Some folks hold views that are not only wrong but irreconcilable as well. The only consistent theme is that they are all in direct opposition to the Word of God.
Consider how some groups simultaneously try to hold two or more of these views:
- Men and women aren’t different.
- “Gender fluidity” means boys and girls as young as elementary school are told they can choose what gender they are. Even though there isn’t a difference. And their perceived gender can change.
- Homosexuals and bisexuals are “born that way” and can’t be changed.
- If you declare that you are now gay, then that means you were always gay. But if you were gay and now declare yourself straight then you are still gay.
- It is mandatory that homosexuals be able to marry someone of the same sex. A gay guy can’t just marry a female with more masculine characteristics, or a biological female who thinks she is really a man.
- Sperm banks for Lesbians are important, because it is important for the women to experience pregnancy and have their own child. But having a father around – or even knowing who he is – is completely irrelevant to the child.
- Homosexual orientation is driven by “nature,” so it is moral.
- Homosexual parenthood obviously defies “nature,” but it is moral as well.
- It is irrelevant whether your parents are M/F, M/M, F/F, or even a set of two.
- HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease, and you are homophobic if you suggest it is.
- If you don’t support more funding for HIV/AIDS you are homophobic.
Consider the net result of the typical gay adoption argument: Having a same-sex partner is paramount, but the sex of the parents is irrelevant. How can that be?
Note: I am not saying we need to take kids away from gay couples. I am not saying that the best of gay parenting is worse than the worst of traditional parenting.
I am saying that public policies should not encourage gay parenting and definitely shouldn’t force adoption agencies to provide children to gay couples. Exceptions can make bad rules. I am also saying that it is ridiculous to consider phrases such as traditional family to be offensive.
Once again, the culture is putting the desires of adults over the needs of children. It is the same lie that was foundational to the easy divorce and abortion movements: Adults are vulnerable, children are not.
Lies. Big, big lies.
Filed under: Favorites, Politics, Sexuality | Tagged: homosexual, Politics, religion
“I am saying that public policies should not encourage gay parenting”
Why? What logical, civic reason is there for making this public policy? Do you have studies showing that gay parents are worse parents than straight parents?
What if the studies showed the opposite? That straight parents were worse parents than gay parents – should straight parents have public policy disallowing adoption?
“Why? What logical, civic reason is there for making this public policy? Do you have studies showing that gay parents are worse parents than straight parents?”
Because by nature and design a man and a woman are required to create a child. They contribute unique things to the child’s development. If gays want to use the nature argument then we should be consistent in what we encourage.
How about taking a polygraph and making this statement: “All other things being equal, it would not have mattered to me if my parents were male/female, male/male, female/female, or any combination of two or more of anything.” I’m guessing that 99.9% of people would fail that test.
And I haven’t even mentioned the Bible, by the way. As Christians we should know what God’s ideal for parenting is. 100% of Biblical examples of God’s ideal show one man / one woman marriages with unique roles. I realize that non-Christians wouldn’t find that compelling, but of course Christians would trust that it was the best way.
Well, we wouldn’t want to use the Bible as a measure of what to make public policy, I’d hazard. Certainly, those of us for whom the Bible is important will be informed by our beliefs, but we probably don’t want our Representatives having bible debates about which forms of marriage are most biblical.
As to this:
“Because by nature and design a man and a woman are required to create a child. They contribute unique things to the child’s development.”
I’m sure you recognize (or maybe not) that this is not an objective measure as to who should and shouldn’t be encouraged to be parents. That is, it’s an opinion expressing why Neil thinks public policy should not encourage gay parenting, but it’s not in any way authoritative, right?
So, is the answer to my question (What logical, civic reason is there for making this public policy?) that you have no logical, civic-based, evidence-based reasons for discouraging gay parents as a matter of policy? That is fine, I was just trying to see if there was something more to it than just an opinion.
I, for one, have yet to meet a bad gay parent/set of parents. Which is, of course, only anecdotal and not a reason to make it public policy in and of itself.
I’m just suggesting that if someone is wanting to encourage public policy that would specifically target a segment of the population to direct public policy against, the burden of evidence would be on those who’d want to thus set the policy. Lacking any sound reasons, I’d hope the US citizenry would reject any such policy as discriminatory and awful.
Now, in the case of pedophiles, I think one could make a sound logical reason that “Public policy should discourage acknowledged pedophiles from being parents, as it is demonstrably not in the interest of the child to be in such an environment” and people would rally behind that idea.
But setting policy “Public policy should discourage gay singles and couples from being parents because some people aren’t comfortable with the idea, or because some people think that homosexuals are sinners,” just shouldn’t fly as acceptable debate.
If we set policy discouraging gays from being parents because they are sinners, will we do the same for the greedy (which is a much graver sin biblically-speaking – at least that is talked against a WHOLE lot more – than homosexuality)?
Neil said: I won’t respond to the straw man arguments since I didn’t make those points. Actually, I re-read my original post and I think I addressed the rest of the comments there. Public policies forcing religious organizations to consider gay parents for adoptions are sickening. And I think you are 180 degrees off on the burden of proof argument.
Nice post.
Concerning easy divorce, there was a book years ago whose title said it all. (I never read the book itself.) The title was, “You May Be Divorced, But the Children Aren’t.”
Take that same principle, and apply it to gay adoption. “You May Be Homosexual, But Are the Children?”
“Well, we wouldn’t want to use the Bible as a measure of what to make public policy, I’d hazard. Certainly, those of us for whom the Bible is important will be informed by our beliefs, but we probably don’t want our Representatives having bible debates about which forms of marriage are most biblical.”
You would have had a ball blogging with the Founding Fathers :>).
Actually, I don’t want MY representatives debating the issue at all. It was settled when God created man & woman. With the exception of all the cultural nonsense I don’t see how anything changed.
Neil said:
“Public policies forcing religious organizations to consider gay parents for adoptions are sickening.”
Hang on, I agree with you that I don’t want gov’t telling religious groups what to do or not to do. And I don’t want religious groups accepting such an arrangement!
I didn’t disagree with that part of your argument. Your original posit was:
I am saying that public policies should not encourage gay parenting and definitely shouldn’t force adoption agencies to provide children to gay couples.
I agree wholeheartedly with the second half (at least insofar as we’re talking about religious adoption agencies that don’t receive tax dollars) and – short of any evidence whatsoever – must vigorously oppose the first half of your statement as un-American and bad theology to boot. Fair enough?
Neil said: Cool – we agree on something! I’m not going to push my luck with anything further. (kidding)
Seriously, have a great Monday. I’m off to work.
WOZ said:
“Actually, I don’t want MY representatives debating the issue at all. It was settled when God created man & woman.”
You’ll accept it, I hope, if some of your fellow citizens and fellow Christians disagree with you on this point?
Dan said:
“You’ll accept it, I hope, if some of your fellow citizens and fellow Christians disagree with you on this point?”
Absolutely. That’s why we have elections. (God didn’t create man & woman??? :>) ).
Not so much that we disagree that God created people but rather what you interpret that to mean…
I didn’t say people – I said man & woman. Didn’t know any interpretation was necessary for the phrase “man & woman”. But Jesus was very specific about what He thought it meant.
Neil, the only view you listed that I can agree with is “Homosexuals and bisexuals are “born that way” and can’t be changed.”
That said – It is easy for me to agree with you on the gay adoption issue. Gay couples obviously cannot bear their own children. That being the case, why would they even want children? Don’t answer that – it’s rhetorical.
I also don’t think adoption should be offered to singles.
Just using simple logic here. A single person cannot have a child by themselves, they need “help.” A gay couple needs the same type of help. With all the laws and lawsuits and chaos surrounding the care of the child – alimony, child support, visitation, etc., why in the world would we want to officially muddy these waters even more by allowing gay adoption?
It’s just adding confusion and aggravation to an already confused and aggravated legal system. And I’m not even going into the social side of the argument! Talk about confused and aggravated…
Dan, what is THIS supposed to mean? “I’m sure you recognize (or maybe not) that this is not an objective measure as to who should and shouldn’t be encouraged to be parents. That is, it’s an opinion expressing why Neil thinks public policy should not encourage gay parenting, but it’s not in any way authoritative, right?”
A man and a woman is the minium requirement for creating a child (i.e. being a parent). How is that NOT an objective measure as to who should or shouldn’t be encouraged to be parents?
Please stop arguing from emotion and try to use at least a little logic.
Mark said (and I’m not entirely sure if he’s being sarcastic or serious):
“A man and a woman is the minium requirement for creating a child (i.e. being a parent). How is that NOT an objective measure as to who should or shouldn’t be encouraged to be parents?”
I don’t believe I’ve exhibited the first bit of emotion, only expressed the logical thought that we ought not create public policy discouraging a particular group from being parents unless we have some reason to do so.
The reality that it takes a man and a woman to create a child does not change the reality that two gay folk or a single person can be a great parent and their gay-ness nor single-ness should in and of itself be a barrier to adoption, at least short of some sound logic-based reasoning.
If, for instance, a particular group thinks that singles don’t make good parents just because it’s so hard to be a parent even in a two-parent home, THAT would be a reason with at least some logical validity to it. To make that public policy should require making that case. Similarly for gay couples. What reason is there that we should consider making public policy that discourages gay couples from adopting?
I don’t believe I’ve exhibited the first bit of emotion, only expressed the logical thought that we ought not create public policy discouraging a particular group from being parents unless we have some reason to do so.
With all due respect, you have severely overplayed your hand by maintaining that you only expressed logical thought. Sadly I and presumably others, continue to be tortured with your persistant illogical logic. Please understand that my criticism of you is not a personal attack, but is a frank assessment after reading a number of your posts here and elsewhere. Moreover, my criticism is not born out of the fact that I respectfully disagree with your positions with respect to this issue. Oftentimes I learn more about myself and others through disagreement. Suffice it to say, your posts fail to do so. I appreciate that it is not your duty to educate and/or please me, but it goes to the issue of advancing or adding substance to the arguement at hand. You criticize others for not using logic, while maintaining that your position is supported with said logic. I tired of such arguements on the playground a long time ago!
Whether you choose to believe or not, there is overwhelming evidence that children fair far better in a two parent (and I never, ever thought that I would have to specifically define “two parent” as mother and father, ie male and female) households than any other “parental” configuration that you wish to choose or conjure up.
Secondly, using your premise, groups such as axe murderers or pedophiles shouldn’t be “discouraged” from adopting, because after all you have no logical, civic-based, evidence-based reasons for discouraging adoption. In fact, many criminals – including axe murderers and pedophiles are parents, thus why set policy to discourage adoption with these groups?
In closing, thank you Neil for the soapbox. To the best of my knowledge, no animals or humans were hurt in making this post possible.
Respectfully,
Joseph
Joseph said:
“Whether you choose to believe or not, there is overwhelming evidence that children fair far better in a two parent (and I never, ever thought that I would have to specifically define “two parent” as mother and father, ie male and female) households than any other “parental” configuration that you wish to choose or conjure up.”
That’s fine. That’s all I’m asking for is evidence. Where is it? And does this evidence specifically define two parent as mother and father?
You provide some evidence and you can begin to make a logical case against gay couples adopting. Without it, you don’t really have an argument, do you? Just an opinion.
And where in that is evidence of my “illogical logic”? A point was raised. I asked for supporting evidence. Isn’t that how logical arguments work? It was when I went to school, but that’s been a few years now…
Peace.
Dan, I have had discussions with you on several sites and you demand evidence from others, then furnish none of your own and continually ask questions and demand answers without feeling that obligation on your end.
I am over 20 years older than you, now that you mention the diaper thing to someone on this site and yet my age supposedly offers no indication of added wisdom. I have seen so many with common sense and Biblical knowledge refute your arguments. Do you really wish to know the truth or do you argue for the sake of arguing?
…something about casting pearls before swine?
mom2, if I am in error and no one shows me where, instead just telling me, “Dan you ask for evidence when it’s clear you’re wrong!”, then I can’t really change, can I?
If I’ve studied and prayed over a topic and reached my best understanding of God’s will, all with this poor failed brain of mine, I ought not change my position just because someone says, “Dan, you’re wrong,” correct? Unless they tell me how I’m wrong, I’d be wrong to change my position, wouldn’t I?
Unless someone provides some evidence or logical basis for their argument, why would a reasonable adult decide to agree with them?
…do not answer a fool according to his folly…
and the paradox:
…answer a fool according to his folly…
Dan:
Again, with all due respect, the evidence is there if one elects to look forward it! In fact, a Pew survey was released at the beginning of this month in regards to marriage and children. (That is one example that immediately comes to mind.) It is intellectually sloppy and lazy for you clamor for evidence if you are unwilling to do the leg work yourself. (Take Neil as an example of someone who not only offers evidence to support his own positions, but also takes the time to research the opposition’s position, and then deconstruct it in a succinct and eloquent fashion!)
There is a plethora of studies done by both sides of the debate. A quick and simple search is all that it takes. I appreciate the fact that you haven’t been in school for a few years – neither have I for that matter – but that has nothing to do with putting forth a little effort. So as to not appear as though I am dodging your question (yes, please read appeasement!) I also offer: http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/MothersFathersMatter.pdf
You want more evidence? Take a look a the dramatic decline of the black family with an abundant amount of evidence accumulating over the past 40 years. Please tell me or anyone else how not having an intact family consisting of a mother and father is not of consequence.
Other musings with respect to your most recent offering:
Very big of you to ask for evidence, yet you have yet to provide any data to support your position. Ancedotal findings is not the kind of data to hang one’s hat on.
With respect to your illogical logic, please refer to my previous post in which I took your argument to its illogical conclusion.
Oy Vey!
Respectfully,
Joseph
Addendum:
I offer one of my favorite quotes by President John Adams: Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
Neil et al, I apologize for the redundancy of my post with Mom2 above. Some are quicker at the draw than I!
Respectfully,
Joseph
Joseph said:
“Again, with all due respect, the evidence is there if one elects to look for it!”
Okay, so here’s a claim: I don’t think we should let conservatives vote. It is obvious that they would corrupt the system if allowed to vote. Therefore, I’m in favor of making public policy be such that it would discourage conservatives from voting.
I’ve offered a claim, hoping that others would accept it and be all the wiser. But you know what? Others aren’t accepting it. Why? Because I’ve offered no evidence.
If someone makes a claim that would deny benefits or rights to some group, is it not the responsibility of the claimant to support the claim? Or would you feel it necessary to come up with some evidence to demonstrate that conservatives aren’t corrupting the system when they vote?
If someone said, “But Dan, you made a wild claim that ‘Conservatives would corrupt the system if allowed to vote’ with no evidence of it!” Would I be right in saying, “Look it up. The evidence is out there if you just look for it!”?
No.
Do you get the point? When someone makes a wild claim such as this and they hope to get others to agree with them, then it behooves the person making the claim to support their point with evidence. If someone is just wanting to sound off, “I think Conservatives shouldn’t be encouraged to vote as a matter of public policy!!” that’s one thing. If they hope others to accept their claim, though, they have to offer some support.
Joseph noted:
“There is a plethora of studies done by both sides of the debate.”
Yes there is. And you’ve cited one source (Pew) that says marriage is good. A point that I and gay marriage supporters will gladly agree with. You’ve offered another view from a rightwing source that says gay marriage is bad as are gay parents.
Here’s a source that tells us the following:
The American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement that there are more similarities than differences in the way homosexual and heterosexuals raise their children, and that children are just as well adjusted in families of gay parents…
All the research to date has reached the same unequivocal conclusion about gay parenting: the children of gay parents grow up successfully as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parent’s sexual orientation…
The American Psychological Association, in a recent report reviewing the research, observed that “not a single study has found children of gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” and concluded that “home environments provided by gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth…”
You will note that, while the source I’m quoting is supportive of gay families (marriage being a certifiably good thing and all), that they are referencing something more substantial than just more studies done by right wing or left wing groups with an agenda. Of course, I’m sure you may think of the AAP and the APA as biased and with an agenda, and you are welcome to do so.
But then that just leaves us quoting studies from groups with which we agree. Then what? I reckon we could call each other “fools” and “swine,” that’s always good for some clean Christian fun…
Excellent points. Wish I had seen this on my blog-surfer earlier.
Once again, the culture is putting the desires of adults over the needs of children. It is the same lie that was foundational to the easy divorce and abortion movements: Adults are vulnerable, children are not.
“Vulnerable” might be the wrong term. I would say “worthwhile,” perhaps, because the real thought behind divorce and abortion is that the desires of the parents are more important than the needs of the children. So kids are second-class citizens.
Now, I was raised by my dad. I do think that it was a big driving force behind my choice of male-dominated professions. Studies do show that female CEOs have one trait on common: they describe themselves as “daddy’s girls.” Of course, this should underscore the importance of having parents of each gender who are active in child-rearing.
I do think that a lot of personality is influenced by nurture, and I do think that we can use that to figure out how we are failing both women and men in our society.
—-
Dan Trabue,
Do those studies control for income, education level of the parents, and age of the parents? Presumably, gay couples who can adopt are 1) older; 2) more educated; and 3) wealthier than the average heterosexual couple. Adoption is expensive. IVF is expensive. Lesbians couples don’t get knocked up in high school.
You are comparing one very self-selected group (those who choose to parent, have maturity, and financial resources) with a non-self-selecting group (those who have kids, by whatever choice or mechanism).
Neil said: I’m adding my comments here because I’m tired of seeing my face on the side bar. Good points about the studies, Bridget. Also, this is one of those “I can’t believe we’re having this conversation” topics. M/F parenting is intuitively superior by nature, design and what each person would want for themselves. Using Dan’s logic being raised by wolves would be acceptable until you had surveys to his liking that proved it was not as good.
Once again, I find the “born that way” argument to be lacking, but if people want to make the appeal to nature then it seems that they have to drop the pro-gay parenting view to be consistent.
A lot of the problem, IMHO, is that heterosexuals have made such a mess out of things that we can’t really claim that heterosexual marriage or parenting is superiour. After all, when 16-year-olds are single moms, surely there is more wrong with that than having two 30-something moms? Logically, it’s true: the opposite would have to prove that the addition of another woman is detrimental to the well-being of a child.
Honestly, I would take homosexual parenting any day over a lot of things: single parenting by teenagers and abortion come immediately to mind.
Anyway, we have 40% of babies born out of wedlock and roughly 25% of conceived children are aborted. Yeah, I can see why the gay movement can easily say, “Like we are that bad.”
Does the world ever make you not want to get out of bed in the morning?
Are those gay wolves?
Do to poor education or lack of ethics you can find a study these days to prove pretty much anything you like. If there is not one available you can easily buy one if you can afford it..
So I think the best thing to do is look at what God had to say, he probably has some idea how things should work. It seems clear that God intended for children to be raised by one man and one woman, and they should be the man and woman who conceived the child after having committed themselves to the task by marriage.
If that is not possible, and neither biological parent is able or willing, then it seems reasonable that the child should be raised by the closest possible substitute. And that would be a committed married couple consisting of one man and one woman.
I still believe that environment has something to do with homosexuality. People may or may not be born with a tendency toward it, but everybody has a choice. Even if that choice is celibacy.
“Are those gay wolves?”
Ha! I’m laughing out loud over here. Many thanks. You are the front-runner for my entry to Tammi’s “comment of the week” post.
Excellent summary on the serious points as well!
Theo,
I would not say that heterosexuals have made a mess of things. I would say that ignoring God’s instructions has made a mess of things.
And when it comes to choosing parents, it would be nice to do better that the lesser of two evils.
SST,
I’m an atheist. :p I will say that ignoring aeons of wisdom (from whatever source) has gotten us here.
As a moral matter, I completely agree that we shouldn’t run around and talk about the lesser of two evils without working to get to a point where we aren’t talking about various evils at all. Nevertheless, from a legal perspective, it’s difficult to allow a 16-year-old to parent her two children by three separate men (well, she’s not sure about one of the guys….) while forbidding single women or homosexuals from adopting children or having them via IVF.
We should either set up a system whereby we do everything possible to mandate two-parent households (encouraging adoption, reducing teen pregnancy, reducing out-of-wedlock nonsense that gets us here in the first place – or perhaps remove all of the welfare and tax incentives for being a single parent), or we should (reluctantly, if one is Christian) allow gay couples to go about their business. After all, it’s utterly illogical to suggest that the addition of another person undermines the familial structure (unless, of course, that person is the boyfriend of a single mom; the abuse rates are absolutely disproportionate to any other situation you can imagine).
(Of course, I’m not sure if anyone is arguing the legal side here, so I could be arguing a straw man…. but this is really the source of my discomfort.)
And now the whole world know why Wyoming is so opposed to the wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone
Hey Neil! Thanks for pointing this out on COTW! Excellent post!