Townhall.com | Matt Barber | August 2, 2007
Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.” (Mark 10: 6-8, NKJV)
Virginia resident Lisa Miller – now a born-again Christian – and her beautiful five-year-old daughter Isabella find themselves immersed in a nightmarish custody battle. But this battle is unlike most others. The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger. She’s lesbian Janet Jenkins, a woman with whom Lisa had at one time been homosexually involved.
By her own account, emotional problems brought on by a series of events — including abandonment by her father, abuse by her mentally ill mother and a decade long struggle with alcoholism now overcome — eventually led Lisa Miller into the lesbian lifestyle. In 1999, Lisa began a homosexual relationship with Jenkins after coming out of a legitimate marriage that ended in divorce.
In 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual “civil unions,” Miller and Jenkins made a weekend trek from Virginia to Vermont to enter into such a “union.” They then headed back to Virginia where they lived together.
In 2001, Lisa was artificially inseminated after the two decided to raise a child in an unnatural, deliberately fatherless home environment as self-deluded “wife” and “wife” — mother and “mother.”
In August of 2002, Miller and little Isabella, now just a few months old, moved to Vermont with Jenkins. However, things were unstable, and according to Lisa Miller, Jenkins was physically and emotionally abusive. “It was a troubled relationship from the beginning,” Lisa told World Magazine in a recent interview. “The relationship did not improve, as Jenkins — working as a nightshift security guard — grew increasingly bitter and controlling,” reported World.
About a year later, when Isabella was less than a year and a half old, Lisa ended her lesbian relationship, took her daughter back home to Virginia and filed for dissolution of her homosexual “civil union” back in Vermont.
And that’s when the nightmare really began.
Although Jenkins had no parental connection to Isabella (she was neither an adoptive parent, nor biologically related) she filed papers in Vermont in 2003 to try to take Isabella from her mother. Even though the child was conceived, born and living in Virginia, the Vermont court nonetheless held that it had jurisdiction. The legal battle has continued since that time, and incredibly, the court recently ruled that Jenkins possessed parental rights over Lisa’s daughter. It granted Jenkins regular and very liberal visitation. Isabella is now required to make the several hundred mile roundtrip journey from Virginia to Vermont every other week to visit a total stranger (Jenkins) who, according to reports, outrageously forces the confused and traumatized little girl to call her “momma.”
Rena M. Lindevaldsen, who is an attorney with Liberty Counsel and is representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, explains, “After Lisa ended her relationship with Janet, when Isabella was only 17 months old, Lisa became a born-again Christian. For the past three years, she has attempted to raise her child according to Biblical principles. According to recent filings by Janet, however, Janet believes that Lisa’s religious beliefs render Lisa incapable of properly parenting Isabella. As the fit, biological parent of Isabella, it is Lisa, not Janet, who has the fundamental right to decide how to raise her child and with whom she visits. Shockingly, when the Vermont courts declared Janet, a woman who is still actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle, to be Isabella’s parent and set a liberal schedule for visitation between Janet and five-year-old Isabella, the court did not even address Lisa’s fundamental parental rights.”
. . . more
Philip Sherrard, Human Image: World Image. The death and resurrection of sacred cosmology.
The willful rejection of the sacred and our participation in it is the root of all of the disorders we discuss here, especially recently. How we perceive ourselves determines how we perceive and act in the world. The actions of Ms. Jenkins are the actions of an evolved ape, but they are not human.
Why does it not surprise me that this article leaves out some important facts, including:
a) Janet traveled from Vermont to Virginia (a 600+-mile trip each way) to visit Isabella, and Lisa refused to allow her to see the girl
b) Janet was paying child support from October, 2003, one month after the couple’s separation
It seems gays cannot win: no matter what they do, they are “evolved apes” and “not human”, even when they attempt to honor their commitments.
James, the very idea that homosexuality can be normative, that the choice to pursue sexual gratification in a way the denies one’s own ontology and one’s own anatomy is equivalent to hetrosexuality is a result of the idea that we are evolved apes. Ms. Jenkins is caught in the consequences of a blasphemous idea.
The point which you miss entirely, or choose to ignore, is that such actions regardless of the “facts” or the circumstances are not in the best interests of the child. I would make the same general argument if it were a dispute involving a surrogate mother who was not homosexual.
The idea that we have a “right” to procreate outside of marriage or a “right” to a child inside marriage comes from the same general philosphoical orientation–an orientation that denies the sacred and idolizes the physical, it is a secularized version of pagan fertility cults.
When we immerse ourselves in such a belief and orientation, none of us “win”.
The entire circumstances the led up to the conception birth of the poor child were sinful, but there is this young girl who needs as stable and nurturing and environment as possible. Just because her mother is now a “born again Christian” (whatever that means) does not mean she gets a free pass, but I would assume that Lisa has at least begun to take some responsibility for her sinfulness.
The action of the courts in Vermont shows once again that the judges there are more interested in promoting non-traditional families and sexual behavior at the expense of children.
Jim and others will likely put my ideas into the category of anti-homosexuality and reinterate their stupid claim that Christians define themselves by what we are against.
Here is what I am for: A life affirming union between a man and a woman consecrated to God for the fructification of the earth first in family and children, secondarily as a foundation for service to others. For legal and social purposes, the state should also recognize these unions. Both the Church and the state have an significant interest in supporting and nurturing such unions. In the event that the partners to the marriage will not fulfill their obligations as partners, they are acting in a sinful manner. The Church should help with the healing of that sin. If, however, dissolution of the union is necessary and there are children, the welfare of the children should be primary. As it stands now, the children always suffer, always because they are divided. Way too much emphasis on “parental rights” exists.
There is no other union than marriage that can provide the same opportunities and benefits and in fact, the formation of such alternative unions is sinful and produces negative consequences for all involved (see the story and many others like it){fornication is almost as destructive as homosexuality}. For the state to involve itself in such destructive alternatives to family is not a neutral act, it is an act that is profoundly at odds with the state’s own self-interest, the ability to formulate and inforce coherent law and the integrity of the culture.
All law is discriminatory in that it prohibts, discourages, or promotes certain types of behavior. To attempt to eliminate all forms of “discrimination” and equalize all forms of behavior as valid is the road to anarchy.
Michael writes: “Here is what I am for: A life affirming union between a man and a woman consecrated to God for the fructification of the earth first in family and children, secondarily as a foundation for service to others.”
Certainly, this is a nice ideal, but any person can physically procreate and produce a child. Mere biological capacity alone does not indicate an ability or capacity to raise one, however, nor does it imply a desire to bear the responsibilities in raising one. Go check out your local adoption agency websites, and you will be amazed by the number of children who have been abandoned by their biological parents because they proved to be a “burden”.
So here we have a woman who has shown an interest in being involved in a child’s life both financially and emotionally that is not even biologically hers, and she is painted here as an insensitive, depraved beast. Am I missing something? Do you really suppose someone would willingly choose to fork over their money and drive several hundred miles simply out of an interest in promoting an ideology? Certainly, the best interests of the child should be taken into consideration, but are there any indications or even accusations of abuse on the part of Janet? Is there any indication that Janet would prove to be a harmful influence on the girl, aside from the fact that she happens to be female?
My point is that there’s half a story being reported here, and I would expect more from those who purport to be the gatekeepers of “truth”.
James, you are going to have to forgive me. I find your reply intentionally dishonest, willfully ignorant or constructed with malice.
You cavalierly dismiss my statement of what I am for with a non sequitur about the difficulty of meeting standards as a parent. DUH! If your “witty riposte” illustrates anything, it illustrates the substance of my argument that not everyone should be a parent. The only thing I can think of is the specious “wanted child” argument that is always trotted out to support abortion.
I did not say Ms. Jenkins is a “depraved beast” I simply said her actions to intentionally conceive a child in a dysfunctional situation with the idea that it is “normal and healthy” stem from a philosophy that denies genuine humanity (hence the existence of a “depraved beast” is impossible) and looks at all of us as “evolved apes”. Under the doctrine of evolution we can be nothing more than that. Moral choice is simply deciding what is best for us under the circumstances and, in fact, is not really choice at all, but part of some sort of mechanistic determinism or another. Since she really has no choice, her actions ought to be legally enshrined as a “right”. Since the prevailing cosmology and ontology posits no transcendent reality, it is only to be expected that personal selfishness will guide our actions. And, you know, that’s OK James, ‘cause that’s just the way you are.
You ask: “Do you really suppose someone would willingly choose to fork over their money and drive several hundred miles simply out of an interest in promoting an ideology?” YES!!!!
People make heroic sacrifices for causes all the time James especially ideological ones. Ever hear of suicide bombers? She is making the sacrifice for herself and her identity as a lesbian, not for the good of others. If she really had the child in mind, she would absent herself from the situation. Of course, she could give out of a sense of charity if she wanted to. She has no duty here; she has no “rights” parental or otherwise. The child’s mother could accept her help and her visitation if she wanted to, but is under no obligation to do so.
Ms. Jenkins is not the child’s parent and is not related in anyway. Her wishes and desires are not germane.
BTW the logical fallacy in the stupid, sophomoric and idiotic statement that Christians define ourselves by what we are against is that any statement of what is wrong implies a statement of what is right. The reverse is true. The fact that the “against-is-all” is a straw is clearly revealed in your blatant disregard of the content of my statement. You just don’t care what the Christian approach is, you just want us to stop interfering with the fun and games of our hedonistic culture by questioning the validity of the philosophy and calling your attention to the inconvenient existence of sin AND to the obverse of sin, virtue.
Perhaps another analogy would be a man who meets and then marries a pregnant woman. In such a case, he has no biological connection to the child, just a legal/contractual agreement.
Would you make the same general argument if such a man sought custody rights, if his wife decided to leave him after he’d helped to raise the child for a year and a half?
Michael writes: “You cavalierly dismiss my statement of what I am for with a non sequitur about the difficulty of meeting standards as a parent.”
I’m not dismissing it. Again, it’s a nice idea, but it’s not always a viable option. In such instances, what would you advise? Should a single mother have her biological children removed and placed in a two-parent household? Must the parents be Orthodox, or can they be Jewish or Buddhist?
What I’m saying is I’m not sure how you expect the law to accommodate the Orthodox ideology when it comes to custody and marital issues. Can you further explain?
Reading Phil’s and James’ responses, it will be clear to any responsible parent that both men have no experience raising children.
James and Phil, here is the “real world” all over this country the legal system is stacked against the children. The courts protect molesters; abusers; drug addicts; all kind of debased people who should not be in the lives of children. A lot of mothers invite these creeps into the home. Children suffer because of the declining view of marriage and family.
Phil, the man in your example has no legal or moral right to be considered a parent unless there was a formal adoption.
James, the apathy toward children you exhibit with your massive shrug about the nature of family says it all. You just don’t care. All that seems to matter to you is legalism
Michael writes: “BTW the logical fallacy in the stupid, sophomoric and idiotic statement that Christians define ourselves by what we are against is that any statement of what is wrong implies a statement of what is right.”
Actually, I think I made a statement very much like that on a different thread. What I was talking about was how non-Christians perceive Christianity when looking at it from the outside. Granted that every negative statement also implies a positive, negative comments comments tend to be much more specific, positive comments much more general. It is the specific that gets noticed.
For example, if a Christian says that he opposes homosexuality, that also implies that he supports heterosexuality. But it it’s not clear what “supporting heterosexuality” actually entails, whereas opposing homosexuality often means specific opposition to hate crime laws, gay marriage and civil unions, gays in the military, gay adoption, and so on.
More importantly, I don’t think that non-Christians are attracted to Christianity by whatever moral positions Christians stake out. They are more interested in what kind of people Christians are. I can’t tell you how many sad stories I’ve heard from Christians who got a divorce, who were basically abandoned by their Christians “friends.” In fact, it is a common experience that when the divorce happened, it’s non-Christian family, friends, and coworkers who stepped in to help. I know of several divorced Christians who ended up rejecting Christianity after being rejected by their Christian friends.
So these various standards are fine, but they also imply a rejection of people who don’t meet the standards. When I started to have doubts about fundamentalism, my fundamentalist “friends” fled from me at light speed. People I had known for years disposed of me faster than used Kleenex. One day you have friends, and the next day you’re a leper with open sores and none dare approach. The speed of the transformation is remarkable.
When you go thorough something like that, it gives you a different perspective on things. I’m not gay, but I understand what it’s like to be rejected by religious folk for simply being who you are.
Concerning this particular thread, remember that the articles posted here are very carefully selected so as to communicate a particular point of view. In this venue we’re never going to hear about the lesbian couple with a child who do just fine, whose child does just fine. Whatever the disagreements here, I think we can all agree that that will never happen. So I’m not sure what we’re supposed to take away from this article. When a heterosexual marriage crashes and burns and children are involved, is that an argument against heterosexual marriage?
Fr. Hans writes: “Reading Phil’s and James’ responses, it will be clear to any responsible parent that both men have no experience raising children.”
Well I do. I ended up being the stepfather of a 13 year old girl, just at the age when she’s figured out that adults are irrelevant. There were stormy times, but at the end of the day everything came out all right.
For a while we also took care of the daughter of a good Christian family. At age 16 her parents threw her out of the house because she started smoking. You know, she didn’t meet the standards. So she ended up living with the “heathen.” I talked to her parents and tried to negotiate a return — perhaps she could smoke outside, etc. Well, they almost threw me out of the house. How dare I suggest such a thing, and so on. Eventually the girls went to live with some friends, dropped out of school, got tattoos, got pregnant, the whole package.
A couple of years later I saw the girl’s father at the grocery store. He immediately began to rip into me — “I never would have let my daughter talk to me the way your stepdaughter talked to you,” and various other criticisms concerning my lack of parenting skills. I decided not to twist the knife, but what I wanted to say was “Your daughter dropped out of school. Your daughter has tattoos. Your daughter had a child out of wedlock. My stepdaughter is in college. So you know where you can put your lecture.”
So I said nothing. And hopefully the guy took comfort in the fact that he defended his values and his standards — even if it meant disposing of his daughter. An unusual case, but instructive nonetheless.
Michael writes: “James, the apathy toward children you exhibit with your massive shrug about the nature of family says it all. You just don’t care.”
Fr Hans writes: “Reading Phil’s and James’ responses, it will be clear to any responsible parent that both men have no experience raising children.”
Well, I can’t speak for Phil, but I have not raised children. This doesn’t mean I’m not concerned about children, however. I’m troubled by the numbers of kids who are abandoned by their parents every year and sent off to live with total strangers, and I’m disturbed by the number of cases of physical and sexual abuse and neglect that occur every year, very often committed by one or more of the biological parents. According to childhelp.org, there are nearly 3 million reports of child abuse made annually, and in 2003 alone, there 906,000 abuse convictions. Doubt them if you wish, but apparently there was sufficient evidence in the eyes of the law to convict almost 1 million people in one year. Further, those “molesters, abusers and drug addicts” are very often the very people who brought those kids into the world in the first place, not some random stranger.
Again, the Church should be free to preach that biological parents have certain responsibilities in raising their children and that they are not to be viewed as “fashion accessories”. I don’t even disagree. The Church should also be free to preach that the ideal environment for children is a two-parent (opposite-gendered) household.
This isn’t the world we live in, however. It seems we have to deal with the universe we have, not the one we wish it to be. Parents die. They sometimes divorce, and sometimes they’re even very wicked. Who would seriously argue that it is sometimes better for children not to be with their birth parents?
***
Let’s go back to this article, though. Now, if you wish to assert that Lisa should not have become pregnant artificially or have done so while she was involved with another woman, that’s fine. The fact of the matter, however, is that she did. What is the proper and just thing to do now in light of the current situation?
The child probably already has a bond with the mother, but would you advise taking her and placing her in a two-parent family, anyhow? If so, what criteria would you insist upon before placing them with those other parents? Has the child even been asked whether she wishes to remain involved with the woman who Lisa requested child support from? Is what the child wants even relevant?
I’m just not sure what is being proposed here, if anything’s being proposed at all. I also don’t appreciate the insinuation that I am callous in regard to the welfare of children, and when have I suggested that we not promote ideals?
I must say i have to agree with Both James K. and Jim Holman. I come from a single Parent family. My mother raised both me and my sister, and we seldom saw our father, and this may sound sinful in christian eyes, but my Father is an Alcholic who is so full of hate it could feed Hell. In Most christians eyes however both me and my sister would be bad, because we were not raised in a traditional family, but on the contrary both me and my sister are both Quite successful and caring, Despite being raised by our mother who worked two jobs to provide to us.
I think the idea of a traditional family is great, but in the real world as James K. had spoke of their is: Rape, Abuse, Drugs , amongst other horrid things all of which is commited by a two parent (mother and Father) family. I’m pretty sure its fair to say that any possible family scenario will have its ups and downs, and we really cannot discriminate against any particular method, especially if we are not all knowing (lets not play god here people).
I will pray for Michael B. in hopes that he will not be so narrow minded and not treat homosexuals as Destructive people i have Lesbian friends and they are both caring and supportive in Causes for children and Cancer, and i think that anyone who could say they are destructive people are Closer to Satan than Courtney Love.
Instead of spreading Hate, Fear, and Animosity why not Treat everyone with fairness, and let God decide their fate.
Sorry Michael B and Jacobse but you both are spreading Fear and Hate i Hope God isn’t angry about that, because in the end everyone will have to answer to god, so with that known how about focus more on what you as an individual are doing and not what everyone else in the world is doing
Jim says:
For example, if a Christian says that he opposes homosexuality, that also implies that he supports heterosexuality. But it it’s not clear what “supporting heterosexuality” actually entails, whereas opposing homosexuality often means specific opposition to hate crime laws, gay marriage and civil unions, gays in the military, gay adoption, and so on.
It is very clear – it’s just that you try to deconstruct it, push it into your materialistic, androgynous view of man, sexuality, and how that sexuality relates to God.
Let’s reduce it to one sentence:
Marriage, a Holy Sacrament, is between a man and a women. You disagree on ontological grounds, but can’t talk about it because you don’t understand the ground of your own thinking. You don’t even admit the “Holy”.
Would you make the same general argument if such a man sought custody rights, if his wife decided to leave him after he’d helped to raise the child for a year and a half?
Speaking for myself, I would not. Since this is a dispute between a man and a women, he has real standing, unlike the homosexual women…
James says:
I’m just not sure what is being proposed here, if anything’s being proposed at all.
It’s real easy: The homosexual women has no standing Christianly speaking, to be the girls mother. Thus, she should have no legal standing in a rightly ordered society.
I also don’t appreciate the insinuation that I am callous in regard to the welfare of children
I would say the opposite: you (rhetorically at least) seem so concerned about them you would through out reality (the reality that marriage is between a man and a women) in an effort to “help” orphans, and the like. This of course would be a step back, not forward in any effort to aid orphans…
Actually, in many states, there’s a presumption of paternity when a child is born to the wife of a married man. If the man raises the child (or does not contest the child’s paternity), the man can be found responsible for child support. This can still be the case when the man knows full well he is not the child’s biological father.
Strike the “legal”. The state is so anxious to assign someone the task of child support that they’ll gladly pick anyone out of the hat–just like James. Here in Kansas (ahh that “bastion” of conservatism? and family values) it is difficult to sever the parental rights of someone who has committed verified sexual molestation and physical abuse against his own children. The only reason: as long as there are legal parental rights, the state can force child support and doesn’t have to pay as much welfare. In the process the state is more than willing to allow unsupervised “parental” visits and will penalize the custodial parent for refusing to allow them. Of course, they do a horrible job with the enforcement of child support. They are much more efficient at enforcing the specious parental rights of the abuser.
There is no protection for children in the legal system unless you have money and influence. It is dehumanized and dehumanizing. The extension of “parental” rights to homosexuals is just another example of the distortion in a society that has lost touch with its own humanity***. The libertine sexual license that is so popular further degrades us all–exactly what to expect from evolved apes. So the sexual and physical abuse of women and children rises to ever higher and more disgusting levels and we are inundated with every type of perversion each and everyone claiming normality. Those who attempt even weakly to point out the consequences of such activity are labeled judgmental, hypocrites, dreamers, lunatic, irrelevant, not living in the “real world”.
***note to James: All sin dehumanizes; the societal acceptance of sin furthers the dehumanization. I am not saying that homosexuals are “in human beasts”. Homosexuality is a sin which along with fornication and adultery our culture now largely accepts. There is so much acceptance that when I describe the marriage and family which should be normative (not exceptional) you can shrug and say with a condescending yawn “That’s nice, but that’s not the real world”.
Note 11. James writes:
Not callous James but “inexperienced.”
Children are devalued in our culture and bear the scars of adult immaturity all across the board. Now they become fodder in a larger social experiment of homosexual marriage. And, like single motherhood, it will take a generation before we discover the common wisdom was right: kids do a heck of a lot better in two parent (heterosexual) families.
No doubt more pathology will be uncovered a generation down the road when the children raised by homosexuals come of age. Homosexual couplings are notoriously unstable (partner on partner abuse rates are higher than heterosexual married couples). None of this bodes well for children.
Where I see your inexperience is in the notion that children are interchangeable items in what ever relationship masquerades as a stable heterosexual marriage.
Note 17–
You see it as a foregone conclusion that children growing up in households headed by gay couples will be “worse off” than their counterparts who are raised by straight couples.
If it turns out that the evidence (a generation down the road) does not support this theory of yours, will you change your viewpoint about the appropriateness of gay parenting? (That is, will you look at the results and say, gosh, I called it a “social experiment” and it looked like the social experiment worked!)?
I’m curious, because it seems like your objections are spiritual and ideological, but then you talk about possible real-world effects. For me, if I propose a theory about something that will happen in the future, and then that something doesn’t happen, it forces me to re-examine my underlying beliefs.
Are you suggesting that your underlying beliefs could be re-examined, or is your reference to future real-world effects just a red herring?
Note 18:
To answer for myself (and not Fr. Jacobse):
Your not going to like it: Yes and no.
Yes, if what it means to be “worse off” was not itself in dispute. In other words, what it means to be “human”, Christianly speaking, means that one’s upbringing can not really be separated in such a neat fashion. In other words, to say a homosexual parent, who is not a hypocrite but really believes his homosexuality is “ok”, does not have a real and lasting negative witness on the child does not follow.
Still, the question is really mute because when you go from an advanced understanding of any subject (in this case the Christian understanding of man and his relationships) to an inferior one (in this case, the utilitarian view of man and his relationships) bad stuff always happens. We see this in our daily lives, in our society, through out human history.
Your “experiment” has already been tried (again, and again, and again), it’s results are already known…
Note 18. No data is in yet, so we have to rely on the data obtained by other social engineering experiments as well as our common sense.
There is no question that single motherhood has exacted a huge toll on the stability of children. I remember all the arguments and most of them are similar to the ones heard about homosexual coupling today.
As for common sense, homosexual relationships are notoriously unstable and highly promiscuous, more so than heterosexual unmarried couples. I don’t see why we should subject children to even more instability.
Lesbian relationships are more stable than male homosexual relationships (the nature of a lesbian relationship is different simply because women are different than men), but even in the cases where some stability is evident (and there are some), a boy still suffers the deficit of an absent father. In many cases he will not even know who is father is, not a good thing at all.
As for males, I just don’t trust it. I know men. I am male. I am also a father. I can tell that being a father without the benefit of a mother must be tough duty. I don’t think homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals are up to the task, certainly not enough to experiment with children.
Christopher,
It sounds like you’re phrasing a truism: children raised by homosexual couples will be “worse off” in the future because “to-have-been-raised-by-a-homosexual-couple” is one factor that determines whether a child is worse off. I can’t tell yet if Fr. Jacobse would agree with that, but it does call into question any language that it is a social “experiment” or statements that “no data is in yet.”
Jacobse,
You write:
Data show that African-American relationships in the United States are more unstable than white relationships. Would you agree that it’s also wrong to subject children to African-American relationships?
I would like to point out a good argument about what Jacobse said in regards to Homosexuals being notoriously promiscious and Unstable.
“As for common sense, homosexual relationships are notoriously unstable and highly promiscuous, more so than heterosexual unmarried couples. I don’t see why we should subject children to even more instability”.
Does anyone truly know why Homosexual Males are as promiscious as they are? Any good common sense would say that they act out in this way because they do not believe in themselves and what cards they were dealt, and lasty abandoned by most (not by the real God though), so they seek comfort at such a desperate rate it leads to promiscious tendency (this is a fallacy of man in general not homosexual men). One thing that has been witnessed first hand is when a Homosexual couple or single Homosexual is given a child it normalizes this tendency for “to much sexual Gratification”. We all know that heterosexual men think about sleeping around and would if women were so quick to give it up, but women do not give in as easily as men.
That is the true issue with homosexuality in Men is that they are not willing to except what God has given them, so they screw up and become Whores and obtain diseases because of it. A good Religious person can see past someones sexual orientation and try to be a good person and help that person deal with things, so that they may come to grips with the not so usual card they were given.
This whole blog has been about nothing but taking away from people, and in this world as bad as it is now that is all we as people are doing is taking away from things instead of giving, so if anyone is to blame for everything that could be wrong in this world is ourselves for spreading intolerance and Hatred, instead of excepting that things are not always going to play out like one hopes (Idealism is for selfish fools) reality is whats happening, and the reality in this world is that the Homosexual population (including the Married Closet Cases) is rising, and why do you that think that may be i doubt its Satan doing anything Satan doesnt need to do anything we do it to ourselves.
As Humans we are: Self Loathing, Self Hating, Jaded, Full of Fear, Full of Anger, Full of selfishness, lacking in knowledge and Wisdom, Easily manipulated by comforting thoughts, and decietful.
This may sound very bad, but in light of all of this we as Humans have th power to make change, not make these awful hateful blogs about lesbian disputes i think and most should agree that this lesbian parental issue will play out like it should as long as everyone keeps their greasy noses out of it.
In summary this entire blog is ridicoulous, and shows the very things i speak of in regards to how humans act.
Lets do a blog about about the poor kids who starve everyday and die that is truly tragic, not some dumb lesbians who are fighting over a healthy living child
Peace, Love, and Hope
Note 21. Phil writes:
Black homosexuals? Yes. Black heterosexuals? No. I would advocate strengthening marriage and family just as I do for white heterosexuals.
Note 22. Brent writes:
So what is the argument here? Give homosexuals children to make them less promiscuous?
I Am Merely stating that the whole argument against homosexuals is based off of Beliefs and not all facts, and i dont think everyone is being fair by making assumptions that all Homosexuals are destructive or cause problems. As far as problems are concerned yes Homosexuals have certain unlikeable tendency, but going by the history of the US we might as well enslave homosexuals for some many years and call them Faggots and Dyke Daddies, and then eventually let them go free and then have segregation against Homosexuals, and then finally leading up to how the US now Treats african-Americans as minorities.
Their are few options, because Homosexuality is never going to go away its been around for many many many years, so instead of bitching about it on these blogs acting like a Aggravated cyst why not correct problem in a more positive way.
Marriage is declining for many reasons and not all of them are because of the growing rate of homosexuality
Let me point out some reasons why marriage and childhood is declining:
1. Cost of living is becoming more and more unfeasible for families
2. When Men and Women get married, Women have the upper hand of taking half or more of the Males asset making the male fearful of losing everything by getting married.
3. People are pressured into Marriage (like the old days with the Shotgun Marriages)
4. Men/women get married trying to Deny their Homosexual feelings, thus to only find out years down the road they cannot deny such feelings.
Their are many other reasons why Marriage is becoming more and more how should i say Crappy.
It used to be back in the older days that african americans weren’t allowed to get married it was the sanctity between a white male and a white female, and it wasnt til the 70’s (i could off by so many years) that people from other countries werent allowed to marry to a US citizen, so given that trend of what is the sanctity of marriage is utter Racist Crap.
Let us all not forget what the U.S. has down with its laws over the years they constantly change (indecisive people making laws).
If Homosexuals get married then they get married big deal, i mean if they can married then that proves that heterosexual couples should be able to keep their marriages going strong.
Lastly let us not forget that marriage is a legal thing not a religious thing were Adam & Eve Married i dont think so they were together, but not legally married, so does that make them Destructive immorale people, because they had kids out of wedlock.
If two people love each other than thats between those two people and should stay out of prying eyes, and if problems arise out of their love let them deal with it.
No offense to anyone, but most peoples responses to this Blog prove that People are all about other peoples business, and are not paying attention to their ownselves.
I hope one day people can wake up and realize that their is much more going on in this world then homosexuals getting married. Their are people in countries so hungry right now that they couldnt procreate or get married if they wanted to, so does that make them destructive.
I Implore that people see reasoning to things and quit trying to prevent the inevitable changes in society, and just try to be good people and help those who need help, not judge them and hurt them.
Are we can all be like Hitler and wipe out any race of people who are deemed destructive to the normal, because he was such a great leader all.
Someone make a better blog than this lesbian dispute it lacks any true validation for being something to bitch about
Fr. Hans writes: “No data is in yet, so we have to rely on the data obtained by other social engineering experiments as well as our common sense.”
In fact a number of research studies have been done, although more need to be done. So I don’t know where you’re getting “no data.” While there are not as many research studies as we would like, the studies that have been done show that children do well in households with homosexual couples. There are no significant differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples with respect to quality of parenting, emotional attachments, school success, behavioral problems, and so on. Studies also show that children reared in two-parent homes with either heterosexual or homosexual parents do better than children in single-parent homes. Again, more research needs to be done, but this is what we have so far.
Fr. Hans: “There is no question that single motherhood has exacted a huge toll on the stability of children. I remember all the arguments and most of them are similar to the ones heard about homosexual coupling today.”
Again, studies looking at children reared by couples of either orientation and by single parents have already been done. The outcomes tend to be worse in single parent homes. The two-parent home offers several advantages over the single parent home, including the possibility of two incomes and thus more financial stability and options, shared parenting responsibilities, two people spending time with the child rather than one person, the possibility of one adult staying home with the children, and so on.
Fr. Hans: “As for common sense, homosexual relationships are notoriously unstable and highly promiscuous, more so than heterosexual unmarried couples. I don’t see why we should subject children to even more instability.”
As far as I know, this instability, inasmuch as it exists, has not shown up in any research studies as far as having a detrimental effect on the children. Homosexual couples tend to be more open to adopting older or disabled children. For many of those children, the other option would be life in foster homes.
Fr. Hans: “As for males, I just don’t trust it. I know men. I am male. I am also a father. I can tell that being a father without the benefit of a mother must be tough duty. I don’t think homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals are up to the task, certainly not enough to experiment with children.”
A report by the American Academy of Pediatrics reports the following data from the year 2000 census:
Given the studies that have been done and the number of same-sex couples rearing children, at this point we are somewhat past the “experiment” stage. If you’re concerned about children, the place to focus that concern is on single-parent families, whether the parent is homosexual or heterosexual.
But really, all of this talk about “data” and “research” is irrelevant, isn’t it? In other words, if there were 10, 100, 1,000, or 10,000 studies showing that children do just as well in homes with same-sex couples as they do in homes with heterosexual couples, I don’t think it would change your opinion one bit. Is that correct?
Bravo Jim Holman you were able to place some stuff in the blog that i was trying to get at but failed to do so.
The Bottom line is that even with the facts showing that Homosexual’s can do just as a good of a job if not better still wont matter, because people are afraid of anything that is different so they bad mouth it, and try to make it look bad.
Like i mentioned previously Go back into the 50′ or 60’s and see how easily it would have been for a african american person to adopt someone……..Eaxactly so given the trend it is safe to say that it is a matter of belief that Homosexuals cannot succeed in raising a child no actual proof exist that they cannot do so.
Do we live in a fictional world or factual world
Fact or Fiction
Truth or Lies
Realization or Denial
I am defending Homosexuals because i know that they are good people and they deserve a chance in this world, and god would not want me to hate someone or make them look bad, Satan would want that ;0)
Speak the truth or don’t speak at all should be the morale of any type of political or religious discussion.
note 27:
I said earlier:
Yes, if what it means to be “worse off” was not itself in dispute.
Jim is an explicit anti-Christian. Folks like him are not going to admit measures into their “studies” that would allow a Christian sense (or really, any other religious/world view that does not buy into later modern neo-pagan materialism) of what it means to be “well”. When you define the terms of the debate, then of course you get to pose questions like:
But really, all of this talk about “data” and “research” is irrelevant, isn’t it? In other words, if there were 10, 100, 1,000, or 10,000 studies showing that children do just as well in homes with same-sex couples as they do in homes with heterosexual couples, I don’t think it would change your opinion one bit. Is that correct?
You can accuse Christians of stubbornness when you stubbornly cling to your own notions (in this case, nihilistic materialism) of what it means to be human and how to measure human flourishing. Then you can sit back, and say things like:
because people are afraid of anything that is different so they bad mouth it, and try to make it look bad.
Instead of really trying to understand what it is Christianity is saying about what it means to be man, and what it means to “be well”…
Your new here Brent M. Jim has been posting his neo-pagan world view here for years, and refuses to even admit another philosophy, which is why I argue he is a Troll. I hope you don’t fall into the same trap. Instead of asserting that Christians act out of fear, why not try to understand how we understand what it is Christianity is saying about man and God? If we understand man to be something other than what the Jim’s of this world say he is, then it follows that we understand what it means to be “well” in a different light. Now I ask you, what IS the Christian view of man? Do you have an idea of what that is?
Brent, unless you are reading a different blog, there is nothing here that is hateful in anyway to homosexuals unless you consider the identification of homosexuality as a sin to be hateful.
It is a sin similar to adultery and fornication in the sense that it involves a disordered sexual desire. As a besetting sin for many it is difficult to address, but the Church teaches us that all sin should be recognized as such and confessed so that healing may take place. How is that hateful?
The only “bitching” that has gone on here is the contention that exists between those who feel that homosexuality including homosexual unions are normal and should be recognized as such by everyone else. There are many reasons why the Church refuses to agree which have been outlined on other threads.
IMO it is irresponsible to allow children to be raised by anyone who is living with an obvious sexual disordering including adultery, fornication, porn addiction, homosexuality. Unfortunately, as the standards of society are continually eroded it becomes increasingly difficult to find good homes for children as many of the disrupted homes involve not only the sexual license so prevalent in our time, but physical abuse and/or drug usage (including alcohol). So what standard does one use in order to evaluate the ability of a homosexual couple to sucessfully raise children? That is the first question to be asked.
Unless a culture has a hierarchy of values with regard to behavior, it falls apart. Those who resist traditional Christian teaching are attempting to breakdown a hierarchy of values with regard to sexual behavior that has been trans-cultural for thousands of years and is not specifically Christian, i.e., homosexual behavior in not a benefit to society and should not be considered part of the norm. We used to feel the same way about adultery, fornication and pornography. The cultural approach to each of these has been sigificantly altered in my lifetime with bad results for us all. As it stands now, there is very little cultural disapproval for any type of sexual behavior.
While there are all sorts of hateful behaviors that can come from any cultural prohibition, the hierarchy of values is not hateful in and of itself. From a Christian standpoint, regarding others with hate for their sins is a sin in itself of equal or greater magnitude.
In one of the other theads on homosexuality an Orthodox gentleman who happens to have a besetting homosexual desire made the comment (I paraphase) that the Church’s direction for him (and others) was celibacy and that was not hard to bear.
The whole Christian approach to desires and passions no matter what kind is ascesis-self-control through prayer, fasting, almsgiving and repentance. We are directed by the Church to such a way of living for our own growth and transfiguration so that the divine image within us may be resurrected and we may become truly human.
If you see hate for homosexuals here, you are seeing a figment of your own imagination.
For Michael B and Christopher,
I see what you are getting at, but the huge fallacy to that is……. that you are speaking in idealistic terms and with no means of Compromise i mean sure it would be great that every family Household be perfect and every person is heterosexual. In our world as i speak their all kinds of broken homes and homosexuals, however their is always light within dark, instead of wanting things to be like it was in the Dark Ages, why not realize that compromise is going to have to be made for example:
Heterosexual couples who have a kid and give them up have already started the whole mess, and then the kid floats around in foster homes that are wrose than anything, and right now the only people wanting to adopt is lesbians and Gay Men, so with that in mind it is the lesser of the two evils Foster Homes are worse than any gay persons house could ever be (have you ever seen a gay persons house it is usually very well kept, and clean, and positive). Im sorry but They have proven that kids raised by gay parents do not neccesarily turn out to be gay themselves, so you can just rip that page out of the distorted bible.
Religion today has became nothing but this idealistic view of everything, and the inability to love and compromise…. Take the Muslims for example look what they do to people that dont follow their religion absolutely brutal and barbaric, and if religion keeps going like it is we are all going to end up being Muslim extremist, and i for one don’t want that hence why i say this focus on homosexuality and adoption is redicolous.
Everyone is always looking to blame someone or something, rather then just take into consideration that some things are just going to happen kind of like a grand design ;0).
Right now i think any good christian should be focusing on this war, and all those soldiers who are risking their lifes, and all of those starving children who are dying at ages 6 and below, that is the true sadness… The thought of kids never getting to even see age 12 is absolutely sad so sad, that lesbians adopting seems like only a blip on the radar of whats wrong in this world.
Cant everyone focus on whats really going wrong, and quit scapegoating homosexuals as being green acid spitting demons from hell, so that we may fix this world.
that you are speaking in idealistic terms and with no means of Compromise
This “Comprimise”, as you put it. What is the ground of it? If I am following you, you go on to explain by say:
however their is always light within dark, instead of wanting things to be like it was in the Dark Ages, why not realize that compromise is going to have to be made for example:
&
right now the only people wanting to adopt is lesbians and Gay Men
&
Im sorry but They have proven that kids raised by gay parents do not neccesarily turn out to be gay themselves, so you can just rip that page out of the distorted bible.
&
Religion today has became nothing but this idealistic view of everything, and the inability to love and compromise
So, this Compromise (perhaps you did not mean to capitalize it but it does fit). How is this itself not “idealistic”? What I mean by that, is that such a Compromise assumes the world is a certain way (“light and dark”, as you put it), that certain things are “good” and others are “bad”, and based on these premises it goes on to a conclusion – in this case, that adoption by one or more homosexualist is “good”.
Christianity, however, assumes different things about the world. It also admits good and evil, light and dark, but yet it reaches a different conclusion. Why do you think that is?
What i mean by compromise is rather than take away from something apply a better idea or something that both parties can win from win-win situation not a win-lose situation.
To compromise with this Particular blog you would need to truly put yourself in the womans shoes: You brought a kid into the world with another female not neccessarily by your seed, but by your will (they both decided to do it), and now the other one wants to take the child away that you have grown a parental bond to regardless of wether it is biologically yours. Eventually this woman might have to come to grips and let the child go, but that isnt an easy task when you love someone.
Now that you have been in her shoes wouldn’t you think well i dont think she has any grounds for parental rights, but on the contrary she loves the child and by her will and the other ladies egg and some mans sperm brought the baby into the world, so i need to understand that it wont be an easy thing for her to just give up on this at least yet.
Compromise is not always as it seems Comprimising is the ability to understand a situation in its entirety and then try to come up with a win-win solution with the least amount of taking away from something. Naturally it can be harder to compromise, but the rewards are greater if one does so.
I can’t speak directly for Jacobse or Christopher, but I think are indications in this thread that there is actually no data that would be relevant.
To Jacobse, the same type of data leads to wildly different conclusions:
Why are the stability rates for one class of couple the basis for condemnation (or prevention) of their attempts to raise a family, while for another class of couple the same data–a statistical likelihood, nothing more–is reason to advocate strenghtening their relationships?
It’s because the “data” was always a red herring; it had nothing to do with the choice to advocate or not advocate a political viewpoint. It was simply presented as if it mattered.
Then, Christopher responds to a yes-or-no question (Essentially: if there were 10,000 studies, would that change your opinion?) with a statement that is neither yes nor no:
“Materialism” encompasses the very notion that an idea can be proven or disproven with objective data.
I’m not saying that your viewpoints are wrong, Christopher and Jacobse. (I may believe it, but it’s not an argument I’m putting forth in this thread, because we’ve already discussed it.) What I am curious about is: why do you pretend? Why bring up ideas like evidence, studies, data, predictions, etc., when none of these materialistic concepts amount to a hill of beens in terms of the way you form your views and forward your arguments.
Christopher writes: “You can accuse Christians of stubbornness when you stubbornly cling to your own notions (in this case, nihilistic materialism) of what it means to be human and how to measure human flourishing.”
First, you may recall that Fr. Hans raised the issue of data and research, not I.
Second, I’m sure you are aware that studies in this area typically look at outcomes such as school performance, behavior problems, emotional attachments, and so on. It’s not that I’m stubbornly attached to these things, but rather that this is what studies look look at. If there’s a different outcome you want to look at, great, get some grant money and go do the research.
Third, the main issue I wanted to address is whether research studies and data even have any meaning at all for the home team. Because if they don’t, then the whole data issue is bogus. To call for more data only makes sense if more data might affect one’s beliefs.
Christopher: “Jim has been posting his neo-pagan world view here for years, and refuses to even admit another philosophy, which is why I argue he is a Troll.”
“Troll” in this instance denotes someone who didn’t attack anyone and posted on-topic to an issue raised by the list owner. I’ll take that as a compliment. Thanks. My neo-pagan worldview consists of basing my beliefs, as much as is possible and reasonable, on facts and evidence. Dangerous things, those facts. So Brent, consider yourself warned. Some day I’ll come at you with a fact, and you’ll never see it coming.
Brent says:
“or something that both parties can win from win-win situation not a win-lose situation.”
A child, in a non-family (i.e. a homosexualist couple) is a lose situation, no matter how you slice it. Yes, one can think of a worse situation (say, an physically abusive family, or a Nazi concentration camp), but that is still a lose situation. To put it another way, if I understand you correctly, you are wanting to call a win-lose a win-win. A family is a very important thing. Christianly, a homosexualist “couple” is not a family. Thus you are not helping orphans by putting them in a non-family. Now you can say “but but but”, say that foster families are worse. They can be, but I personally know several foster families who are perfectly normal, loving families. Instead of “fixing” the situation by introducing non-family homosexualist “family”, why not fix the foster care system.
In other words, because you have a problem, you don’t fix it by introducing another problem. This is not necessarily a “Christian” observation of course.
Eventually this woman might have to come to grips and let the child go, but that isn’t an easy task when you love someone.
Yes, this would be very difficult. Especially since the quality of her love, while imperfect, still contains some of the Divine in it. However, I would hope I would crave still further for the Divine, and come to see my “love” was imperfect. Humanly, this would be impossible. But with God, all things are possible.
Now that you have been in her shoes wouldn’t you think well i dont think she has any grounds for parental rights, but on the contrary she loves the child and by her will and the other ladies egg and some mans sperm brought the baby into the world, so i need to understand that it wont be an easy thing for her to just give up on this at least yet.
This does not really work as a thought experiment, because not everyone’s “shoes” are equal. Her worldview is right, or Christians are right. Both can not be right.
Compromise is not always as it seems Comprimising is the ability to understand a situation in its entirety and then try to come up with a win-win solution with the least amount of taking away from something. Naturally it can be harder to compromise, but the rewards are greater if one does so.
I agree on win-win. I don’t think a compromise is a win-win. a compromise is a win-lose that one has renamed win-win. It is better to go for win-win than a compromise, as a compromise is really a win-lose
Phil says:
“Materialism” encompasses the very notion that an idea can be proven or disproven with objective data.
No, Materialism ecompasses the very notion that an material “facts” can be proven or disproven with other material data. As you say, it explicitly ignores/discounts the moral. So how can it measure a moral quality, such as the proposition:
It also explicitly ignores/discounts the personal, such as the proposition:
You pose an excellent question:
why do you pretend? Why bring up ideas like evidence, studies, data, predictions, etc., when none of these materialistic concepts amount to a hill of beens in terms of the way you form your views and forward your arguments.
It’s not “pretending” at all, it’s admitting that there is more to life, the universe, and everything, than has ever been dreamt of by materialistic philosophy. I can “study” morals, I can “study” man, and his God.
It’s just another way of saying we won’t agree on a methodology. Mine is just as “scientific” as yours, you would simply define the real (personhood, morals, etc.) away, and claim “science” for yourself. I look at history, I look as studies of single parents, I look at reality, and I see the moral mess of the social experimentation of the last 40 years or so….
But that’s the issue, isn’t it? There is no materialist way to measure a moral quality. But there is also no non-materialist way to measure it.
Measurement itself is materialist.
Phil says:
Measurement itself is materialist.
Not at all. For example, I Love my wife, very very much. That is a measurement – just not an materialist one.
Note 33. Phil writes:
Nice try Phil but of course you are saying our viewpoints are wrong. Why try to argue that data doesn’t matter otherwise?
Look, it took a generation before the effects of single parenthood became fully known. All the political arguments, all the projections of the little data collected, all the moralizing justifying the devolution of the traditional family were shown to be wrong. Well, know we know.
When you throw in homosexuality, particularly the homosexual cultural agenda, who knows what the result will be? Sure, some homosexuals can probably do an adequate job, but again, this is hardly a reason to launch a social experiment that will affect thousands of children over the long run.
And let’s also be honest about the point that much of what drives this push for gay adoption is the same that drives the push for homosexual marriage: the normalization of homosexual behavior. But many people don’t like the idea of gay marriage even though they hold a let and let live attitudes to homosexuals. I’m fine with that. I am not fine with overthrowing cultural traditions that have guided society for thousands of years.
And no, homosexual marriage or parenting is not a “civil rights” issue. (Blacks take great offense at the coopting of the civil rights movement by homosexuals, as I am sure you know.) Rather, it is about the proper order of society. That’s why, as I said, the rest of society who really have no interest in your lifestyles won’t extend the definition of marriage to cover same-sex relationships.
Yes, heterosexuals are largely to blame for this cultural confusion. They dropped the ball. Their failure is not a good enough reason however, to redefine homosexual unions as a marriage, or family. It will only lead to even more brokenness, particularly when you consider the inherent instability of homosexual relationships to begin with. Unlike Brent, I don’t believe the antidote to the homosexual promiscuity problem is to let them be parents. It does not work with heterosexuals, why would it work with homosexuals?
Phil and Brent,
At least in one sense, Christianity is more materialist than the ideological view of love that Brent is proposing. For example, our basic anatomy is itself a clue as to what love is, and how it manifests itself materially. I can not truly “love” a man, because I am a man, and our anatomy is for a women, not a man. Any idea of spousal love that is separated from our material anatomy is an idealism…
Note 39. Yes. Further, homosexual coupling is closed to new life. Male on male and female on female coupling cannot not naturally create new life.
Let’s move from the general abstractions to the specific. I was reading about a couple (Kevin Williams and Tim Eustace) who had been together for 10 years or so. Kevin is a psychotherapist, and Tim is a chiropractor. Says Mr. Williams: “I’m tired of gays using their homosexuality as an excuse for not settling down, being responsible, moving in their careers and committing themselves to a relationship, family and their community”. So, in a sense, he shares some of our conservative posters’ views on responsibility and commitment, and he rejects the idea that being gay must consist of a flighty, pleasure-seeking existence. Both are apparently successful.
Though both are white, they decided to care for two African-American children, both HIV-positive. The foster father of the elder boy (who was 9 at the time) wanted the boy out of the house as soon as he found out the boy had the HIV virus. The two men were willing to handle the expense and difficulty in dealing with raising the two boys.
In this situation, we have children with a life-threatening medical condition whose needs can perhaps be met (and certainly sympathized with) to a greater extent than even many heterosexual families. The men have the financial means and the willingness to deal with an otherwise very difficult situation. What would you propose here? There’s an issue of time here when dealing with such diseases. How many prospective parents are willing to take two boys who are HIV+, do you suppose? I’m going to guess not many. It’s almost as if it’s preferable to see them uncared for than cared for in a “less than ideal” situation. Or am I reading this wrong?
James says:
What would you propose here?
I would propose they donate time, though they would have to be supervised so as to minimize the effect of their overt homosexualist actions and words. They would be allowed to donate all the $cash$ for medical care they wish. They would NOT be allowed to “adopt”, as only a family can “adopt”.
In other words, you would have us over look the moral problematic here because of the difficulty of this situation. It’s easy to sit back and claim ”
Christians would rather they be uncared for”.
If these men’s love is genuine, let them “care” for the boys in a manner that does not push the homesexualist activist agenda…
I’m happy to say your viewpoints are wrong, don’t misinterpret me. (Insert grin here.) I just don’t think that either of us wants to argue about whether your viewpoints are wrong.
What I’m simply pointing out is that, while you pretend that evidence matters, you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that any contrary evidence could possibly matter.
Imagine a casual observer, reading this discussion. When you say, “No data is in yet,” a reasonable inference is that, once the data is in, we’ll be better informed and more able to form an opinion. But that inference would be wrong, because what you really mean is, “No data is in yet, but when the data comes in, it won’t matter, because there is no conceivable data on God’s earth that could provide evidence that gay couples are fit to be parents.”
You’re not lying, per se. You’re just being intellectually dishonest.
If I’m wrong, please correct me. Explain what hypothetical data might establish that gay couples are fit to be parents. I certainly won’t misinterpret is a wholesale endorsement of gay parenthood.
Christopher, you write
Perhaps I should clarify: when I used the word “pretending,” I certainly did not mean to suggest that your religious beliefs, and your transcendent beliefs about the universe, are insincere. The pretending occurs when someone (like Jacobse) assumes a pose as if material evidence would matter to him, when in fact, it would not.
For example, I don’t argue about social issues using quotations from Jesus Christ. You’ve probably met people who do; even gay activists like to quote the bible. It’s a big book, and it’s been the subject of millions of interpretations, and I’m sure I could argue until I’m blue in the face about the “correct” interpretation of the life and words of Jesus. But, I don’t accept the divinity of Jesus. So if I used his words to argue with you about social issues, I would just be posturing: Jesus’ words didn’t really form my beliefs. In the same way, Jacobse is pretending when he suggests that “evidence” is at all relevant to his discussion of gay parenting.
Note 44. Phil writes:
Phil, what you tend to do in debates with broad cultural themes like homosexual marriage is to highlight one aspect and reduce the debate to it.
Look, no one is arguing that you won’t find a homosexual couple adequately raising a child here and there. However, the notion that undermining the traditional family even more (or in your case implicitly arguing that homosexual marriage replicates traditional heterosexual marriage) won’t effect children in the long run flies in the face of our experience with single mothers as well as common sense, especially when the inherent instability of homosexual relationships are taken into account.
Your rationale for the cultural legitimacy of homosexual marriage, as I have pointed out before, would not preclude any group from claiming this ostensible “right” for their cause. If homosexual marriage is a right, why isn’t polygamy, or adult-child marriages? The truth is that you are not arguing for a right as much as a radical social reorganization, and reducing the argument to whether or not I would accept arbitrary data doesn’t change this fact.
No, I am expressing a healthy skepticism not only because the data is preliminary, but also because we’ve tried the social experiments you champion before with dismal results.
Also, given that homosexual relationships are inherently unstable, homosexual promiscuity is a huge problem, homosexual abuse rates are higher than heterosexual rates, etc., I don’t see your rush for moral and cultural parity between heterosexual and homosexual marriage as a wise course. Don’t we have enough problems with the heterosexual breakdown of marriage? Why add to it even more? And why subject children to social experimentation?
Note 42. James writes:
No, you are reading this right. I think the two men are doing the right thing. It’s an exception I can live with.
What social experiments have I championed?
Jacobse, what you tend to do in debates is ignore what the other person has actually said and instead focus on broad cultural themes that have nothing to do with the specific argument being made.
It’s not that I don’t think the point-counterpoint of “Gay marriages are really not that bad for society” vs. “Gay marriages are terrible for society” isn’t an argument worth having, it’s just that we’ve argued it before. I read this board, and I enjoy reading the discussions that other people have even if I don’t participate in them, and I try to only make a post when there’s something interesting or novel that I’d like to discuss. In this case, I am fascinated by your pretense that “evidence,” “data,” or predictions of future consequences are at all germane to your arguments about same-sex parenting.
Certainly, you believe that the evidence supports your views. But what I (correctly?) suggest, is that no possible evidence could come into existence that would affect your views. Jim has posted about this, and I’ve asked you directly.
I already know your views on same-sex parenting. You’ve written about them extensively. What I don’t know, is what your response is to this statement:
There are more “broad cultural themes” here than just same-sex parenting. The issue of whether it is necessary for people of faith, whose views are shaped by earnest, Scriptural faith or “revealed truth,” must pretend that they give weight to materialist things like evidence in the cultural debate, when in fact they do not, is also an important issue. Must Catholics, for example, lie if they want to debate social issues? Must people of the Orthodox faith pretend that they give credence to academic studies?
Inherently unstable? You extrapolate from demographic data that a higher rate of breakups is inherent to homosexual relationships? Yet presented with identical data about black couples, you’d surely not argue that black couples are inherently unstable.
You’re talking about a statistic–“rates.” Why? The statistic is wholly irrelevant to your views. If the statistic were different, it would have no effect on your opinion. You’re only pretending that the statistic matters. It’s a red herring in this debate.
…and it’s unsupported. Can you point to an academic study which concluded that homosexual partners are more abused that heterosexual partners? (I think the study you’re thinking of presented the statistic that homosexual persons are more likely to be abused by a partner than by a heterosexual stranger.)
The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs has indicated that studies show that abuse rates are likely comparable between homosexual and heterosexual couples. (The link is below, if you’re really interested. I’d be curious to read other research studies about the subject.)
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/glbtdv/glbtdv.html#id2316896
Note 47. Phil writes:
Homosexual marriage.
Yes, of course. When you champion a radical restructuring of marriage to include homosexuals, polygamists, adult and children (which your rationale cannot prohibit), then specific arguments must be read in the larger context you propose. If I didn’t approach the larger question, my critique of your method (conflate the entire argument to one or two points) would hold no validity. This should be self-evident.
How can you make this assertion absent long term data? All we have are assumptions, much of it grounded in experience and common sense. Your assumption is that I will ignore the data. My assumption is that the data will conform to long term experience, i.e.: redefining family will have seriously negative effects on children.
Note however, that you attack me, and not the idea. Note too that you are afraid to make the assertion that homosexual parenting will be beneficial to children. Why? One reason is that no long term data exists. The second is that it will introduce all sorts of broader (and salient) cultural points into the discussion — something you have not yet shown you are equipped to address.
Yes, I do indeed argue that part of the black community is inherently unstable, and much of that instability is caused by the breakdown of moral values that actually define the homosexual community. Let me draw it a bit more clearly so you can understand. One of the main reasons for a black underclass is the breakdown of the family.
You are arguing that because we see breakdown in the black families, my argument that homosexual relationships are inherently unstable holds no moral force. (Note that you don’t challenge my assertion that homosexual relationships are unstable.). The difference however is this: I argue for a return to traditional morality, that is, the rebuilding of traditional (heterosexual) families, while you argue that the traditional definition of marriage should be discarded. Why discarded? Again, because the rational you provide cannot be limited to homosexuals alone.
Phil, you are a homosexual activist. Fine. But let’s not pretend that you have the interests of children at heart here. Give me a homosexual who is honest about the rampant promiscuity and inherent instability of homosexual relationships (like the example that James provided above) over one who uses children to advance the homosexual cultural agenda. I can deal with someone who is honest, whether or not he is homosexual does not matter.
Christopher writes: “No, Materialism ecompasses the very notion that an material “facts” can be proven or disproven with other material data. As you say, it explicitly ignores/discounts the moral.”
That simply isn’t true. Research can look at various features of morality including honesty, altruistic behavior, and so on. What research can’t do is to measure “morality” or “goodness” as abstract categories. It can look at specific behaviors that fall into these categories.
Studies of same-sex and heterosexual parenting do in fact look at a number of factors of both parents and children that have long-term moral and social implications — discipline, depression, school performance, behavioral problems, parenting stress, ability to nurture, time spent with children, and so on. These are not trivial things that can be dismissed as “materialism.”
Christopher: “It’s not “pretending” at all, it’s admitting that there is more to life, the universe, and everything, than has ever been dreamt of by materialistic philosophy. I can “study” morals, I can “study” man, and his God.” It’s just another way of saying we won’t agree on a methodology.
Mine is just as “scientific” as yours . . . ”
Give me a break. Your own personal study and your personal opinions are not science in any sense of the word. You simply want to appropriate the word “science” so as to legitimize your own opinions and thus be able to dismiss actual science.
Christopher: “, . . you would simply define the real (personhood, morals, etc.) away, and claim “science” for yourself.”
Look, why not just be honest and say that you have no use for science, since you obviously don’t. You simply don’t care what research has to say about how children do in same-sex parenting. Since that’s your position, as Phil said in a different context, “own it.” Embrace it.
Christopher: “I look at history, I look as studies of single parents . . . ”
Drawing conclusions about same-sex parenting on the basis of studies of single parents is like drawing conclusions about drinking coffee on the basis of studies on cigarette smoking. We already know from the research that those situations are very different from each other.
Christopher: “I look at reality, and I see the moral mess of the social experimentation of the last 40 years or so….”
We do social experiments all the time, and always have and always will. Child labor law was a social experiment. Laws against child abuse were a social experiment. Radio was a social experiment. Television was a social experiment. Widespread literacy was a social experiment. Just because something is a social experiment doesn’t mean that it’s bad. In modern times we can actually study the effects of new policies and practices. And when the research shows that something is good or bad, I really don’t give a whit if some version of a Christopher claims the opposite based on his own personal opinion, even if he calls it “research” and “methodology.”
Phil, has it somehow escaped your notice that all people select the data for debates that is most congenial to their position? You ramble on and on as if only religious people do it. The “fact” of the matter is that non-religious people do it as well, you do it, all of God’s children do it. It is a far different thing when one is debating and attempting to convince than it is learning and studying.
You routinely ignore evidence that is at odds with your position.
In any case the myth of objectivity and neutral facts is one of the greater myths from which empiricists suffer. Data is always selected and interpreted to fit the pre-conceived bias of the person doing the collecting. A person’s mind is changed only when the weight of the evidence overwhelms the bias. If the bias is quite strong, nothing will overwhelm it.
My core bias is that the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, fully man and fully God actually occured. I came to that knowing from an instruction my mother gave me that God is real and I needed to find Him. That was the sum total of my direct religious instruction as a child. My brother was told essentially the same thing. As it happened, God found us first and He brought us to the Orthodox Church.
Since the Incarnation is my bias, I always return to it and it is the organizing principal of my thought. Real communication does not even begin until folks can recognize each other’s core bias. I’m not sure what your’s is, Phil, I just have this sneaky feeling it is not the Incarnation.
Every single coherent thread of thought in the history of man begins with Assume A. The collection, selection, and valuation of evidence begins from that point.
What many here refuse to accept is that the differences between us are quite basic. Since it is more fun to engage in “factual” arguments simple questions like, “What is the nature of man?” go unanswered.
The fundamental reality is that facts, in and of themselves, are meaningless. As the lead character on CSI frequently remarks, “Facts without context are useless.”