Study: Gay parents more likely to have gay kids

[2DREZQ]

...sexual intercourse for the purpose of creating a family remains normal, hedonistic sexual intercourse or intercourse purely for pleasure remains non-normal.

Wait a minute.

Are you contending that procreation is the only morally acceptable reason for sexual intercourse? Does that include exclusive, committed, monogamous heterosexual activity (of various types) engaged in by a husband and wife when conception is impossible (sterile or post-menopausal)?

[Magister Eckhart]

Correction. Christianity is an Eastern religion. Middle Eastern to be exact. It was created by desert dwelling Bronze Age Jews in one of the most backwards and illiterate parts of the world. Mind you, it was also in a part of the world known for open homosexuality.

No, Christianity is a Western religion. The only truly Western religion. Christianity is completely divorced from Judaism: it is beyond and above Judaism. Furthermore, it did not arise in the Bronze Age, unless you extend the Bronze Age much further forward than actual historians. The terminus of that period was around 600 BC, long, long before even the Greeks began to discern the oneness of God. Christianity is a religion based in the teachings of Jesus, who is the Christ, whose arrival in this world made the Jews as a nation and Judaism as a religion irrelevant, and confirmed those dispersed detections of God's nature among the Greeks, the Germanics, and the Romans through the teachings of His apostles. The Church is a Western phenomenon, the doctrine of Christianity is a Western creation, and the entire religion is permeated by Western ideals, sensibilities, and philosophy.

This idiocy of considering Christianity to be Eastern or Jewish largely derives from Judaised Christian heretics, especially in the United States, who place tremendous faith in the mythological Hebrew texts that constitute the first half of the Scriptures, meant to be nothing more than historically attested prophecies pertaining to the errors and failures of the Jews and the coming of the Christ.

I take you equate this 'creating a family' with procreation? Then sex between a sterile man and/or a barren woman can't be justified either since there is no way for them to procreate. The sex for procreation only argument is unscriptural.

I do not; procreation does not require marriage, it does not require love, it does not require any form of human connexion. All it requires is the insertion of slot A into tab B and the successful deposit of semen by a fertile egg. Creating a family is a moral experience of sexual intercourse that is impossible without a deep spiritual awareness and the Holy Sacrament of matrimony between a man and a woman.

Further, you are wrong to say that sexual intercourse between a so-called "sterile" husband and/or a so-called "barren" woman is unjustified. If you argue from scripture, then these thoroughly human and faithless categories of sterility and barrenness are meaningless. "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." (Matt. 19:26)

Also, do not forget Zachariah and Elizabeth and the myth of Abraham and Sarah, both of which communicate quite clearly the message that it is in God that man must have faith rather than himself. Morally acceptable sexual intercourse, therefore, only ever takes place out of the intention of a husband and wife to manifest their spiritual oneness created through matrimony in the physical form of a child, and with that child to form a family who are bound to one another and together bound to God. While to the banal scientist, this will have no apparent difference from sexual intercourse merely for procreation, any person not predisposed against human relationships will recognise the fundamental and huge difference that exists between starting a family and merely procreating.

Wait a minute.

Are you contending that procreation is the only morally acceptable reason for sexual intercourse? Does that include exclusive, committed, monogamous heterosexual activity (of various types) engaged in by a husband and wife when conception is impossible (sterile or post-menopausal)?

No. I am contending that starting a family is the only morally acceptable reason for sexual intercourse; mere procreation is not human, but animalistic: humans start families. If, however, you wish to ask me if the birth of a child is the only acceptable reason to engage in sexual intercourse, then yes, I am saying that, because conception is never impossible. The nature of miracles is that they are utterly dependant on the will and mind of God, and what man can claim to know the mind of God? Even the Christ Himself acknowledges His own ignorance of the mind of the Father (see Mark 13:32). How can anyone claim absolute knowledge of impossibility when not even the Son of God would claim absolute knowledge of the mind and will of God? Even the arch-atheist David Hume asserted the necessary agnosticism of science when he asserted that chance did not allow for 100% certainty in everything, and all ratios of possibility had to be one to something, and if one admits that one, then there is one chance of something happening, making it possible, though improbable. Therefore, there is never a 0% chance of anything, and even if doctors and scientist pronounce a man "sterile" and a woman "barren", it is for God to decide whether than >0% chance of conception becomes a miraculous occurrence or whether the efforts of the husband and wife bear no fruit. No Christian can claim otherwise and remain a Christian: the teaching is clear on this matter, both from Scripture and from the Tradition of the Church.

For the impatient, of course, there is always the social institution of adoption to skip the step of sexual intercourse and start a family.

[Loddfafner]

So I take it that only devout Christians can be truly married, and that all the marriages of heterosexual agnostics and atheists are as bogus as those between gays?

[Magister Eckhart]

So I take it that only devout Christians can be truly married, and that all the marriages of heterosexual agnostics and atheists are as bogus as those between gays?

Part A: no, I should say any couple joined spiritually in the sight of what we Christians call "God" are in a more or less legitimate marriage.

Part B: yes, unless of course the godlessness came after the marriage.

[Turkey]

If gay people are going to have European offspring, while many normal people won't, then kudos to them!

[Fortis in Arduis]

Part A: no, I should say any couple joined spiritually in the sight of what we Christians call "God" are in a more or less legitimate marriage.

That's far too liberal for me.

They must be Roman Catholics, so I am assuming that when you said "we Christians" you meant Roman Catholics.

[Argyll]

That's far too liberal for me.

They must be Roman Catholics, so I am assuming that when you said "we Christians" you meant Roman Catholics.

Are you talking about the only true marriages?

@ME Do heathen marriages count as real marriages, in your eyes?

[Magister Eckhart]

That's far too liberal for me.

They must be Roman Catholics, so I am assuming that when you said "we Christians" you meant Roman Catholics.

Well Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy are the only true forms of Christianity, all the rest is just heresy. Nevertheless, I think one would be a fool not to recognise the legitimacy of the spiritual bonds formed between two Japanese when they are married according to their cultural tradition of Shinto, or between two of our cousin Indians joined as Hindus. These are legitimate spiritual experiences that accomplish by and far the same thing in fact and in theory as the Christian sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

Of course, this is only true of legitimate religions. New-age idiocies like Wicca or open corruptions like Ba'hai and Hari Krishna hardly qualify as such, so marriages according to these would certainly be illegitimate, but I see no reason to consider all Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews, to be bastards. I have some reservations about polygamist sects like Mohammedanism and Mormonism, and I might go as far as to say polygamist Jewish marriages are illegitimate, but that is a point which I think is certainly open to questioning.

Of course, we must also look at things like Mormonism and the emerging Germanic Heathen religion with questioning eyes because they represent new traditions that have the potential to be legitimate due to the complexity of their religious approach and also the depth of their theology and real mythical property of their rites. Admittedly, Germanic Heathens have a long way to go, and as long as they cling to simple "revivalism" or to new-age superficiality, they will remain an illegitimate semi-religion dedicated to physical and sentimental satisfaction rather than spiritual exploration and realisation. Nevertheless, after seeing things like the Journal of Contemporary Heathen Thought and reading works by people like Steve McNallen, I can say that there is some genuine potential there. The problem is you also have idiots like the Odinic Rite and Mark Stinson running about collecting more followers than any of the thoughtful, truly religious Germanic Heathens, and that keeps the whole movement relegated to the land of live-action role-play and out of the realm of religion.

[sean]

Most children raised by gay parents would rather be raised by straight parents. There is only one way to raise children if you want your children to grow into mature adults who are capable of reaching their full potential in life; with a MOTHER and a FATHER who can provide for the children their security, discipline, education, and of course love.

The salient point is that children are best off with two parents of opposite sex. The use of in vitro and surrogacy to undermine the natural family unit with either same-sex or single parents is an abomination and detrimental to the psychosocial well-being of a child. I have absolutely no problem with those technologies being used to help infertile couples who are otherwise normal and have no major genetic disorders.

These stats are from the study referenced in the OP.