Homosexual adoption-2

Kaffinator said:

“Hi Steve, since you posted at me, allow me to respond.

I'm not pressing any such case. I'm simply giving you the opportunity to respond to criticism with a reasoned argument.”

No, what you’re doing is to simply dissemble. You tip your hand right below on the role of the state, when you imply that this particular issue falls outside the legitimate scope of the state to legislate.

That’s a default argument for homosexual adoption.

Likewise, you think the onus lies with me to prove that homosexuals are unfit to adopt children, rather than placing the onus on homosexuals to prove their fitness.

That burden of proof is, in and of itself, yet another default argument for homosexual adoption.

So you have two default arguments for homosexual adoption, one based on y0ur theory of the state, and the other based on where you choose to affix the burden of proof regarding the eligibility of homosexual “couples.”

Try to play someone else for the chump. I’m not volunteering for the part.

“The problem occurs when one short-circuits the Christian conception of sin against the governing powers of the state.”

Since Scripture has a theology of sin as well as a theology of the state, I’m integrating the two rather than separating the two.

“Where does this end? It ends with the state persecuting those who it determines have denied Christ. Perhaps you are content to return to the religiously-motivated bloodshed that characterized Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries. I am not.”

Now you show your true colors. You have an ax to grind. You have chosen to stake out a very reactionary position based on the European Wars of Religion.

This, in turn, controls the position you take on individual issues like homosexual adoption.

To say “where does it end” is a very anti-intellectual objection. As if we’re incapable of drawing elementary rational and moral distinctions, so we fall back on an all-or-nothing argument.

To say that the state cannot ban homosexual adoption because that would lead to the violent, state-sponsored persecution of Christians is both logically and historically slipshod.

Try not to get carried away with a hobbyhorse. This is a debate over who is suitable or unsuitable to adopt children.

“Steve, I think you need to recast your understanding of the purpose of government to suit a New Testament era. The purpose of government is not to enforce compliance with God’s Word. According to scripture, the purpose of government is to maintain peace and order. Therefore, the government defines "what is good" by what promotes order and "what is bad" by what destroys it.”

i) This raises perennial questions of covenant theology. But even Reformed Baptists of the LBCF variety believe that the state does have a role in enforcing the Decalogue.

ii) We are not living in the NT era. We are living in the post-Constantinian era. The NT does not directly address that situation.

iii) Even under the Mosaic theocracy, resident aliens were not required to profess the true faith. Quite the opposite, they were prohibited from sharing in the religious life of Israel unless they voluntarily converted to the true faith.

iv) According to 1 Tim 1:8-10, God’s law is binding on unbelievers. Indeed, it’s especially binding on unbelievers since unbelievers are the most conspicuous class of law-breakers.

And as Walter Liefeld points out in his commentary on the Pastorals, vv9-10 are merely a paraphrase of the Decalogue (Deut 5:6-21).

v) The role of gov’t has never been limited to the maintenance of peace and order.

A primary duty of the state is to legislate and enforce fundamental social ethics.

“This makes the question much easier to resolve. As participants in civil government, we have a responsibility to ask "what will help maintain peace and order".”

No, our responsibility is not to maintain abstractions like “peace and order.”

Peace and order exist for the good of men, women, and children. What we have is a responsibility to ask is what is good for men, women, and children.

More particularly, to uphold and defend the integrity of the family, private property, and the freedom to worship the true God, pursuant to the creation mandates of Gen 1-2.

“You believe that to deny willing and otherwise qualified homosexual couples from adopting needy children promotes a better society.”

This assumes that there are, indeed, otherwise “qualified” homosexual “couples.”

Once again, your ideological bias is clear for all to see.

“This a ridiculous mischaracterization. I have not written one word advocating homosexual adoption. I'm merely asking you to make your case.”

More dissembling.

“Not only did you not cite any peer-reviewed studies, but most were not “studies” of any kind, and only a scant minority even mentioned adoption. “

i) Your original demand wasn’t limited to “studies,” but included “documentation.

You’ve been redefining your original demand ever since.

ii) As I’ve already pointed out, one doesn’t need a study on homosexual adoption per se to determine if homosexuals are suitable foster parents or guardians.

That, rather, is just a special case of a more general question. Do homosexuals molest minors at a disproportionate rate? Even if we bracket the matter of child-abuse, does the homosexual lifestyle afford a suitable environment for child-rearing purposes?

iii) By contrast, the Kaffinator’s philosophy is to use children as lab rats in a social experiment. Place them with homosexual “couples” and see what happens.

“If there are peer-reviewed studies why didn't you post them instead?”

Anyone can Google this sort of information for himself.

“You rail against the "homosexual lifestyle" but what about the "heterosexual lifestyle"?”

Naturally I “rail” against one, but not the other. The homosexual lifestyle is inherently unnatural, abnormal, and evil, while the heterosexual lifestyle is inherently natural, normal, and good.

Heterosexual sins involve the misuse or abuse of naturals goods. Exaggerating a natural virtue until it becomes a vice.

“My point: just because one segment of a population demonstrates a behavior does not give you the right to pre-judge that entire population.”

I have a perfect right to prejudge an entire “population” or subculture when that subculture is in systematic violation of natural law and revealed law alike.

“In other words, what Steve is saying here is that his inability to supply any evidence for his case is best explained by a vast conspiracy to suppress that evidence because…the homosexuals are in control?”

i) No, it’s not a “conspiracy.” It’s right in the open. The politicization of the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association by the Far Left, the reign of political correctness on the college campus, the subversive agenda of organizations like the Kinsey Institute, is writ large for those who, unlike the Kaffinator, done choose to play dumb or gouged out their eyes.

Tenure, peer-review, and speech-codes are all used as enforcement-mechanisms to coerce intellectual conformity with the directives of radical social reengineering.

That’s the stuff of the “culture wars” which we see play out every day.

This is not an argument from silence, but an argument from silencing.

Consider the cover-up of the Catholic sex scandal. Consider the nearly uniform male-to-male ratio between victim and perpetrator.

ii) You can dredge up a huge amount of damning information about the homosexual lifestyle by going straight to homosexual websites.

Except for NAMBLA, they are not going to advertise the seduction of minors or kiddy porn.

But you can pull actuarial information on suicide, domestic violence, and rampant promiscuity, not to mention the many grave medical conditions associated with the homosexual lifestyle.

There’s also all the stuff I’ve ready over the years.

So this is not, by any means, an argument from silence.

“That you cannot necessarily paint an entire demographic with the same brush. To defeat my analogy, you need to explain how it fails.”

i) Notice how the Kaffinator treats the welfare of children like a chess game: my countermove must defeat his move.

ii) Whether every member composing the demographic is guilty is irrelevant. So what if there are exceptions? Why are we putting the child at risk? Why make the child assume the risk? If some get lucky, how does justify the policy as a whole.

The Kaffinator treats this as if homosexuals had a moral right to adopt children, and they can only be denied their right under due process.

The only people who have a right to a child are the parents or next-of-kin.

Once you move beyond the natural family, the burden is on the prospective guardian.

“So, whites would be exempt from those standards? Or are they for everyone?”

Since my comparison was symmetrical, the criteria would be as well.

“If so why couldn't you use this same screening process for homosexual couples seeking to adopt?”

Equal treatment all other things being equal. Homosexual “couples” are not on a par with heterosexual couples.

There is no such thing as a homosexual “couple” anyway. Homosexuals have open relationships with rapid turnover.

Two left shoes do not a couple make. A temporary pair, but not a couple.

“If that was true then we would see 100% depraved children coming out of those environments (or at least a much higher incidence). And if that is true there should be evidence. Show it.”

Show it by using orphans as lab rats in your Skinnerbox? NAMBLA would appreciate you rules of evidence. So would Kinsey. I do not.

“Let's back up. The assumption underneath Steve's argument is that if a particular demographic illustrates an increased level of (some bad behavior) then we have a responsibility, for children's sake, to prevent adoptions into that entire demographic. My analogy, from which Steve quoted, reveals the absurdity of his position.”

I quoted his argument from analogy and then showed how his argument from analogy broke down at the critical point of comparison. So there is no pertinent parallel.

“Incredibly, Steve then mocks the conclusions that come from the application of his own assumption! The best refutation of an argument is a self-refutation and Steve has been kind enough to supply it.”

No, my argument was far more broad-based than the Kaffinator’s tendentious simplification.

“Macbeth54 said:

Steve- Your main arguement seems to rest on the fact that homosexuals are immoral, and that children shouldn't be put in such an immoral environment. This seems a little absurd, isn't it?”

No, my main argument was a good deal more specific than that.

“Isn't any home going to be full of immorality since all people are sinful?”

i) We’re not talking here about a home composed of blood relations. A somewhat dysfunctional natural family is preferable to adoption or foster care, even if the guardians are better parents.

The question is what sort of strangers we should entrust children to.

ii) There are degrees of immorality. That is why some children are removed from their homes in the first place.

“Should people who lie, who don't go to church, who perhaps tell bawdy jokes, who lusts, who sometimes harbor hate in their heart, not be allowed to adopt?”

Should people who don’t go to church not be allowed to adopt? Sounds like a fine idea to me.

“Homosexuality after all is no different than anyother sin.”

Sins are not all of a kind. Some are more socially destructive than others. Murder, for instance.

“Why is homosexuality the only sin that should prevent adoption.”

It isn’t.

“Should only Christians be allowed to adopt since they are the only ones likely to give the children the kind of morality that you would want them to have?”

Observant Jews would also make fine guardians.

“As far as putting them in a dangerous situation, with the possibility of sexual abuse as you mentioned in a previous post, I honestly don't know what you are talking about.”

Why do I find that easy to believe?

“I know a few homosexuals, they are all nice, loving people, who wouldn't dream of hurting a child.”

How do you know what they do behind closed doors? Are you a peeping tom?

Many sexual predators are charming, all-American, boy-next-door types. That’s’ how they bait their victims.

“So, those homosexuals who might hurt children, wouldn't they be weeded out in the adoption process.”

How would they be weeded out of the process? Would they volunteer self-incriminating information?

“Becuase I've got to say that I know gay couples who would treat a child much better, and provide a much more loving home, than some straight families I know.”

You see what you want to see, and what you are allowed to see.

For the record, I don’t equate sodomy with pedophilia. I’m not claiming that homosexuals are more likely to molest preadolescent children.

Be that as it may, they are far more likely to seduce minors (underage teenage boys). And even if they’re not guilty of child abuse, there are all the other factors I’ve discussed.

“So, I guess my main question then is, can you provide a single argument that isn't based on the fact that you think homosexuality is immoral, from your Christian morality?”

There are no value-free judgments regarding what makes for a suitable guardian.

Caligula’s criteria are quite different from mine.