This is the story of a collection of people who follow Jesus. We live in Littleton. We encounter people in the name of Jesus, we allow Jesus to turn us into disciples, we gather often, and we equip people to love and serve other people better.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Archive of today's discussion about whether homosexual should be allowed to adopt kids
For the record - I disagree with this article, but since when has that stopped me from posting something that will force you to think about your beliefs and how they play out in the real world.
I guess I'm a little confused, Mark. What part of this article do you disagree with? The part that suggests a stable same-sex couple is better than a home with an absent father and a drug-addicted mother? Or the part that a kid should go hungry in a home with a heterosexual couple or live under a warm roof and be well fed by a homosexual couple? Perhaps we should put the full force of the church behind the movement to ban divorce currently underway in California? (http://tinyurl.com/ban-divorce)
How about providing support for the grandparents so that they could continue to raise their grandkids? Keep the children in their actual family, and raise them? Where is the church here in this scenario? I have heard that if each church in America had an average of one adoption, there would be no children left in foster care available for adoption.
Travis - in brief - I disagree with the logic used in the article. It creates a no win situation, and then argues for a less than ideal situation as the BEST ANSWER. I believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong. I know people disagree. I am ok with that. I don't expect to agree with everyone on everything, even when it comes to the church and God. Now, from my frame of reference, if homosexuality is wrong, then placing a child in that situation is also wrong. To argue that it is less wrong than keeping the kid in a crack house is true, but not helpful for public policy. To place a child in a car with someone who can drive but doesn't have a license is better than in a car with someone who has a license but can't drive. Both are wrong, neither situation should be encouraged. Why argue between which is better?
Not exactly an apples to apples argument there. In the case of placing a child in a car with either someone who can drive or can't drive, as in your scenario one case is legal and the other isn't. It isn't illegal to be in a same-sex relationship. This is the real-world, Mark. We don't always get to choose from what we'd consider ideal solutions or generate win-win situations. You're right, I disagree that we've been taught that homosexuality is wrong, but assuming that premise is correct, then consider this as well, if more heterosexual couples stepped up to the plate to take in children that needed homes this wouldn't even be an issue. Yet, instead, there are hundreds of thousands of children that go to bed every night wishing they had a stable, loving home. Many of those children are the result of pregnant teens listening to the anti-abortion rhetoric and giving the children up for adoption. The church rushed to tell those unprepared children not to terminate their pregnancies, but where is the aftercare? Were those unexpected children only of value in-utero? If Jim's statistic is true, there shouldn't be a single child that goes without a loving home, whether it be to hetero- or homosexual couples[And for the record, after having been a party to three pregnancies and seeing a child developing through ultrasounds, I can't imagine anyone wanting to terminate a pregnancy voluntarily or as a means of birth control, but I stand behind a woman's right to choose, especially in cases of incest and rape or where the mother's health may be at risk.]
Would it also, then, be wrong to place children with a family where one of the parent tells lies or gossips? Would it be wrong to place a child in a family where one or both parents uses the Lord's name in vain? The sexuality of the parents is irrelevant. If they have a stable relationship and the emotional, physical, and financial capacity to raise children then why should what they do in the bedroom matter? If you believe homosexuality is a sin on par with all other sin, then why on earth should it be the one sin that bars people from caring for unwanted or abused children?
Great point Carla. All sins are equal. But not all sins are equal in their effects and consequences. I will return to an argument that has got me in a good deal of hot water on this wall previously. If I hate someone that is a sin. If I kill someone, that is also a sin. If I hate someone, I can still raise a kid. If I kill someone, I will likely spend my life in jail, and should not raise a kid. One of the underlying assumptions is that being raised by two mom's is morally neutral. I would contend that it is not.
Aren't there thousands of couples (husband-wife) waiting to adopt children? Why not place a child in these homes? Don't we want every child to have a loving and caring Mom and Dad, committed to each other raising children? I don't see the need to place children in same sex couple homes.
If a family provides love, shelter, food, and an educational environment, who is ANYONE to say that a same sex couple wouldn't be the right home for a child to live in?This is the way I see it. There is so much hate, judgement, and unhappiness in the world shouldn't people be with the ones they love? Part of the problem with the world today is people get involved in stuff that isn't their business. If it doesn't directly affect you, why does it bother you? Let people be happy.At the risk of being hated on a Pastor's page (Sorry Mark) this is one of the main reasons I don't attend church. I feel as though people with religious beliefs are the first to pass judgement.@ Mark, yes, same sex marriage is still illegal but in 25 years we are going to look back on this debate and wonder why same sex marriage wasn't legal. It will be the same way with this situation as a woman's right to vote and civil rights equality.
Ok, first, I have to say I'm Catholic, and hold to *ALL* of the Church's teachings.Secondly, I have to say that this situation is a direct result of the previous generation failing to teach their kids to be good fathers and mothers, and of the LIE that sex is anything other than a prayer to God for children, and you shouldn't pray for what you don't want.Ok, having said that, there is idealism and there is reality. I believe that the law, even secular law, should call us to ideal situations. It should be written to teach as well as punish. But how we implement/enforce the law should mirror reality more. Therefore, I believe both that homosexual couples adopting should be illegal- and that given the choice between no parents or very bad parents and homosexual parents, homosexual parents is the right choiceIdeally, every child should have two parents of the opposite sex- studies have shown that proper development is dependent upon this. But these kids aren't in an ideal situation to begin with. In fact, they're in very bad situations to begin with.I know many think I'm a bigot for saying that- but defending the truth means that sometimes you're bigoted.Oh, and I'm all for banning divorce as well, or at the very least, making it well known that divorce is not and should not be a method of escaping parenthood (there should be no outs to the implied contract of having sex, at all- once you have sex you should be bound to that person for life, no outs.).
Ah, but Mark I didn't say same-sex marriages were legal (as I am aware there are several backwards thinking states that have seen fit to bring religious morality into their Constitutions). I said that same-sex relationships (which is what the article discussed) were legal. Should interracial couples be allowed to adopt? Should divorce be made illegal as is being proposed in California?
@Nikki - No, there are not thousands of couples waiting to adopt children with troubled pasts over the age of about two. The thousands of couples you're thinking about are looking for newborns (typically white) without any physical or mental health issues.
My church has spend over $1 million dollars to help families adopt children that have come with all kinds of health problems of all different ages and races, ok, it may not be thousands, 75 families I believe, but this is just one church community. I can't believe that there aren't more families in this country wanting to do the same.
@Travis- I'm willing to say that ideally, interracial adoptions rarely go well, with the children being used as pawns in a hypocritical "Hey, look at the good liberal thing we're doing" sort of way, without really being integrated into the family. And I'm certainly against divorce in any form.But that's ideals. And the reality is quite often as you say.@Nikki, unfortunately the American story is often far more greedy than what a few churches have shown.
Just a quick point of clarification: "Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. A New Hampshire law takes effect next year." - Huffington Post That means gay marriage is illegal in (almost) 45 states, not 47. So 10% of the nation recognizes that law should not be dictated by religion (unlike Texas that has deftly avoided the entire issue by banning ALL marriages).
Legal != Ideal != correct, even. I like Texas' response best, even though unintentional. Religions need protection from the homosexual bigots, and the best way to do that is to take the government out of marriage entirely.
@Theodore You need to send your support to John Marcotte at http://www.rescuemarriage.org. Mr. Marcotte is collecting signatures to get the "California Protection of Marriage Act" on the 2010 ballot in California. His argument is that single-parent homes are just as damaging to children as same-sex couple families so we should do more to preventing divorce.
@Travis- I would, but I'm in Oregon, land where we kill off the elderly and infirm. But thanks for the link, it's an interesting proposal. @Nikki- the day our government abandoned God, our society was doomed to begin with.
@Jessica Thanks for your input - this is not your typical pastor's page. What I am attempting to do is to encourage debate, so that the public marketplace of ideas can find solutions to these tricky issues. Thus all opinions are welcomed. Having said that - not going to church because people are judgmental is a poor excuse. (I know its a bit ironic to judge you on not wanting to be judged) I believe in truth. Everyone believes in something. When two truths come into conflict, debate happens. When debate is handled poorly, people withdraw. When debate is handled maturely, people grow closer. They feel their opinions are being heard, and that the issue being addressed is being handled fairly.Having said that - this debate is not about who loves the kids more. Everyone in this debate wants to see children raised in the best possible environment. The question is, "what does that environment look like?"
Thank you Mark for doing this. The fact that you have so many friends on fb that have different opinions, says so much about how you care and befriend everyone. That impresses me.
If you have additional questions about this email, please contact us here: http://help.xanga.com/about/emailus.htm or send a letter to: Xanga.com, Inc., P.O. Box 500 Midtown Station, New York, NY 10018
No comments:
Post a Comment