I have thought long and hard about it and have penned a few thoughts below. I believe we need to discuss these matters openly and honestly in truth and love rather than fight each other with emotion and minimal reason or logic. We also need to avoid just sticking our head in the sand and hoping it will go away. Why is it in this day and age of extreme 'tolerance' we are not able to have real discussions about these important topics that shape our personal worldview, community an country. There is more at stake in these discussions than having our feelings hurt by someone who disagrees with us. I'd love to hear any feedback, for or against.
I agree that every child has the right to be raised by a father and mother as nature intended. Obviously for many varied reasons, this is not always possible (divorce, death, etc). At these times, we all need to pitch in as a community to help out. The other extreme is when a selfish decision in made that intentionally removes the right of both a father and mother from a child. Is this right? A father and mother each bring components to child raising that the other cannot provide. To remove one of the pivotal roles of raising a child on purpose seems to me like placing the child at a disadvantage from the outset. Is intentionally removing an element that gives a child the greatest potential for development a form of abuse? When it comes to formal education the law tells us it is. Can the same question be asked about intentionally removing the potential (from before conception) for the child to be raised by both a mother and father? I know of the studies that claim there is no difference between children raised by same-sex couples and different-sex couples (http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf). For a response to one of these studies promoting same-sex couples having children, see http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/are-children-with-same-sex-parents-at-a-disadvantage/. There are also numerous studies that claim a child needs the balanced input from both a father and mothers. One article on the importance of a father can be found at http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/family/For%20Parents/Everyday%20Parenting/Fatherhood/parent_pub_00001_072005.html.
“We should disavow the notion that ‘mommies can make good daddies,’ just as we should disavow the popular notion of radical feminists that ‘daddies can make good mommies.’ …The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary – culturally and biologically – for the optimal development of a human being.” (David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable of the Good of Children and Society, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 197).
There is a not logical argument used by some people to support same-sex parenting by claiming that because a loving same-sex couple could provide a more loving home life than an abusive heterosexual couple, they should all generally be allowed to have children. WHAT? What if a study said a loving heterosexual couple could provide a better home life than an abusive homosexual couple? Does that mean same-sex couples should not have children in general? That argument is nothing more than people appealing to emotion and it is fallacious. It is like comparing apples and oranges. A healthy heterosexual couple as parents provides the child with the full potential needed to raise a child (a mother and father). A healthy same-sex couple as parents does not have the same potential because it is missing either a father or mother. That is the argument that compares apples with apples.
We can argue back and forwards all day on our opinions and studies with their results to underpin our stance. Morally though, is it right? Are our laws what determines absolute morality if it actually exists? What is your basis for morality and truth? Postmodern relativistic philosophy? If so, you would be a hypocrite to deny me my right for my relative position. If you think I am wrong, your basis for morality is not relative but absolute? Who determines your absolute morality? If it is you, then you are claiming relativistic philosophy so I cannot be wrong. Your answer will determine your worldview and how you answer this question along with many other moral dilemmas. Don't cop out on answering this very important question!
I have spoken in a previous post on the effects of a homosexual lifestyle. It is not pretty from a number of perspectives. Why is it assumed right that we intentionally give same-sex couples the unnatural option, before the child is conceived, to give birth to and raise a child in a self-destructive lifestyle? I know this seems harsh but if it is the reality, why not think through the logical outworking rather than appease individual selfish desires that impact a new life. Life is not about us as egotistical as we are. It is about loving others. People accuse me of not loving the same-sex couple but what about the child and generations to come? I do love them but do not agree with their choices. I also love the child and have nothing personal to gain by protecting the child but I do in any case and want to protect it from foreseeable disadvantages. At what point did children become an accessory? They are human beings for crying out loud and have every right to live life to the greatest potential like you and I.
The heterosexual couple who cannot have children have the potential to have children naturally but because of a health issue, they are unable to. That is very different to the same-sex couple who have no natural potential to have children yet demand them even though it is naturally impossible. There is no comparison in argument with regard to this yet I often hear the argument, "if heterosexual couples can use IVF, why can't same-sex couples?" Just because we can do something in medicine does not mean we should. There is the Hippocratic Oath that defines the philosophy of our medical professionals. I'd love it if a doctor could give their insight based on their oath on this situation (anonymously of course).
If anyone has a logical argument for why same-sex couples should be able to have children other than for selfish reasons, I would love to explore it further.
In the last 50 years, since the 'free lovin' in the 60's, as a society we have ignored the natural/biological family as the nucleus of society and made the individual king. This has led many in our communities to become selfish and egotistical individuals rather than putting others before ourselves. It seems clear to me what impact this has had on society and the current generations. Do you really want to continue in this destructive vain? Is redefining the definition of a family really progressive? Do you really think this path will redeem us, our families and the world our children will grow up in? If you think we are on the right track and becoming self-enlightened, can you please share with me how you come to that conclusion?
Even though I do not agree with the situation, I hope the family is happy and the child grows up healthy and strong.
No comments:
Post a Comment