any such suggestion would be perfectly obscene !!! But a medical gene-therapy for those wishing to rid themselves of any undesired sexual attraction towards their own sex cannot OTOH be forbidden for these sorts of ideologically motivated PC “reasons” …

  • shieldsheafson

    Let’s stop for a moment and think about whether or not it’s a good idea for the state to proselytize or profess or encourage the homosexual agenda and issues – and I include in this the whole panoply of related issues, LGBT, pederasty, etc., of which homosexuality is the lynch-pin.
    Certainly, on this blog, we know, pace to the usual suspects, that homosexuality, et al, in natural law, is objectively disordered.
    Now, for the sake of argument, let’s say that homosexual activity is widespread, tolerated and acceptable. It is being taught as ‘normal’ to children in state schools and eventually comes to pretty well dominate in preference among pubescent and adolescent children – particularly boys.
    Bearing in mind society’s experience with older males already given over to perversion, and their desire for ever younger males and the (legal) lowering of the bar for such homosexual encounters – will that too now become ‘tolerated’ and ‘celebrated’? Finally, will all young boys be expected to know about homosexual acts ever earlier?
    Homosexuals seem to be over-represented in the media and politics and can be cliquish and exclusive. Following the Wolfenden report, sexual acts between two adult males, with no other people present, were made legal in England and Wales in 1967. Since when, they have never stopped campaigning for further legitimacy, then, under the force of ‘Human Rights’ laws, tolerance, acceptance and acquiescence.
    What about female homosexuality – lesbianism. Will the future men, who are given over to perversion, want to maintain any ‘competition’ for status and dignity? What is to be a girl’s fate in a nation dominated by homosexuals? Has anyone asked what may happen to the status of females of child-bearing age and their children? Will the time not come that because of her gender she also has no status? Will she become of less and less importance, except for babies and merely be regulated to be a baby birther like all other women?
    To tolerate and support any re-directing of the male sexual preference will have devasting effects upon our children. This path of encouraging homosexuality as any kind of equality is insane. Men do not become better people for indulging in perversion. Rather they ‘lower’ the bar and become ever more barbaric. Is this the kind of future you would usher in for your children? One where you have absolutely everything to lose and nothing to gain? What kind of madness and delusion is this? The acceptance and encouragement of homosexual lifestyles is too destructive a force to be unleashed upon any peoples. There is only misery and suffering ahead for our offspring.
    Once we abandon grounding morality in reason, taking on formal and final causes, immutable human nature, God, the soul, the natural law, the whole shooting match, you inevitably find the highest expression of human dignity in such things as abortion clinics, euthanasia, needle exchange programs and the ennoblement of sodomy – and much much worse.

  • JabbaPapa

    I cannot see that William Oddie has “judged” anybody at all for being homosexual.

    You’re just imagining contents into his article that do not exist therein.

  • JabbaPapa

    There is no pseudo-intellectual process involved in saying this.

    Of course there bloody well is !!!!

    The very nature of mammalian reproduction prevents the non-transmission of genetic material from the pregnant mother to the fetus.

    It is a technical impossibility that the biological mother of any cloned fetus will not change that clone’s body in order to conform to her own genetics.

    Only lesbians, therefore, could benefit stricto sensu from any such technology, because only lesbians among homosexuals can be mothers.

    there is no bar to it becoming routine – it’s presently only a matter of unit cost, and some legal constraints, which, without any doubt, will soon be swept away

    Your radical atheism is not the fountainhead of ethics and morality — there are in fact some extremely serious medical and ethical problems with not just human, but mammalian cloning in general.

  • JabbaPapa

    Exactly !!!

    Mammalian cloning is currently used almost exclusively for the duplication of valuable stud animals — because the reproductive capability of these animals is known to be generally unaffected by any veterinary issues that are caused by the cloning procedure — and the veterinary costs incurred by the generally inferior health of these animals is covered by the mercantile resell value of their sperm.

  • nytor

    “When the law is changed gay marriage will be a recognised form of marriage”

    Not by the Church, it won’t.

  • nytor

    “It is being taught as ‘normal’ to children in state schools and eventually comes to pretty well dominate in preference among pubescent and adolescent children – particularly boys.”

    Whilst it isn’t really known what causes homosexuality, I don’t believe that one can be “taught” to be. The idea that homosexuals will become a majority is surely laughable.

  • nytor

    Why? Why should the state pay for this?

  • Patrick_Hadley

     According to this article the journal that published the article, Social Science Research, intends to publish a retraction in its November edition. While the researcher has been cleared of misconduct, that does not mean that his paper has been vindicated.

    A problem identified with the research was that it did not just look at children raised in stable same-sex relationships, but looked at all the children one of whose parents had at any time had a same-sex affair. If that is true then the research is flawed, since it is not comparing like with like.

    The headline of this article talks about children in same-sex unions, but the research quoted was not about such children as a group, but about children who have a parent who has been unfaithful to their partner with a member of the opposite sex.

  • scary goat

     Well…..yes and no actually.  I have argued on another thread that we should stick to the point and beware of dubious statistics, ie: abortion MURDERS babies (murder being the moral issue) whereas abortion causing breast cancer may or may not be a side effect, it’s not the main issue even if it is true, and we should be careful throwing “studies” around that are not (yet?) established fact.

    However, I wanted to clarify your view about morality, or moral positions being the point.  The Church’s position on morals is not “because I said so”.  Morals are not some airy-fairy mumbo-jumbo.  The moral teachings of the Church are there for a reason….that reason being OUR well-being. I expect you have heard the expression “Holy Mother Church”… a mother with greater understanding and experience than my children, I tell them what to do/not do.  This is either for their benefit, or for the smooth running of the family. A young child wants to take their shoes off and run bare-foot in the park.  There is a reason why they shouldn’t do that….there may be broken glass and dog pooh…a nasty cut and a nasty infection could be the result.  How often do children say: But I WANT TO. I don’t see why I shouldn’t! 

    So Holy Mother Church says “don’t do that”.  Sometimes the reason is clear, sometimes less so.  Sometimes we need to work at understanding why.  We can all see why we shouldn’t kill, (or at least I would have thought so, although apparently it doesn’t seem to mean much in this pro-abortion culture) but then you get something like: don’t use artificial contraception. It may be not quite so clear why.  If we trust the Church, we accept it and try to understand.  Many will say “but I  don’t see why I shouldn’t”.  Then the discussions start between those who accept and those who don’t.  Some of us take it on trust, others need an explanation. 

    This is where studies on things and statistics come in. They may not be the main point but they are relevant information.

  • scary goat

     Well, yes, I must admit it sounds pretty laughable…..or does it? I can think of a lot of things which can become an “acquired taste” through peer pressure.  I’m not saying that necessarily homosexuality will become highly prevalent let alone in the majority, but I don’t think it’s unlikely for a large number of youngsters to be swayed into experimenting with things they would never have dreamed of trying had they not been taught that it is “normal”.

  • whytheworldisending

    Remember a few years back that the former head of Wrexham Social Services was jailed along with some of his employees for being members of a child abuse ring? Remember that Fred West – before he was found dead in his cell – said that the full truth behind the murders he had committed was so shocking that people wouldn’t believe it? The part we know is that he had been preying on children who had been or were in care. Remember the Belgian scandal of disappearances of children, said to involve high profile public figures – including politicians – and which was swept under the carpet? Look at the way the so-called “authorities” lied to the public and covered up their misdeeds for decades after Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday? These facts tell us that corrupt individuals have organised themselves in order to infiltrate our democracy and turn it into the elective dictatorship that it has, since Thatcher, been destined to become. The law has become a pervert’s charter and the remedy is constitutional reform which ensures that the silent majority’s views, and in particular the views of parents, are represented and respected. Gospel values and the values of ordinary decent people are not very far apart, but the values being imposed on this country are far removed from what the majority want, or ultimately will put up with for much longer.

  • rjt1

    The NHS should treat people for illnesses. What illness is being treated in this case?

  • Oconnord

    Really? I can’t imagine the amount of peer pressure it would take for me to “acquire” a taste for homosexuality. I’m in gay pubs fairly often, I have gay friends and family. I’m often “hit on” my gay men.

    All of which I consider normal. There is no pressure to experiment, because there is a phrase that’s very easy to use. “Sorry, I’m straight”.