Pages

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Homosexual adoption

The “Kaffinator” (any relation to the Oddball Pastor?), who identifies himself as a “Christian in the five-point-sola sense,” continues to press his case for homosexual adoption.

“I am certainly not saying nobody should be punished for any crime. Nor did Jesus. But he was rebuking those who obstinately refuse to see their own moral failings as they zealously pronounce moral judgment upon others.”

i) We are not pronouncing moral judgment on the homosexual community. God is the one rendering that verdict. All we’ve done is to agree with God.

Sorry if that’s a problem for your theology, Kaffinator. It’s not a problem for mine.

ii) And, as I said before, even if we were hypocritical, that’s irrelevant to the welfare of the children at risk.

The Kaffinator’s philosophy is that, when in doubt, put kids at risk at further risk.

The Kaffinator also objected to the fact that I didn’t cite any peer-reviewed studies.

Actually, there are peer-reviewed studies on various aspects of the homosexual lifestyle, such as elevated rates of suicide and so on.

However, let’s consider the operating assumption behind his demand.

The homosexual community has a vested interest in suppressing data detrimental to its political agenda. And since academia is sympathetic to the homosexual agenda, you can’t very well expect ideologically compromised institutions like the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association to be overly forthcoming when the Far Left is the gatekeeper.

These institutions have been captured by enemies of the family. Not only are they pushing the homosexual agenda, but they are softening up the public for pedophilia. This goes all the way back to Freud on “infant sexuality.”

Should we be looking to the Kinsey Institute for peer-reviewed studies for “scientific” evidence of what constitutes good clean fun?

“Looks like Steve has moved on without explaining why the analogy to adoption by blacks is without merit. Too bad for us all.”

i) Too bad the Kaffinator would rather play race-baiting games instead of defending the weakest among us.

ii) A homosexual “home” environment is inherently corrupt and corrupting. A black domestic arrangement is not.

In the case of placing orphans or foster children in black homes, you would have the same screening process in place that you would have for adoption and foster care where any other ethnic group is concerned.

There are good black homes as well as bad black homes, just as there are good white homes as well as bad white homes.

By contrast, there are no morally or psychologically healthy homosexual home environments in which to place a child. The ratio is 100% depraved.

“After all we don't want to put children into homes where violent crime is more frequent, do we?”

Apparently, the Kaffinator would answer that question in the affirmative. Yes, we do want to put children in homes where violent crime is more frequent.

Need I say more?

13 comments:

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

    Steve > “The “Kaffinator” (any relation to the Oddball Pastor?), who identifies himself as a “Christian in the five-point-sola sense,” continues to press his case for homosexual adoption.”

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

    Steve > “i) We are not pronouncing moral judgment on the homosexual community. God is the one rendering that verdict. All we’ve done is to agree with God.

    “Sorry if that’s a problem for your theology, Kaffinator. It’s not a problem for mine.”

    Knowing what is sin and what is sin is not a problem for Christian theology. The problem occurs when one short-circuits the Christian conception of sin against the governing powers of the state. 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.

    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.

    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". You believe that to deny willing and otherwise qualified homosexual couples from adopting needy children promotes a better society. You might be right. But you will have to make your case, based on facts and solid reasoning, to convince anyone of this.

    Steve > “ii) And, as I said before, even if we were hypocritical, that’s irrelevant to the welfare of the children at risk.

    “The Kaffinator’s philosophy is that, when in doubt, put kids at risk at further risk.”


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

    Steve > “The Kaffinator also objected to the fact that I didn’t cite any peer-reviewed studies.”

    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.

    Steve > “Actually, there are peer-reviewed studies on various aspects of the homosexual lifestyle, such as elevated rates of suicide and so on.”

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

    You rail against the "homosexual lifestyle" but what about the "heterosexual lifestyle"? Lets say I head down to Cancun during spring break and survey the heterosexuals I find. Do you think I will find specimens conducive to good parenting? My point: just because one segment of a population demonstrates a behavior does not give you the right to pre-judge that entire population.

    Steve > “However, let’s consider the operating assumption behind his demand.

    “The homosexual community has a vested interest in suppressing data detrimental to its political agenda. […]”


    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 could use a similar argument to prove UFOs exist.

    Kaff > “Looks like Steve has moved on without explaining why the analogy to adoption by blacks is without merit. Too bad for us all.”

    Steve > “i) Too bad the Kaffinator would rather play race-baiting games instead of defending the weakest among us”

    It is a simple analogy, Steve, demonstrating a point that you seem to have trouble grasping: that you cannot necessarily paint an entire demographic with the same brush. To defeat my analogy, you need to explain how it fails. Ad hominem attacks cannot defeat an analogy.

    Steve > “ii) A homosexual “home” environment is inherently corrupt and corrupting. A black domestic arrangement is not.”

    Steve, this is the logical fallacy known as "begging the question". This means that you are using the assumption that your proposition is true as evidence to support your argument. What I am asking you to demonstrate, Steve, is that the average homosexual couple who wishes to adopt is so much more dangerous than the norm that a blanket prohibition is warranted.

    Steve > “In the case of placing orphans or foster children in black homes, you would have the same screening process in place that you would have for adoption and foster care where any other ethnic group is concerned.

    “There are good black homes as well as bad black homes, just as there are good white homes as well as bad white homes.”


    So, whites would be exempt from those standards? Or are they for everyone? If so why couldn't you use this same screening process for homosexual couples seeking to adopt?

    Steve > “By contrast, there are no morally or psychologically healthy homosexual home environments in which to place a child. The ratio is 100% depraved.”

    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.

    Kaff > “After all we don't want to put children into homes where violent crime is more frequent, do we?”

    Steve > “Apparently, the Kaffinator would answer that question in the affirmative. Yes, we do want to put children in homes where violent crime is more frequent.

    “Need I say more?”


    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.

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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? Isn't any home going to be full of immorality since all people are sinful? 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? Homosexuality after all is no different than anyother sin. Why is homosexuality the only sin that should prevent adoption. 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?

    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. I know a few homosexuals, they are all nice, loving people, who wouldn't dream of hurting a child. So, those homosexuals who might hurt children, wouldn't they be weeded out in the adoption process? 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.

    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?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll make a very short comment into this debate, and I'll likely be ignored, because I don't have any studies, or data, because it's not my field. But I will make an observation. It's true that Romans 13 speaks of the government who wields the sword, but I would understand that government to uphold certain principles (like those in Rom. 1:26-27). No sins are greater than others, and we all sin from time to time, but is there not something to be said that homosexuality is a lifestyle of sin (just like a habit or pattern of lying/deception, verbal abuse or any other kind of abuse) that by adoption presents it as normative and acceptable to the child (and thus, forced as acceptable on society)?

    And another thing--the analogy between race and orientation doesn't quite work. From a constitutional standpoint, they are in completely different classes (of rights protection against discrimination--which is really what this is all about). But I'll leave it at that unless you want more in depth explanation--I'm just a visitor and not a contributor. Interesting discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, the argument is quite simple:



    1. A homosexual couple does not constitute a "family"



    2. Children should be adopted into a healthy environment, that is, a family.



    3. Therefore, children should not be adopted by homosexual couples.



    It's bad enough that children are abandoned. It's worse that society is wanting to put them into such an odd and disparaging environment. As a Christian, I recognize that there is a role called "mother" and a role called "father." Both are needed to adequately parent children.



    By the way, the Bible doesn't equate homosexuality with other sins. Yes, all environments in this fallen world are "immoral," and yes, before the judgment seat of Christ, all sin is equally condemnable. The person who disobeys his parents is no less guilty than the murderer.



    But that does not mean that the effects of sin are all the same. Sexual sin is rooted in a sexual drive. Are you going to argue that the effect of the sexual drive in a person is the same as the effect of other sins? Biblically speaking, is there not a case for saying that one sexual sin ultimately leads to another sexual sin?



    But let's say that a certain homosexual couple is self-controlled in their sin (which is, apart from the common grace of God, an oxymoron). On what biblical basis should such a couple be allowed to adopt a child?

    ReplyDelete
  5. there are no morally or psychologically healthy homosexual home environments in which to place a child. The ratio is 100% depraved

    What a coincidence. That's exactly what I say about Christian homes.

    But let's say that a certain homosexual couple is self-controlled in their sin (which is, apart from the common grace of God, an oxymoron). On what biblical basis should such a couple be allowed to adopt a child?

    Thank God we live in a country which makes decisions based on a constitution instead of the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank God we live in a country which makes decisions based on a constitution instead of the Bible.

    Are you really thanking God?

    Cause, if God exists, then he is a certain way about sin.

    In any case, this whole discussion is from a Christian point of view. Your comments aren't relevant here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just as an aside note, how do you think our founding fathers viewed the constitution? On what basis of morality do you think they framed it? Have you ever read any of the early state constitutions? They all recognize that the right to govern comes from the God of the Bible. There is no governmental authority except that which is given by God (Rom 13).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Dan,

    Dan > […] is there not something to be said that homosexuality is a lifestyle of sin (just like a habit or pattern of lying/deception, verbal abuse or any other kind of abuse) that by adoption presents it as normative and acceptable to the child (and thus, forced as acceptable on society)?

    We are all, but for the grace of Christ, guilty of living a “lifestyle of sin”. Our natural inclination is toward the flesh, not the spirit. The point you raise is that when a state permits adoption by homosexual couples it in effect “blesses” those couples with its approval. A similar point is often raised in contention against allowing homosexual civil unions (sometimes called “marriages”).

    It is definitely worth considering the message our society sends to the next generation by those behaviors it approves of or prohibits. As a Christian, I struggle with certain questions, like, which of those messages do we want to encode into law, and which do we want to pass on by our example? What negative cultural messages are we already sending, with laws that allow no-fault divorce and consequent serial polygamy? Are we basically ignoring those and, like the Pharisees, focusing on the “easy targets” (i.e. someone else)? And what kind of message does that send?

    Dan > And another thing--the analogy between race and orientation doesn't quite work. From a constitutional standpoint, they are in completely different classes (of rights protection against discrimination--which is really what this is all about).

    I’d be interested to hear your perspective on how they are different, constitutionally speaking. Of course, the only purpose to my analogy was to show that you can’t always make broad assumptions about a given group and use it to define a policy targeted toward those group members and I think in that context it is a valid comparison.

    Hi Evanmay,

    Evanmay > 2. Children should be adopted into a healthy environment, that is, a family.

    I know a single (white) woman who adopted a black child whose biological mother was a drug-user and did not have the skills or ability or inclination to actually raise a child. Sure it would have been better to place that child into a two-parent home. But I think in this case it’s clear that the child is much better off with a parent who loves and her and is able to care for her.

    Because my relatively affluent single white female friend is not, in your terms, a “family”, you would deny her the adoption. Where does your reasoning leave that child? In an orphanage or foster care system and away from a dedicated woman who is willing to sacrifice to serve that child’s needs. Are you comfortable with that?

    Evanmay > But let's say that a certain homosexual couple is self-controlled in their sin (which is, apart from the common grace of God, an oxymoron). On what biblical basis should such a couple be allowed to adopt a child?

    Well, first, we need to examine whether the Bible establishes any rules for adoption at all. I don’t think it does. So we are left with the application of Biblical principles. From numerous passages it is clear that God cares passionately about the well-being of children. Therefore we should do our best, when a child is without parents, to find the best place we can for that child to be raised. Evanmay, would you ever consider that a household with two monogamous (but homosexual) adults, with adequate finances and time to devote to parenting, could ever be considered an improvement for children who have no parents at all?

    Anon > What a coincidence. That's exactly what I say about Christian homes.

    Anon has keyed into the fact that labeling someone’s home environment as “100% depraved” is a judgmental, stereotypical attitude. Unsurprisingly, Anon responds in kind. See how hate breeds hate, folks? Jesus offers us a better way, but unbelievers will not believe it until we can show it to them in our speech and actions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. >>>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?

    This is actually quite easy to do. I used to work in public health.

    In 1998, Gabriel Rotello and Eric Rofes took opposing sides in a debate on gay men's sexual habits just prior to the Atlanta meeting of the Gay and Lesbian Health Association. Rotello took a more conservative viewpoint. Rofes took a far more liberal viewpoint. Rofes' views prevailed, and, since that time, the more conservative views of Rotello and Signoreli have been largely vilified or ignored.

    About that same time, I remember a book on same-sex rape came out by a fellow in Ohio who was a rape counselor. His book uncovered the fact that same-sex rape occurs far more frequently than most believe. Law enforcement frequently does not count it as a crime for reporting purposes, because they tend to think that men, being men, are sexual predators, "wanted it anyway." I seem to recall a case at a NC university serving as a paradigm case of this phenomenon. At any rate, while this was largely lauded, this work generally goes uncited when discussions arise about rape and domestic violence among gays, and they are portrayed as being "just like everybody else" on these issues.

    DV in lesbians is also a rather interesting phenomenon. On the surface, the statistics for DV between heterosexuals and homosexuals (specifically lesbians) appears about the same. However, if you start reading the literature on DV published by lesbians you find them discussing the under-reporting rates for lesbians or noting that they believe lesbian DV to go unreported. As with breast cancer, where lesbians are known to under-report in greater rates when compared to heterosexual females, some lesbians in public health have commented that they believe that DV is more frequently under-reported by lesbians than it is among heterosexuals. In addition, DV is under-reported across the board for lots of reasons, most of which get back to women being afraid of their attackers, being pscyhologically enslaved to their attackers by virtue of lifelong abuse from childhood onwards, and by laws that simply do not provide adequate protection for women and/or protection services being inadequate at best. The point here is that you never hear this information cited when discussing these issues, and those who don't discuss it are the gatekeepers of the APA and their peer organizations. There are some in APHA and the some in the LGLHA are constantly at odds with the some of their peer organizations over these issues, and these writers work generally gets buried in an obscure publication that nobody really reads or mentioned in the office but not in publication and folks wonder why nobody listens.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kaffinator,
    You said:
    It is definitely worth considering the message our society sends to the next generation by those behaviors it approves of or prohibits. As a Christian, I struggle with certain questions, like, which of those messages do we want to encode into law, and which do we want to pass on by our example? What negative cultural messages are we already sending, with laws that allow no-fault divorce and consequent serial polygamy? Are we basically ignoring those and, like the Pharisees, focusing on the “easy targets” (i.e. someone else)? And what kind of message does that send?

    You see, a line has to be drawn. As an attorney (and this may come as a shock) I don't like the laws allowing no-fault divorce--it's honestly easier to get a divorce than to get married. The liberalizing element in society over the last 50 years has called into question laws that upheld the value of the family. I don't feel at all that this issue acts as if we are "targeting" homosexuality, but we are saying that the line should be pushed no further. If we simply through up our hands and said, gee, we sure look hypocritical, we should through all laws out that uphold a type of morality (though cases like Lawrence v. Texas certainly continue to pave the way for that). Of course I know this is not what you mean, but it can follow from your statement.

    I'd comment on your comment on my "lifestyle of sin" comment (enough comments?), but I won't get into that. I will shortly explain the difference in classes--our beloved Supreme Court has determined from reading the law (something I seriously doubt) and interpreting cases that race is what is called a "suspect" class, meaning that a law is more closely scrutinized if it is possibly discriminating against a person because of their race (sex NOT GENDER is another suspect class). However, sexual orientation is on a lower level, meaning that it is quasi-suspect, and it is much harder to show discrimination in a drafted law. This just barely glazes the surface, but I will not go into this much further since it's not really germane to the topic at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Dan,

    Thanks for the constructive comment. It’s nice to speak with someone so level-headed. And I’m glad you share my distaste concerning no-fault divorce. I would like to respond to an interesting point you made:

    Dan > “I don't feel at all that this issue acts as if we are "targeting" homosexuality, but we are saying that the line should be pushed no further. If we simply [throw] up our hands and said, gee, we sure look hypocritical, we should through all laws out that uphold a type of morality.”

    I agree that government has a responsibility to maintain peace and order and I think that is served by encouragements toward morally good behavior, and discouragements against morally bad behavior. So, yes, we have to decide to draw “the line” somewhere. But I get suspicious when that line just so happens to gerrymander around the divorce-and-remarriage sacred cow while carefully leaving other groups out in the cold. We’re willing to respond with petitions and initiatives and votes when the law is going to favor unions of which most of us would never dream of being a part, but when a law might serve to restrict our own behavior, we get curiously silent.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kaffinator,
    You said But I get suspicious when that line just so happens to gerrymander around the divorce-and-remarriage sacred cow while carefully leaving other groups out in the cold. We’re willing to respond with petitions and initiatives and votes when the law is going to favor unions of which most of us would never dream of being a part, but when a law might serve to restrict our own behavior, we get curiously silent.

    I agree that it is easier for us to be against ideas that we would never be a part of, but it doesn't defeat being against it. You have to remember that within a group of people that are all against an idea, they may not all be against it for the same reason. In a small group set against homosexuals adopting, there might be a handful that simply hate homosexual people (not their sin) on principal, and thus are against the idea for the wrong reason. But their improper view doesn't invalidate the Bible's stance on it. There is a higher law that could be described as "common law" that is God's law. Homosexual acts (that would necessarily be carried out in the couples you speak of) are against the natural law, in how God created the world (look to Genesis).

    I'm not sure I follow in how the law (as it relates to this subject of adoption) gerrymanders around the divorce and remarriage issue? From what I understand, regardless of whether the adoptive parents were divorced at one time, then remarried, etc., they all have to go under the same background check and home study that any other couple would have to undergo.

    If you are saying in the general sense that we slough off on divorce and remarriage, it is simply a desensitizing of America. You see, this is a battle that has already been lost in the area of law--some state legislators are trying to make it harder to get a divorce by requiring a counseling session before divorce can be obtained, and some are trying to eliminate no-fault divorces. But really, the problem also is that "Christian" activists (for lack of a better term) politicize much that is not important (read: boycotts) in the societal landscape (you mentioned "petitions") so that when an issue like this, which IS important, comes along it seems that we cannot be taken seriously.

    Let me be clear: I'm no more against homosexuals adopting children than I am against no-fault, unbiblical divorce. When I speak of drawing the line, it's best thought of in military terms. On one front, I am worn down to the point where the assailant has essentially defeated me on that front; however, on the other front, I am holding fast, and I send more troops to the front to hold it. So it goes with this issue: on the national scene, under the rule of law, society's disdain for divorce and adultery has been eroded (and this has over time been reflected in the relaxing and reformation of the law). Seeing this erosion propels us (as the Church) to hold up the banner of the traditional family, and boldly speak against the idea of homosexual adoptions in the forum of public debate.

    I've likely said way too much (getting too big for my britches), though it seems that long posts evoke long comments, especially on this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Actually, I just wanted to say "hi" to Gene Bridges. -- Jim Baxter

    ReplyDelete