On 02.04.02 USA TODAY contributing writer, Marilyn Elias, wrote an article entitled:
Doctors Back Gay ‘Co-Parents’
Elias reported that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the nation’s largest pediatric group called for state laws that allow homosexuals to adopt their partners’ children since recent research shows that heterosexual and homosexual parents can fuction with equal effectiveness in raising kids.
Legal “co-parent” status for gays would promote children’s best interests, says pediatrician Joseph Hagan Jr., chair of the panel that authored the new American Academy of Pediatrics policy.
Only a handful of states have approved co-parent adoptions for homosexuals. Meanwhile, a “gayby boom” is taking place as growing numbers of gays adopt or have their own biological children using donor sperm or female surrogates. Several million children in the USA are being raised by homosexual parents at this time and many are pushing for more institutional policy that will normalize this view with the hopes of eventually lead to legislation.
Having two legal parents would give these kids the same health insurance and survivor benefits as youngsters raised by straight married couples. Also, if a gay couple split up, the adoptive parent could claim custody or visitation rights as well as be liable for child support.
“We’re talking rights and responsibilities that provide long-term security for the child,” Hagan says. The heterosexual pattern “is the gold standard, and right now we’re in the bronze age for gay and lesbian families.”
Ellen Perrin, behavioral pediatrics expert, of Tufts New England Medical Center in Boston said that,
“research shows that children of homosexuals develop just as normally as kids in heterosexual families.”
Incidentally, Perrin wrote a scientific summary used by AAP as the basis for its new policy.
Also, the policy goes on to advise pediatricians to lobby legislatures and speak out in judicial hearings.
Question:
While Christians can combat this view from the Biblical vantage point, I would like to try and address this from a non-Christian point perspective.
In other words, can we use persuasive argumentation that comes from a best-for-society point of view. What are some reasons why ‘Co-Parents’ will damage society?
I work with many Pediatric Physicians all over the country and I can say without reservation that most or all would be appalled by this decision of the AAP. This also sets these physicians up for lawsuits and ridicule if they have a moral objection to caring for children of these types of strange and in my opinion highly unhealthy arrangements.
With that said, and to answer your question……
One good non-Christian argument is that this seems to be for selfish reasons as these co-parents want to be accepted and be just like normal male and female parents. They do not seem to be thinking of the child’s well being or social development at all. It’s as though this is a fad or like having a pet to show off to others to be accepted.
In society today that child would be considered an oddball, outcast, and ridiculed as being different because of their strange and immoral parents. Not a good environment for raising a child.
However, a good counter argument to my statements above would be that children of mixed race marriages experienced the same kind of ridicule years ago (being called names like zebra), and though society is more accepting these days of mixed race marriages as being normal (as they should IMO), that ridicule and racism still exists everywhere, and most of us would admit doing a double take if we saw such a couple walking down the street today.
In that case they physically produced that child and they did not go down to the local child/pet store or sperm/egg store and pick one out as these co-parents would.
The short non-Christian answer would be (why put the child through the potential tribulations as they will have less of a chance for a normal life in our society today) They are being selfish.
So is this argument weak or strong?
Was this article from back in 2002? Thought it was new. If it is truly 4+ years old then it’s not having much impact at all.
CA – is your argument basically the “oddball” tactic?
Playing the “oddball” card might be a effective with some people. However, the people driving this — gays and lesbians who demand approval of their lifestyle — are not likely to be persuaded by an argument along those lines.
How about this line of questioning…
If two dads are as good as a mom and a dad, does a mom add nothing to the family dynamic (except another pair of hands)?
Or likewise…
If two moms are as good as a mom and a dad, does a dad add nothing to the family dynamic (except another pair of hands)?
My “best-for-society” argument goes like this:
Let’s suppose the idea of “parent” doesn’t really mean anything specific. On the view offered here, a “parent”:
* Has a responsibility to provide health insurance and survivor benefits.
* Is liable for child support.
This is purely functional. It also suggests that there is no difference between the way men and women fulfill the “parent” role, historically referred to as “father” and “mother.”
This raises a question: who is better able to fulfill the functional role of “parent,” a man or a woman?
* Who is better able to provide health insurance and survivor benefits? From what I understand, men are much more successful financially and professionally, so men have the edge here.
* Who is better able to provide child support? Men, for the same reason.
Moreover, this role of “parent” evidently carries a claim on the child for visitation rights. If this is about the child’s greatest good, isn’t it better to minimize the claims made against the child? It seems to me that men — the absentee “never-see-’em” moneymakers — will make fewer demands on the child, so again, men excel women by this functional parenting analysis.
On this view, it seems to me, women have no business raising kids. They can’t provide for them as well as men can, and they make too many demands of them.
So the debate ought not be same-sex parenting vs. the “heterosexual pattern.” Instead, we ought to be debating whether women — lesbians included — have any business in childrearing.
… or maybe society has had it right all along? Maybe there’s more to parenting than money and health insurance and visitation rights…
Could it be that there’s an intangible core of love and nurturing?
Could it be that men and women … are different?
Could it be that this quaint idea of the “father” isn’t about providing for material needs… but is actually vital to the core of a child’s identity?
Could it be that the oppressive stereotype of the “mother” isn’t a mere boat anchor on society, but something more like… indispensable?
Try to picture a man — even a gay man — going to a mother-daughter retreat and claiming he can do a woman’s job in the role of “mother.”
Try to picture a woman — even a lesbian — going to a father-son camping trip and claiming she can do a man’s job in the role of “father.”
Picture a boy boasting about “his ol’ gal.”
Picture a girl walking into a father-daughter dance with her two “daddies” — or her lesbian pseudo-father.
In our society, the problem with families isn’t that we take mothering and fathering too seriously. It’s that we don’t take those things seriously enough.
Far from being an improvement, claiming that there are no differences between men and women and mothers and fathers only makes things worse.
CA, yeah, that’s a weak argument.
Eric & Hugh, your arguments paint a picture of a child being raised by two stereotypical heterosexual males when a more accurate picture would probably be one parent possessing the attributes/demeanor/attitude of the opposite gender (The Bird Cage).
Essentially the “heterosexual pattern” but with the same hardware.
David, maybe you are more familiar with typical gay parenting. :p
Maybe I’m a simple man, but dads are men and women are moms. Heather has Two Mommies seems to bear that out.
You just had to link to that book with our Amazon affiliate ID, didn’t you? :p
“Probably” is a key word in my previous post.
“Maybe I’m a simple man, but dads are men and women are moms. Heather has Two Mommies seems to bear that out.”
Yeah, that book was written for 2-6 year olds. :p
But isn’t the six-your-old test perfect?
Ask a six-year-old what she sees when looking at a child with two female parents, regardless of hairstyle and mannerism. You will get a simple answer: “Heather has two mommies.” The teleology is so simple that any child can see it. It takes adult powers of rationalization and suppression of the obvious to see anything else.
About as perfect as the six year old’s test that declares bats are birds, dolphins are fish, fish breath water, and so on.
It just seems in my experience interacting with and observing homosexual couples that it’s pretty easy to tell which partner plays what role in the relationship.
Relating it back to the interracial couple topic, wouldn’t you say family is more about the parental figures than physical attributes?
I’d reject the premise that the differences between men and women are merely physical attributes. Each sex is designed for a purpose. The physical differences are there to enable each to fulfill its purpose. They are not what fundamentally make a person a man or woman. That’s why ‘race’ is immaterial to marriage.
By the way, I’m not compelled that the subtleties of animal classification are anything like the simplicity of the fact that daddies are men and mommies are women.
It does not seem these arguments are addressing Dan’s request of trying to discuss this from a non-Christian perspective. Maybe another way of putting this is to leave the “morality” issues out of the equation. Also maybe a non-Intellectual perspective would be good since most of these people are dealing on very strong emotions and not usually intellect alone. So an emotional argument might better and is where my comments about being selfish and how this can be so bad for the child because of the potential for ridicule in today’s society.
I have two unique inside tracks to this blog subject in that I work with Pediatricians all over the country that would strongly disagree with the AAP’s stance, and my sister in law is a practicing lesbian who has lived with another woman for many years. My sister in law’s 18 year old son from her heterosexual marriage years ago has been brought up in this environment. This is one great kid that we love dearly but also one that is very emotionally screwed up because of the environment he has had to be raised in. He cannot wait to move out of that place! A very sad situation and in this case the selfishness of his mother for her “lifestyle” over her son’s wellbeing has caused him years of emotional abuse. Both inside and outside the home. How is that for a real life augment? No theory here. 😉
CA, good example. Out of curiousity, how is your nephew emotionally screwed up?
Eric, the examples weren’t about classification but surface level observations — fish breath air they just get it differntly. The old “if it quacks like a duck” saying isn’t always true.
So you agree that the differences between the genders are more than just physical. I think we’d all agree it takes more than just being a male that has offspring to be a “dad.” Though not the norm, why not be able seperate the gender of “mom” or “dad” from the figure/role of “mom or “dad”?
Besides the parent’s hardware, how is it any different than a working mom and a stay at home dad? Is that situation damaging to society too?
C.A., I agree that a good emotional argument can be very effective in a culture where people are trained to emote and not think. However, I don’t think it’s possible to make an argument that is devoid of morality, because all arguments are moral arguments. Even your personal anecdote (which would probably be very effective with some people) is a moral argument. There is an implication that your nephew ought not have been subject to emotional abuse. Why not? Because it’s wrong.
However, that is not the the same as arguing from the Bible or Christianity, per se. My appeal is to their inate sense of right and wrong. While people supress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), they are made in the image of God and, I believe, retain a remnant of conscience.
If all that sounds intellectual, I’ll have to beg forgiveness. I have a thinking problem. 🙂
CA — better to apply the intellect here, in a detached debate, than in the heat of a situation where emotions cloud the truth and get you into trouble. I wouldn’t advocate trying to reason with somebody in a crisis situation any more than I would advocate bringing a theology textbook into a funeral home. Just ask Job how that sort of thing goes over.
But if we don’t apply our intellect to this (or any other) question before we need to think about it, it will be too late to think about it when you hear God saying, “Have you considered my servant, C.A.?”
David — I see your point about there being points of resemblance to the “Mr. Mom” scenario. However, I’m afraid that’s going to confuse an already-complicated discussion… can we agree to table that question and stick to the same-sex childrearing question? There’s plenty there to keep us going.
Echoing Eric’s point — there is a place for the emotional appeal. Aristotle specifically identified what he called the pathos as a fundamental component of rhetoric. Part of the problem with the whole “postmodernism” thing is that it tends to take emotionalism to the extreme, rejecting logic and ethics (the other two components of Aristotle’s rhetoric) almost out-of-hand.
Again, in the heat of the moment — go with the pathos. Just make sure you’ve thought through the ethos and logos beforehand, so you don’t find yourself improvising on the truth when the rubber meets the road.
David, you do know how to push my buttons. Your ability to take the most intuitively obvious facts and make them seem as if equivocation is warranted simply baffles me.
First:
I’m not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that “if a person functions like a dad, it doesn’t make him (or her) a dad?” Or are you saying that “if a person fits my preconceived notions of what a ‘dad’ should be, it doesn’t make him (or her) a dad?”
Second:
It seems like you’re saying that we value people for the roles they play, so if somebody’s good at that role, why not let them fill it?
The problem has to do with qualifications and liberty. Because I lack the (to use your phrase) “hardware” to conceive and carry a child, I am neither qualified nor at liberty to be a mother. Ultimately, this goes back to Eric’s point about teleology.
Let’s take that point further. Because I lack certain physical features, I cannot function physically as a mother. But who among us can claim to understand the complexities of the emotional workings of parents and children?
Just for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the physical features of the parents cease to matter once reproduction is achieved. But how can we justify the jump from that supposition to the conclusion that the immaterial components of the parents’ masculinity and femininity count for nothing?
How can we claim to know that, as far as family dynamics are concerned, the masculinity or femininity of the people involved is of no consequence? Even someone coming from a naturalistic worldview has some explaining to do on that question.
What I should have stated was to not use our brand of “morality” based on our faith as the request was to come up with arguments from a non-Christian perspective. Obviously this comes down to a moral issue of right and wrong, but there is also non-Christian morality to some extent. It might just not mirror our own. I think that is what Dan wanted.
As to answer David’s question of how my nephew had become emotionally screwed up from the environment he had to endure……multiple total emotional breakdowns and severe depression and despair to the point were we were investigating places for counseling for him. I was concerned that he was suicidal. It is not good for a young boy to not feel loved from his mother and not feel welcome in the home he lives in. This has been the case for years. He did not do well in school his senior year and did not even have the privilege of graduating with his class last year and has to finish up this year.
Mary knows him better than I and in the past has shared Christ with him and the hope and peace He can bring to such a mess. At this point we hope he joins the military as he does not have much and I believe he is now living with friends. Your prayers for him are appreciated. His name is Kevin and he is now 18.
God forbid that some of these co-parents get all excited about having a child and later realize the responsibility and inconvenience a child can be to their lifestyle. Possibly losing interest in this child and not giving the love and nurturing needed as happened to my own nephew.
So what are some other good reasons this is wrong from a non-Christian perspective?
I don’t think its possible to combat a moral issue from a non-Christian perspective (i.e. in the absence of the scriptures). Any argument I come up with is itself a moral issue.
I could point out for example that monogomy is virutally unknown among homosexual men, no matter how ‘committed’ their relationship. This would seem to be a valid reason to keep children out that environment. However, why is sex with multiple partners wrong? I could say because it can lead to disease but if I take precautions and never get sick, is it still wrong? Without an appeal to scripture there is no answer.
I could also say that having children in an environment where sexual promiscuity is rampant puts them at risk of sexual exploitation but again, why is sex with kids wrong? Some people think its perfectly OK.
Even the phrase ‘best for society’ is subject to interpretation. What is considred ‘best for society’ on the campus of Harvard is much different than it would be in small town Georgia. With no absolute standard to appeal to, your answer is as good as mine.
Personally I think the main reason that Christians are losing the ‘culutre wars’ is our reticence to publicly and unashamedly preach the Word and use the scriptures to make our arugments.
As I think Dan pointed out Sunday, the Roman Empire was not changed by Christians acting as social activists combating slavery, etc. but by the preaching of the Word which changed lives which in turn changed culture.
CA said: “…multiple total emotional breakdowns and severe depression and despair to the point were we were investigating places for counseling for him…It is not good for a young boy to not feel loved from his mother and not feel welcome in the home he lives in…God forbid that some of these co-parents get all excited about having a child and later realize the responsibility and inconvenience a child can be to their lifestyle.”
I will pray for your your nephew but for the sake of argument, I would say that the issue is the (lack of) parenting — not the sexual orientation of the parents. The same “co-parent” senario you described happens to kids of heterosexual couples all the time.
I like to push Hugh’s buttons. 🙂 Just throwing out counters since we’re not supposed to say “because God said so.” Keeping it fun.
Hugh, by the duck comment I’m saying that things don’t always break down to the simplicity of a 4 year old’s first impression. (“After all, real things are not simple. They look simple but they are not.” – C.S. Lewis) I think a more accurate title for the book would be Heather Has Two Female Parents but then that wouldn’t be on the 4-6 year old level.
“It seems like you’re saying that we value people for the roles they play, so if somebody’s good at that role, why not let them fill it?”
Generally, yes.
“Because I lack the (to use your phrase) ‘hardware’ to conceive and carry a child, I am neither qualified nor at liberty to be a mother.”
While it’s true that a man is not equipped to be a physical mother, that’s pretty bold of you to declare that all males are not qualified, nor at liberty, to raise a child as the mom-figure. Maybe we should should add that as Hugh’s Amendment to the Constitution — oh yeah, the Republicans are already trying to. (Sarcasm for argumentative effect only.)
Again, separate the idea of gender, not masculinity/femininity, from the role/figure of “dad/mom”.
Okay okay…without getting into Hugh and David’s (church) family feud, I’ll attempt to add my 1.5 cents.
How to make a moral argument from a non-Christian perspective? I disagree with Larry; I think it’s possible. But you just can’t argue morally–even though you have a moral point. Here’s my shot at it:
Argue from an evolutionary perspective. That’s pretty non-Christian. Ask these two questions: “Has evolution prepared the sexes for certain roles and functions that are dramatically divergent between the sexes?” Yes. “Is evolution, the overriding principle of the universe, about survival of the fittest, producing the best advanced design for survival of the species, and the propagation of its young?” Yes.
Now you’ve got a problem for same-sex parenting. If you believe in evolution, it’s prepared the sexes for very different roles. And not without reason–it’s for the benefit of the entire species, and especially for the wellbeing of its young. If homosexuals disregard such an ancient and advanced system of raising young, they are actually de-evolving their families. Their family represents, not an emerging social awareness and tolerance, but a step backward in evolution! Didn’t they ever watch that old PBS Evolution special “Why Sex?” Then, hypocritically, they expect children raised in this environment that evolution itself avoids to be just as well-developed as children raised in the traditional family, which evolution obviously finds best. What’s more, they’ll teach their children evolutionary principles of progress, while they themselves have created a family that goes against the grain of evolutionary progress. Surely even the naturalist sees this as insanity!
(Note: this argument also works for theists. Just replace “evolution” with “God” and argue His intent as Designer.)
Oops…I left out the moral point. The moral point is that such an evolutionary backward way of raising a child can’t be good for the child. It can’t be in his best interests. Really, it seems quite selfish on the part of the parents…
One question I would like all of you who are arguing from a secular perspective is how you handle the issue of single parents. Don’t many of the arguments against same-sex parents also end up also saying that a single parent is not capable of properly raising a child?
How can you say that it is not possible for a child with two female parents to have one who acts more motherly and one who acts more fatherly (according to traditional roles) if a single mother would have to basically attempt both herself?
David: when I said, “Because I lack the (to use your phrase) ‘hardware’ to conceive and carry a child, I am neither qualified nor at liberty to be a mother,” perhaps I should have said I am neither qualified nor at liberty to bear a child.
My point there was strictly addressing the physical side of the father/mother question. It’s physically impossible for a man to bear a child. No Constitutional amendment required. 😉
Jeffrey: well said. For anybody whose eyes glazed over when Eric and I said “teleology,” Jeffrey’s done a smashing job of painting the teleological picture.
Whether you invoke God or Darwin to account for the way we are, you can’t deny that the way we’re put together is inseparable from our fitness for a certain purpose. In Darwin’s case, it’s survival of the fittest; in God’s case, it’s to mirror his image.
Larry: on the question of arguing without appealing to the Scriptures:
Are you saying it is illegitimate, or altogether impossible?
Matt: There’s a difference in the case of the single parent.
The single parent got that way because of death or divorce. In other words, becoming a parent was never morally questionable per se.
On the same-sex question, we’re talking about the fitness of members of a class of people to become parents in advance of their becoming parents. There are two key distinctions there:
1. We’re talking about these people without knowing anything about them other than that they are homosexual. For all we know, they may be personally wonderful people who could discharge the tangible, outward functions of a parent admirably. As such, we are speaking to the way their homosexuality influences their fitness as parents.
2. We’re talking about people who are not yet parents (of a certain child, anyway). The option to avoid the unfortunate situation is still open; for the single parent, no such option exists (in the case of the widow) or is already covered by another ethical question (the propriety of divorce).
Matt, yes, the same liability exists in single-parent homes. Who would argue that it is not better for a child to be raised by a mother and a father than just one or the other? I doubt that there are many single parents who wouldn’t prefer for their children to have both a father and a mother raising them. However, that doesn’t mean that it cannot be done. And I’m not saying that a same-sex couple could not raise a child.
Hugh, agreed, but that doesn’t address the issue in question – the ability of same sex co-parents to raise a happy, healthy, functional child.
Jeffrey said:
“Has evolution prepared the sexes for certain roles and functions that are dramatically divergent between the sexes? Yes.”
Amphibians can change their sexual roles (even their functions) based on what’s needed at the time. Certain fish change sexes depending on how old they are — not to mention birds and crustaceans. And don’t forget about the pregnant male seahorses too.
Seems to have worked for them through the years. It could be said that it makes them more “fit.” Maybe one day we humans will get there. (Now that’s a crazy thought. :^O )
OK. Interesting discussion… In an effort to bring us back to the original idea of trying to, “address this from a non-Christian point perspective.” Along with the question: “Can we use persuasive argumentation that comes from a best-for-society point of view?” Along with, “What are some reasons why ‘Co-Parents’ will damage society?”
I understand that we are using a moral argument on one level regarding this, “a best-for-society” type of question induces a moral category. However, I think it is valuable to explore (like Justin Martyr did, see July 20.06 blog) how society will suffer as a result of this worldview. For example, I think a powerful argument would be the preservation of society. Homosexual couples by definition cannot reproduce, so they are hostile to the longevity of a society. If a society incorporates homosexual tendencies and eventually patterns throughout its populace, it will mean the end of that society when it hits the “tipping” point. As a society ages and turns to non-reproductive lifestyles it will result in a decrease and, given enough time and concentration, extinction. Therefore, homosexual “Co-Parents” are bad since they cannot contribute to society.
Society as a whole should call for a person, or group, to repel such a position since it will damage the society. Even if an individual person thinks it is a good and desirable behavior society should oppose it like we do other societal ills (marrying first cousins, sex with minors, etc.).
I think this argument is compelling and very often overlooked as a legitimate line of questioning by Christians. It also must be addressed by homosexual advocates since it is a reasonable argument to consider.
Hugh, it is not possible to argue the rightness or wrongness of something apart from an external, objective standard. By not possible I don’t mean someone cannot physcially open their mouth and make an arugment or cannot pick up pen and write about it, just that they cannot do so successfully. Perhaps I should have said “not possible to argue successfully.”
Now, I suppose you could have such a standard that is something other than the Bible in which case the legitimacy of the standard comes into play but right and wrong as concepts do not exist if no external (to man) standard by which to measure them exists.
Dan, aren’t you kind of jumping from the “accepting gay parents” question to the “gay parenting will decimate the population” conclusion. Sounds kind of Barney Fife-like… “you let a couple of ’em go and pretty soon EVERYBODY will have two mommies!”
I don’t think you have to extrapolate all the way out to extinction before you start finding a downside.
Cannot, Dan? I don’t think you mean that in an absolute sense, do you? You’re not saying they’re worthless, are you?
Larry, let’s suppose I wanted to argue about what the Bible means… which often crops up when you start debating homosexuality.
What external, objective standards would work when you want to argue for the validity of the Scripture we have today? For that matter, even if you grant that the Bible is true to the original writings, what objective standards support the authority of Scripture on this (or any) topic?
Dear Larry: Nobody here is saying that we should not argue this issue based on God’s word and morality (in the real world we live in). Dan was simply asking us to go through the exercise of thinking about this from a non-Christian standpoint to maybe help us to understand the subject better and have some deep discussions. I was just trying to get back to that edict from lord Daniel. 😉
As well as losing the culture war, we as Christians also tend to not use scripture and tend to go on pure emotion and judgment of others with little to no love or compassion for those people. However we are aliens in this world and we will lose the culture war because we are not of this world. That is the sad truth.
You are right on in that our job is to shine the light, speak truth in love, and share the Gospel. The rest is up to God.
Hugh: Yes, I am running to an end-line argument, but I think it is helpful for a non-believer to consider. While it is not the only argument, nor, maybe the first argument, I do think it holds merit. Also, I don’t think that the conclusion is as stark as you make it out to be. It is not simply gay-parenting ratios that must be considered in the “tipping point” but also the rate of older people exiting society (i.e. dying). With the growth rate of “Gay-Parents” along with the “death-rate” a society can find itself coming to its demise much quicker (I believe the Roman Empire is comparible as an example in this argument). Also, with the rise of media, family breakdown, etc., it is reasonable to believe that “gay lifestyles” will increase more in an exponential way.
“Cannot” is in reference to the argument that regardless of how they may help society (e.g. great computer programmers can be “gay”) they will ultimately debilitate society in the long run. Therefore, they “cannot” sustain a society and that would be bad, even morally bad.
Hugh, there is no standard above scripture to which we can appeal.
Scripture IS the standard I’m speaking of. There are many arguments that can be used to bolster the trustworthiness of the Bible but if someone does not believe the Bible to be true, no amount of argument or appeal to other ‘authority’ will convince them otherwise. Only the Holy Spirit can do that work.
C.A. If I said that Dan (or anyone here) was denying the importance of the scriptural argument, then I certainly apologize as that was not my intention (nor do I belive it’s what I said). I was not responding to your comment directly (though mine came right after yours) but to the post in general. I realize this is a discussion to get us to think and what I shared were my thoughts on the topic.
So Larry –
…if someone does not believe the Bible to be true, no amount of argument or appeal to other ‘authority’ will convince them otherwise. Only the Holy Spirit can do that work.
On that view, doesn’t that make Dan’s question inappropriate?
P.S. Larry – thanks for jumping into the fray. Your humble response to C.A. is gracious and welcome…
I don’t know how long you’ve been “lurking” out there, but if it hasn’t been long, surf through the blog archives sometime. It won’t take you long to realize that the blogs (especially the comments) should always be taken in the most charitable light possible. People are dashing out their thoughts pretty quickly while doing other things. While we do try to be as accurate, precise, and coherent as possible, in the end, it’s just a blog.
My motto for this sort of thing is that we should love people, be critical of ideas (our own most of all), and humbly apply ourselves to a “faith seeking understanding” that glorifies God.
Anyway, I appreciate your gracious tone, and as a “regular” I assure you that none of the “regulars” took you to be unduly confrontational.
My repsonse for Dan would be that same sex co-parents aren’t about producing more homosexuals but existing ones raising children. Assuming good parenting, no one can prove that it is harmful to the child and there aren’t any other concerns besides everyone eventually turning homosexual and the human race dying off into extinction.
If the ultimate end is extinction then isn’t the ultimate end of heterosexuality over-population?
With the earth not getting any bigger and the human population of 6,534,007,199 growing exponentially maybe a little “non-reproductive lifestyle” is actually better for us as a whole considering the other options of natural population control: war, disease, and starvation.
Does anyone have any more immediate and practical concerns?
P.S. Larry, I second Hugh’s last post.
Thanks for your response Larry. I had only wanted to explain the context of my previous posts so you knew that I am not an ol heathen or fish-eyed fool. Not even a Big Dummy. (Gratuitous Sanford and Son References)
For the argument that homosexuals cannot reproduce, and hence could cause our eventual extinction….as long as there are artificial means of conception, and women willing to be surrogates for co-parents of either gender, this seems to be a non-argument. We could potentially continue as a race for years and not have a single heterosexual partnership left on earth. Scary but true IMO. I think the rapture would happen before we ever got to that point for us pre-tribbers.
Anyone else agree?
Hugh, thanks! No offense taken here.
I felt after I wrote it that my response to C.A. might have been a bit terse but it was not intended that way, so I’m glad you felt it was gracious. If it came across otherwise C.A., please forgive me.
To answer your question, I don’t think it makes Dan’s question inappropriate. His goal it seems is not to convince them (homosexual activists) of the truth of the scriptures but to try to deal with this issue from a point of view that they might accept (having rejected God’s word already in most cases) in an effort to stem the moral decline of our society. In other words, he’s not saying you must believe the Bible, he’s saying, even if you don’t here are some reasons your lifstyle is wrong.
C.A.
Good ol’ Aunt Esther. Gotta love her. 🙂
Yeah, C.A., global extinction would be a weak argument.
David, I’m curious. Do you see any justification for government (i.e., society) to meddle in marriage at all? For example, doing things like issuing marriage licenses, having divorce laws, etc? The amphibians and transsexual fish seem to do just fine without all of that, after all.
Good point C.A. Although I think the argument still has merit, it does lose it potency in light of the advent of modern medicine.
What?! Mention a transsexual fish and no one takes you seriously anymore. ;^)
Eric, you’re mixing points. That was in response to discrediting one of Jeffrey’s “givens” in his evolutionary argument — not a commentary on the rights of government.
Seems off topic so I won’t go there now.
OK, forget the fish and Jeffrey’s point. It’s still relevant. Does society have a place regulating marriage?
To Larry’s point, when you remove all external standards — usually religious — all you are left with is something that resembles the Libertarian philosophy.
“Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle.”
Can anyone make a case that co-parents raising children would infringe on others’ liberties?
Absolutely! Society doesn’t really impose much in the way of requirements on people who get married — except that they stay married. Where society kicks in is when the family breaks down; this is why you have the government playing such a prominent role in divorce.
In other words, the government’s main reason for saying “this is what it means to get married” is that the government is going to enforce its will in terms of “this is what it means to get un-married.”
But why?
… because marriage produces the next generation. I know there are marriages that don’t, but I’m talking about the norm, not some goofy conjecture from the back alleys of “what-if” land.
Society has a vested interest in protecting (regulating) marriage because marriage is where the next generation of the society comes from.
… which brings us back to the whole same-sex thing. So here’s a question that’s directly in line with the original topic:
Same-sex “parents” cannot produce the next generation. Why would we want them to raise the next generation?
I smell a trap… How would you define “liberties?” There could be “liberties” that have nothing substatial to do with society (i.e. libertarian view that behind closed doors in my house I can do what I want). However, there are “liberties” that are curtailed since they affect society adversly – screaming “FIRE” in a movie theatre when there is no fire. In this case and many others, a person’s “liberties” are limited since the potential harm to the many is greater than the liberty of the one or few.
So, how are you using the term, “liberties?”
Well said Hugh. I believe the argument: “Why would we want them to raise the next generation” when they cannot create the next generation due to their “lifestyle.” From a purely “form” view, “Co-Parents” fail the test of being a parent – producing offspring in the way nature intended.
Actually, I didn’t mean it as an argument. I meant it to turn the question around…
You’ve got two sides in this debate. One side advocates for traditional families in a way that is consistent with millennia of success to commend it.
The other wants to overturn the entire social fabric of all human history and start “doing family” in a way that is (at best) untested in practice, functionally illogical, morally dubious, and intuitively bizarre.
It seems to me that the latter group bears the burden of proof.
Well said. That’s an important thing to keep in mind.
“Why would we (implied decent, normal, loving heterosexuals) want them (implied vulgar, devient, harmful homosexuals) to raise the next generation?”
We’ve kept them on the outskirts of society and denied them their rights this long, why not just continue?
Seems a rather oppressive question for not being able to answer the “why not” first.
David, you inferred the commentary. Hugh did not imply it. Also, there is nothing oppressive about asking for justification for changing a social practice that is thousands of years old.
I don’t think the “we” or “them” is meant as a pejorative remark. I think it is simply a way of expressing and representing an alternate view as part of basic distinction. If I was a Republican speaking with Republicans I would say “we” and identify those who oppose us as “them.” I am not sure how else normal compare/contrast argumentation would be expressed.
David, admit it. You’re just causing trouble. 😉
Here’s what I meant (and I don’t think I was suffering from bigwordorrhea this time):
“Why would we (the people who make up the society, of which the homosexuals are a part) want them (the would-be same-sex “parents”) to raise the next generation?”
I thought you were serious until you played the “oppressive” card.
Dang, and I fell for it, too!
Just trying to keep it real. Remember it’s a post-modern world out there. 😀
“Also, there is nothing oppressive about asking for justification for changing a social practice that is thousands of years old.”
Eric, regarding why not, so far no one has come up with anything besides, “well, because they’re gay, that’s why.”
David is the Hezbollah of the blog world… in a good way…
I’m not sure where you’ve been, but I’ve heard various reasons given, but “they’re gay” wasn’t one.
1. The odd-ball argument – weak
2. The gay lifestyle is not compatible with raising children (self-serving, promiscuous, etc.) – stereotypical demonizing
3. The essence of the role of a parent is inseparable from the physicality of each parent’s gender – arguable, ignores the ideas of masculinity and femininity
4. Natural evolution has prepared the sexes for certain roles and functions that are dramatically divergent between the sexes – wrong
5. Everyone will turn gay and the human race will be driven into extinction – humorous (sorry Dan)
How does that ignore masculinity and femininity? I would say that’s actually central to that argument.
It says that since you don’t have the female reproductive organs, you are not capable of being a feminine role model or mother-figure (AKA: Mom) in a child’s life.
David, based on your assessment of the arguments given, I’m inclined to ask… Do you see anything inherently wrong (aberrant, deviant, etc.) with same-sex marriage? Or is it, rather, just arbitrary social convention that says that we should have one of each sex in a marriage?
Did I miss where this argument was proven wrong? Did the lizard do it?
I quote from Koukl. It is dangerous, both to those who practice it as well as to those who don’t. Play the danger to society card.
Homosexuality, for example, is a practice that is dangerous. These dangers are inherent to its practice. Homosexuality entails activities that are not only dangerous to personal health, they cannot be made safe. Let me repeat that: Homosexuality cannot be made safe . Some of the unsafe elements can be minimized, or lessened somewhat. But the danger cannot be removed.
Further, the unhealthy element and its consequences influence people who are not involved in the behavior itself. This is important, because there’s a minimalist ethic that says I can do what I want as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else. But you see, homosexual practices do hurt other people. They spread AIDS to non-homosexuals, for one.
Pat, from my own family experiences I can agree how dangerous and destructive this lifestyle can be. Thanks.
On a lighter note…I think the Talladega Nights-Ricky Bobby (Rukkie Booby) movie proved your points very well! Being gay is dangerous enough to watch on the big screen or see in public, but being gay with Andy Richter and French too? That was just awful! 😉
David: The argument I posed was not as simple as saying, “Everyone will turn gay and the human race will be driven into extinction.” Would it not be wrong to promote/sanction an activity/lifestyle that harms the ability for a society to continue? I believe the very essence of a “couple” not being able to naturally reproduce has merit. There is something wrong with that in relation to nature itself. I would say it is deviant based on this point alone.
I understand the “Hezbollah” in you wants to help us think, but to simply to dismiss it without a cogent argument is presumptuous? I will surrender to C.A. that the ability to artificially reproduce does soften the argument for an “ability” point of view, but not from a naturalistic point of view.
BTW. I am still interested in your definition of “liberties.”
Let’s refocus. We aren’t arguing homosexuality. The original question was “What are some reasons why ‘Co-Parents’ will damage society?”
Restated, what are some reasons why same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt and raise children?
It’s about the raising of the child, not how the child comes to be. If you want to use nature as the standard for how we are to raise our offspring then the examples run the gamut. (I remember in 5th grade when the class gerbils had babies and the daddy chewed all the babies in half.)
As for “what’s best for society”, with over-population (globally) and the amount of children that are in need of adoption (nationally and globally), would you really say that it’s best for society to have all those children grow up with NO parents than to be raised by loving parents that happen to be the same gender?
Sidenote: As the antagonist, it’s my job to paint your responses in a negative light – nothing personal. 🙂
Pat, the homosexuals are out to get you … they want to give you AIDS.
If humans were intended to fly then we’d have wings, right?
Flying, for example, is a practice that is dangerous. These dangers are inherent to its practice. Flying entails activities that are not only dangerous to personal health, they cannot be made safe. Let me repeat that: Flying cannot be made safe. Some of the unsafe elements can be minimized, or lessened somewhat. But the danger cannot be removed.
We should begin the paperwork for legislation that doesn’t allow pilots or people who ride on airplanes to adopt, immediately!
Wow!
Mr. (aka Davey Fresh aka Clam Boy)
I was going to defend you from Dan on his Hezbollah comparison of your blogging, but after reading the last couple of entries from you I think the best thing now is for you to lay down your Katyushas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha
and call for a UN resolution on the matter. ;
Any French bloggers here that we can work with on this?
I would argue that the propriety of same-sex marriage is at the heart of any argument over same-sex couple adoption of children.
Reiterating my previous post, this is the path one is taken down when he attempts to argue apart from scripture. We’ve now made it all the way to: homosexuality is no different than plane flying. Moral relativism at its finest! 🙂
This sets up a bit of a straw man argument. No one said that it was better for a child to grow up with no parents at all than to grow up with two parents of the same sex. The argument is over whether same-sex couples ought to create children through artificial means or be able to compete with couples with both a male and a female in the adoption of infants, which is highly competative. I haven’t seen a single story of a same-sex couple that was attempting to (but denied) a recue adoption of an orphan from Africa or a school-aged child from an American inner-city. I’m not saying that this has never happened, but this is not what the debate is about.
This is in three parts – getting some kind of weird error.
“The argument is over whether same-sex couples ought to create children through artificial means or be able to compete with couples with both a male and a female in the adoption of infants, which is highly competative.”
Okay, so in defining the argument, and as C.A. previously pointed out, we can all agree that co-parents won’t decrease human pro-creation as previously suggested. (Not so good for over-population though.)
Regarding competing for adoption, what ever happened to the idea of capitalism? Don’t we as Americans believe that competition is healthy for the market? And in this case, healthy for the child? Why should any hetero-sexual couple win by default of sexual preference?
David, doesn’t your link show why simple capitalism is not a morally acceptable response?
And who said that any conceivable man/woman couple is better than any conceivable same-sex couple?
Should a heterosexual couple be allowed to create a child using third party cells? If yes then what’s the difference? If no, then let’s start legislating the methods and stop discriminating by sexual preference.
Eric said:
“The argument is over whether same-sex couples ought to … be able to compete with couples with both a male and a female in the adoption of infants, which is highly competative.”
I argue yes, Eric argues no.
Therefore Eric is saying, “Any conceivable man/woman couple is better than any conceivable same-sex couple.”
If this were a math problem, you might have a point. But social policy does not work that way. There are probably some convicted child molesters who would do a better job raising a child than some heterosexual couples that have no such history. Does that mean that we are obligated to allow convicted child molesters to adopt because we allow heterosexual couples to adopt?
Larry, I’m curious… Would you say it was equally pointless to argue for any social policy without appealing to Scripture?
Nice, equate the social value of homosexuals to convicted child molestors.
Yet another example of: Why not? Well, because they’re homosexuals.
You don’t want to admit the possibility that homosexual couples may actually out-parent competing heterosexual couples. What are ya, sceered or something?
David, when you said,
What did you mean by “out-parent?”
Now David, you know that I made no such equation. I was simply showing where your reasoning would lead if applied consistently.
Out-parent = do a better job in raising a balanced, healthy child
David, when you said,
What did you mean by “balanced” and “healthy”?
So why didn’t you use “independently weathly, divorced women” as an example instead?
Because your example doesn’t make much sense then. It only works when you equate to a negative category group (homos, peds, murders, etc).
David, are you claiming that homosexuals are a “negative category group” akin to pedophiles and murderers?
No, I am claiming that Eric is.
Alright Mr. Koukl, offer me a definition of “balanced and healthy” and I’ll see if I go along with it.
David, they are simply both groups who, by current law, cannot adopt children. The rest are your words, not mine.
I’m not asking you to go along with my definition of those words. Either you meant something when you defined “out-parent” in terms of “balanced and healthy kids,” or you didn’t mean anything and you were just making noise. I’m assuming you meant something.
I just want you to elaborate on what you meant by those words when you used them. Depending on what you meant, I might or might not agree.
Eric, your point implies that the child is negligently being placed in potential harm’s way by being allowed to be adopted by homosexuals.
I replaced the words with the discrimination of yester-year and it only emphasizes the obsurdity.
“There are probably some blacks who would do a better job raising a white child than some white couples that have no such history (of being black?). Does that mean that we are obligated to allow blacks to adopt white children because we allow white couples to adopt?”
Well, that’s the whole point. Isn’t it?
As long as we refuse to take up the following issues, I believe this discussion will continue to be a whole lot of noise, with very little value to it.
1. What is marriage? Is there anything wrong with same-sex marriage?
2. Why should the govenment regulate marriage at all?
Eric, on what basis do you make your expert analysis that a child is negligently being placed in potential harm’s way by being allowed to be adopted by homosexuals?
That is what this whole discussion is about. C.A. gave a story from personal experience. Hugh, Jeffrey, and I have given reasons based on the simple design of the human (not amphibian) family. Dan made his case.
You may not be persuaded by the arguments, but you don’t have to get snide with me.
Lets bring it home people! Home to Jesus that is…..
It has been nice to jump back into the GF blog o’ sphere, get the mental juices going again on deep spiritual thoughts, and into another hot topic.
I remember a blog entry I wrote last year that stated how ironic it is that homosexuals are fighting tooth and nail to have the right to commit to each other in marriage in this country. At the same time married heterosexual couples are fighting tooth and nail to make it easier to dissolve their own marriages in divorce. You could say that those who do not have something appreciate it much more than those that have it. So sad but so true. However in the case of marriage we are talking about a playing with a God ordained institution and not something like aviation.
This our world and it is turned upside down. Right seems wrong and vise versa. We are strangers in a strange land. We are aliens and will not win the cultural war, nor should we try to. Our mission is to serve the Lord, serve others, and share Jesus in our own lives. That’s it folks. It’s that simple.
This has been an interesting discussion and exercise, but when it comes down to it I must agree with Larry that if we try to discuss this on secular or moral grounds apart from scripture and the Holy Spirit’s working in our lives we have no authority to say a word against anyone or anything. We can come up with all kinds of life examples and good reasons as I did, but it all comes down to that person’s beliefs if there is no moral absolute we are looking to as so clearly found in scripture.
With that said and taking that secular approach, every single thing David said is completely true from this secular standpoint, and it has been good banter, but completely wrong from the standpoint of the believer, or it should be IMO.
Homosexuality is not a normal or healthy lifestyle and is a sin according to scripture. That is the fact though many try to twist it around or forget all those verses and consequences for that particular sin.
Now I don’t hate my sister in law, though I am very disturbed by the lifestyle she has chosen, and the clear effects it has had on herself and her son. He has witnessed things that no child should ever have to see, and I can tell some of you about the details offline. Mary and I love them both and will do anything for them as we try to shine the light to both of them by just being who we are. Warts and all. They are welcome in our home anytime and there is no middle ground as they know where we stand on this issue.
IMO this thread has been beaten to death and people are starting to get a little testy from what I believe to be more role playing or acting and not reality in some cases. OK….and cut! Scene…….
Lets all hold hands, sing Kumbaya with marshmallows, and realize that we are all one in Christ with a common mission and common moral center and guide.
YBIC…and hopefully I am more effective than the UN in establishing peace between Hezbollah and the rest of the free world. 😉
Hey C.A., 50/50 dittos. We all can do better in the way we argue, that’s for sure. And a hearty “Amen” to the fact that we love people no matter what ideas they hold to (or whatever actions those ideas lead to).
But (there’s always a “but”) I disagree profoundly on this point you made:
Scripture and the working of the Spirit are the only things that will make the case for God’s truth. But I think Eric, Jeffrey, and I are trying to show that you can play good defense using some good, old-fashioned careful thinking.
Our job in apologetics (from the Greek apology, “a speech in defense”; apo- meaning “away from” and logos, meaning “word, speech, discourse, reason”) is to contend for the truth. That means taking a stand against error, but standing against error is not the same as advancing the truth. As a result, you can stand against error even when there is disagreement about what the truth is.
You know, apologetics may be best understood using an illustration from football.
In football, you have offense and defense. Think about a football game like an argument about the truth.
God’s revelation of himself is central to the “offense.” That means you can’t make any progress without the Spirit and the Scripture. However, reason and an honest look at the way the world is are not only legitimate, but critical parts of the defensive strategy.
Nobody expects a linebacker to score touchdowns. It’s a linebacker’s job to give the ball back to the offensive unit with the best field position possible.
In the same way, it is the apologist’s job to demolish objections to the truth. As soon as you start advancing the truth, you’re no longer an apologist: you’re an evangelist.
C.A., just a couple of closing points, then…
If we say that we can only argue this, or any other moral issue, from the Scriptures, then we can’t also say that it is ‘not healthy’ unless we can support that with some reasons. Instead we must retreat to a simple “God says so.” I believe that God generally sets His laws for good reasons, not capriciously. Therefore, I think we can have some success, depending on the issue, appealing to the underlying reason that God made the command in the first place. ‘Do not murder’ is a good example. One need not appeal to Scripture to make the case with the vast majority of unbelievers that murder is wrong. They may be stealing from our world view to ground that moral claim, but the unbelieving world does that all the time.
Also, tone can sometime be hard to read in a blog comment post, but I think everyone is getting along just fine. Part of that may be that I’m OK with the ‘rough and tumble’ approach, but who else would be reading, much lest posting down here in the triple digits. 🙂
I guess I just meant that we can argue with non-Christians all day long and try to convince them of our point of view, but just like salvation it comes down to God having to change that person’s heart or put something in there to let them see that they are wrong.
Discussion and debate is great, and sometimes you can convince people that things are right and wrong based on fact or emotional appeal, but it still comes down to that person believing you.
If we can’t say “because God says so”, especially to believers then it would have to be “because I say so” or because the facts point in that direction and to me that is a tough one.
Is our goal more to win the argument or to win that person to Christ? Can we do both? Maybe.
We should try to be a salt and light in this world and a force for change and for good. However we must do that with the understanding that apart from Christ the world is the way it is and always will be. Our efforts should be to work to change the hearts and not always just the minds and beliefs on an intellectual level. There is a balance somewhere of standing up for what we believe in to this world while still being an example and a light. Not sure where that balance is.
Just seemed to me like things were getting a little heated and this subject went all over the place to come back to this point. In reality if everybody is all hugging around the campfire then I stand corrected.
“C.A. gave a story from personal experience. Hugh, Jeffrey, and I have given reasons based on the simple design of the human (not amphibian) family. Dan made his case.”
Eric, so with the backing of the American Academy of Pediatrics and while you readily admit that some same-sex couples would make capable parents, you’re going to defer to arguments like:
* I know a homosexual couple and they are bad parents. (Now that’s conclusive.)
* The pattern of nature intends both sexes to raise a child. (Sorry but humans are among the exception in nature as most offspring are either not raised at all or raised only by one parent.)
Now if you want to say “Co-parenting is bad for society because it promotes homosexuality and homosexuality is bad for society because…” then that’s a different argument all together.
But at this point, it seems you are coming up short to be able to categorically legislate that a child is negligently being placed in potential harm’s way by being allowed to be adopted by a homosexual couple.
(To Larry and C.A.’s point, I’m trying to make it seem like Eric is imposing his “oppressive ideas of normal” on others. I don’t know if “hugging around the campfire” was the best phrase to use but it’s still a war game to me — in BROTHERLY love of course.)
That’s not the question we are working on, David. The question is not whether a child is being placed in potential harm’s way because of homosexual adoption.
The question is whether society would be placed in actual harm’s way by giving categorical approval to homosexual adoption.
Earlier Hugh says:
“…we are speaking to the way their homosexuality influences their fitness as parents. We’re talking about people who are not yet parents (of a certain child, anyway). The option to avoid the unfortunate situation is still open; for the single parent, no such option exists (in the case of the widow) or is already covered by another ethical question (the propriety of divorce).” (Emphasis mine.)
Then Hugh asks:
“Why would we want them to raise the next generation?”
Later Hugh says:
“The question is not whether a child is being placed in potential harm’s way because of homosexual adoption.”
Hugh, your whole argument so far been that co-parenting is damaging to society because it is damaging to the children. (Especially with Eric’s child molester comparison.)
Is it about the children or not? If it’s not then let’s stop using them as a smoke screen and discuss the real issue. Which is…?
David, you ignorant slut. 😉
You are missing my point. We can’t make policy based on what might happen in specific instances, nor can we make policy based on exceptional situations.
When you argue based on what might happen to a child who might be adopted by a particular same-sex couple, you are aiming at policy based on specific instances.
When we consider what might happen to a child, we are not arguing the main point. We are taking a detour into illustration, trying to make some of the abstract ideas more concrete. In the end, though, thinking through the consequences these things have on society is an abstract exercise. Illustrations help us think things through, but the insights we gain in the specific cases need to be considered in light of the big picture.
So then… this debate is over how policy should be informed by homosexuality per se. That is, knowing nothing about the same-sex couple except that they are, in fact, a same-sex couple, would society at large be positively or negatively affected if same-sex couples are allowed to adopt children?
(Totally kidding around with the “ignorant slut” thing. If you’re unfamiliar with Dan Aykroyd’s catch phrase, read this or this, or just Google it.)
Since when is “gender” all that is known about an adopting couple?
“Yep, they’re a man and a woman alright — give ’em the kid.”
Promiscuity and disease are just as prevalent in heterosexuals. Violent crime is prevalent in African American males. White-collar crime is prevalent in Caucasian males. How should policy be informed on a categorical level there?
We aren’t talking “onesy, twosy” cases here. What else do you want as a burden of proof beside a full report from the American Academy of Pediatrics?
It certainly seems to me that your policy is “informed” by religious tradition and negative stereotypes born out of fear and hate.
For the casual observer: In the fine art of apologetics, it’s generally not considered wise to call your opponent an “ignorant slut.” 😀
You claim that my position is informed by “religious tradition and negative stereotypes born out of fear and hate.”
How did you come to that conclusion?
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally capable of being promiscuous.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally vulnerable to disease.
Blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, males, females, etc., are all equally capable of committing violent crimes. Same goes for white-collar crimes.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are not equally capable of bearing children.
See Faulty Analogy.
Just call me Benedict Arnold. David doesn’t have any backup here.
Thus far, the side of Hugh, Eric, C.A., and Dan has not been able to define any concrete harm to society caused by homosexual parenting. In fact, David has pointed out that good homosexual parents can raise better children than poor heterosexual parents. Allow me to add to David’s defense.
We’re not arguing what’s good here. Gay or straight, these kids still get raised. That’s good.
What you are arguing is that arguing what’s best is raising children in a heterosexual context–or at least, the context in which to attain to what’s best is the context of marriage. But so far I see no defense for that statement.
What I do see is promoting that the government (or us, via armchair legislating) make the judgment call that all or most heterosexual couples can adopt and raise a child in the best way for society, while none or few homosexual couples can. That’s simply not true.
If an argument is going to succeed here, you need to do better: if you can’t find concrete harm or show that the best is only achievable by heterosexuals, then you lose. The government has no right to discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual adpoters.
Hugh, because you STILL haven’t given any other valid reason WHY co-parenting is damaging to society.
Let me review:
Why is co-parenting damaging to society?
Because it’s bad for the kids.
Studies show that it’s not.
I never said it was – we’re arguing if allowing co-parents (based solely on their sexual prefence) will damage society.
What am I missing?
First, we need to establish why the government has a right to regulate adoption of any sort before we claim that it has no right to discriminate based on the prospective parents.
My argument is that government has a resposibility to protect children. This is what leads me to keep asking the question… Is the anything wrong with same-sex marriage? If there is, then this might be something to protect children from.
Also, I’m not sure that lack of evidence of concrete harm to society meets the burden necessary to justify changing the current laws.
Sorry C.A., I guess the debate continues on for now. 🙂
“Homosexuals and heterosexuals are not equally capable of bearing children.”
Hugh, the ability to bare children has nothing to do with the argument of “equal effectiveness in raising kids.” Where are you going with this line of argument? “It’s bad for the kids,” sounds familiar.
See Red Herring.
“Is the anything wrong with same-sex marriage? If there is, then this might be something to protect children from.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics doesn’t seem to say so.
“Also, I’m not sure that lack of evidence of concrete harm to society meets the burden necessary to justify changing the current laws.”
Yeah, how could years of religiously-based discrimination be wrong? It’s gotten us this far.
I must say, I did not expect this level of blog intensity, but I like it! To those who may read this blog and find it getting heated, please know that I am confident that each participant is seeking to pose and answer questions that will help us better represent truth to our world. Although it is not easy and it may seem conflicting, it is part of our developing critical thinking skills.
Regarding formal clinical studies related to this subject, it is very hard to support “gay” parenting or “gay” marriage since the studies by which they are supported are often flawed. Why? The sampling and methodology deviates from normal clinical standards for this area of sociological study. Therefore, I believe both sides of the argument are handicapped in area. It may change in the years to come, but the AAP is not standing on solid ground even in there own community of research. I believe the statements made by the AAP are flawed and influencing pro homosexual co-parents on research that is wrong based on the methods employed.
The following study outlines the faulty research considerations. The last paragraph of this study states that:
Therefore, what are your top, personal reasons for why homosexual “co-parents” is morally wrong? Others may agree, disagree, or weight the evidence more or less, but what are your beliefs and why?
Dan: I started reading the AAP study at lunch, and I’d have to agree that they are on shaky ground.
For starters, the document opens poorly. Of nine sources cited, three were written by the same woman who wrote the AAP document (Ellen Perrin). Two others were amicus curiae briefs, not impartial research.
When I get a chance I’ll read some more and see what kind of basis they’re offering for their claims. I’m curious to see how they are arguing: are they attempting persuade readers that homosexuals are good parents?
Or are they are claiming that, by default, all people make for good parents, and that homosexuality does nothing to change that?
Or are they claiming that specific arguments upon which hetero-only adoption is based are flawed, so a position of hetero-only adoption is unfounded?
It is careful thinking, not bold claims, that any honest person — Christ-follower or not — ought to find persuasive.
Okay back to the other side…
Concrete harm: de-evolving the family structure (see my first post).
What’s best is not (or rarely) achievable:
Common morality will agree that a child (and society by extension) is better off when his parents don’t do certain things, such asleave the relationship before child-rearing is complete.be sexually unfaithful while raising the child.die.These three things pose a problem for homosexual couples:According to the 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census, less than 10% of homosexual relationships ongoing at that time had lasted the 17-19 years needed to raise a child. That figure was 57.7% for heterosexual couples in 2002.Only 2.7%-4.5% of homosexual men report being sexually faithful to their partners. A Canadian study in 2003 found that only 25% claim to be monogamous. A Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year. In contrast, a Journal of Sex Research survey found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful in their heterosexual relationships.Without getting into gory details, research shows that committed homosexual relationships show no decrease in unsafe behavior. Homosexuals are at risk for a host of diseases not affecting heterosexual marriages. All these factors increase the likelihood of a parent dying before a child leaves home.A child of heterosexual parents has astronomically better odds of being raised in a household where he doesn’t experience any of these things.
(Reference: Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples)
David: it’s not a red herring; your examples comparing promiscuity, disease, and crime to parenting did not logically correspond to the subject under discussion.
Again, it wasn’t an argument. It was offered to defeat your line of argument in which you suggested that promiscuity, disease, and criminal activity are effectively equivalent to parenting.
Hugh, I wasn’t saying they are equivalent to parenting. That was in response to your statement that policy needs to be “informed by homosexuality per se.” I assumed that you meant “the perceived negative attributes” of what we “know” about the homosexual lifestyle. Sorry if I jumped the gun.
But hey, look where we are in the discussion.
Jeffrey, playing off Dan’s words: I believe the statements made by the Family Research Councel are flawed and influencing anti-homosexual legislators on research that is wrong based on the methods employed.
That’s like a report from the 1950s saying that women are not capable of running a business because it takes:
A. The ability to hold a job
B. Years of experience
C. Excellent management skills
Currently only 5.2% are employeed in the work force. Only 1.2% have had their job for more than 10 years. And a mere .4% hold the position of manager.
It also smacks of “you must be a property owner to be able to vote.”
“Concrete harm: de-evolving the family structure (see my first post).”
Evolution says survival of the fittest. If it’s not a good thing then the homosexual family structures will naturally die off and you won’t have anything to worry about.
Or unless the heterosexual families kill them all off first. ;^)
At least this is getting interesting again. More than just a tennis match between Eric and David. -0 |. 0- High tech tennis graphics.
Hugh, as long as you do not also accuse David of belligerently hopping around from bed to bed then the ignorant slut part works for me. 😉
I am all tapped out on ideas and brain cells so I will sit back and read for a while.
I think I’m done for a while. Feel free to post without fear of The Clam jumping on your shoulders.
I think it’s very difficult to argue outside of scripture on this particular issue. The only authority we are left with is “science” and education. But in today’s “media spin cycle”, everyone has an agenda to push — while truth gets left out in the cold.
It’s been fun everyone!
David, you are the most prolific devil’s advocate I’ve ever encountered. I’m grateful for your willingness to play that role.
It’s been frustrating, but you have faithfully supplied exactly the sort of opposition we will find in the world at large. I’d rather spar with you than face the world untested… like the Marines say, “the more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle.”
I don’t know if The Clam is the best nickname, though. I’m thinking The Oyster works better: you’re like an irritating grain of sand that yields a pearl in the end.
And I take it back; you’re not an “ignorant slut.” You’re a pretty bright slut. 😉
Yes, David, I’m aware of no more capable an advocate for the prince of darkness. I hope you don’t consider a full-time position! 😉
Hugh:
Just in case you were not privy to this insider info…David was officially dubbed (Clam Boy) at the men’s retreat when we were playing 500 in the lake. I was heaving a football to a group of about 8 guys in the water from the shore. David had the uncanny ability to always come up with the ball no matter where it ended up in the water. He kicked some serious be-u-tocks.
In the case of the blogs I would call Davo (Jellyfish Boy) due to his stinging and irritating arguments that made us all think, and that is what this is all about.
Thanks Clam/Jellyfish Boy for your great banter!
OK. Anyone want to volley there personal reasons for why homosexual “co-parents” is morally wrong? Others may agree, disagree, or weight the evidence more or less, but what are your beliefs and why?
My initial line of argument would be:
1. Government has the responsibility to promote a healthy society (both morally, ethically, physically, etc.)
2. Part of being healthy is the ability to sustain itself naturally based on male/female.
3. Co-parents cannot naturally contribute to society since they cannot reproduce.
Note: This would argument would stand regardless of scientific shortcuts to fertilization since I am making a case from natural processes.
4. Due to #3 the “co-parenting” lifestyle deviantes from what is natural and, therefore, wrong.
5. Also, “co-parenting” promotes an unhealthy parenting model for future generations.
6. “Co-parenting” is hostile to a healthy society.
Thoughts? Push-back?
Dan,
I think you make too many assumptions in your arguments. First off, I am not sure that a Christian and a secular individual would agree on what makes up a healthy society, but let’s assume that point for a second.
Looking at your #2, why does part of being healthy mean that children have to be produced by normal/natural means? The secular world doesn’t fully agree already with this, just in the fact that they would abort those who may not be “fully” healthy. Plus, with the way some people look at science and medicine, I am not sure that they would have problems with alternative measures of reproduction.
Your #3-4 assumes one of two things. Either you assume that all members of society must contribute naturally (reproduce) or they are wrong (which excludes single people). Or you make the assumption that the ability to have children has a necessary connection with being able to raise them (which excludes all adoptions, etc).
Your #4 also says too much. Basically anything that deviates from the natural is wrong. But that not only attacks co-parenting, but also includes all fertility treatment, most medicines, and many of the “improvements” to our products today (gene-spliced corn for example).
Your #5-6 are just blanket statements without much proof (at least in your argument) and is basically the argument which was being fought out above.
Though not a presuppositionalist, I am not sure this is an argument we can win without going back to the Bible. The starting point of the secularist and the Christian is just too different.
A related question: Is there always a natural/secular argument which can be used in place of the argument from Scripture in showing God’s will? I don’t think there is and this is shown in the Old Testament laws, many of which were mainly for the purpose of seperating the Jews from the pagan nations around them. This is also shown by many of the Psalms which speak of those who were doing “evil” but were successful in the ways of the world.