…

Why does religion oppose the legalizing of homosexual unons? One in orthodox Christianity, homosexual acts are deemed objectively sinful. There is no way that an orthodox Christian church can approve of such acts. This does not in any way lead automatically or logically to a denigration of homosexuals or those with homosexual tendencies. We do not physically attach liars or other sinners simply on the basis of the rule “Love the sinner but hate the sin.” that principle distinguishes between sinner and sin.

Also, the Church teaches that marriage and the family are the basis of the social order. This truth is taught and announced by both the LDS Church and the Roman Catholic Church without to my knowledge any equivocation or compromise. Therefore, both churches must defend marriage in order to defend the social order of human society. Their objections to civil unions or homosexual marriages is not primarily targetting the homosexual person or marking them as inferior but rather a defense of marriage itself as a pasic constituent of human society as defined as a union of a man and a woman in a sacramental union as well as physical union whose object is procreation of humanity and the growing unity of two persons into one in imitation of Christ and His Church. Any corruption or impairment of marriage will impair society as a whole and likely lead to its continued and unavoidable disintegration. Any re-definition of marriage is a direct assault on what is meant to to be a Christian sacramental union (even civil marriage attempts at an imitation of the religious sacrament in various ways)and a blocking of a direct channel of grace as instituted by Christ.

In light of these stances, I do not see how any Christian Church can sanction civil unions or homosexual marriages due to their constant teachings. None of this has to do with who would be a good or bad father or mother but what is marriage as a Christian sacrament, as a natural union governed by the law of natures, i.e., natural law.

I guess the difference is that I HAVE heard quite a few people argue that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt explicitly because they are “sub-optimal parents”. I also have heard people argue that gay couples should not be allowed to raise the children of one of the partners – for quite a few reasons I find illogical and patently offensive. Therefore, my response often is to what I actually have heard.

[personally, I am all in favor of letting gay couples adopt any child in orphanages or foster care. Do I think the government should compel adoption agencies to be completely blind to the gay/hetero/married status of prospective parents when deciding which couple to give a baby to? That I am not so sure about.]

More to the point, I don’t hear people saying that the reason gay marriage should be outlawed is because gays would make suboptimal parents. Rather I hear them opposing gay marriage because they fear their church’s freedom of religion will be compromised, or they don’t want their kids’ public school to appoint itself to preach on such questions of religion, or other such reasons.

Rather, it is the other side that I hear saying, “same sex parents on average do just as good a job as traditional parents, therefore your discrimination is baseless and cruel,” and I hear the other side replying, “Hmmm, I’m not so sure about that.”

Iow, if we are going to ban such adoption or raising of children and make a philosophical argument as to why we are doing so, it needs to be for a different reason. It has to be because it actually is more harmful than the alternatives we allow in some way to warrant such restriction, from a philosophical standpoint – and I don’t see anything being proposed by opponents that fits that criteria.

From a legal standpoint, all it has to do is resonate enough with either the majority of the voting public or a group of judges. That’s a totally different standard.

What the think tanks consider in the “best parenting” concept is beyond me, but my son would certainly raise a child differently than any “standard man”. In the end, it seems like love conquers all anyway.

It sounds as if you’re equating “letting parents raise their own kids” with “choosing them as adoptive parents”. Surely you don’t mean that? Naturally the courts (or the “system”) would be extremely reluctant to remove a child from the care of his own parent, even under suboptimal circumstances, but would impose a much higher bar when it comes to the selection of potential parents to adopt a child, especially for infants that won’t lack adoptive options.

1-a belief that God has said that “homosexuality is wrong”, and further that “widespread acceptance of homosexuality as a good and noble lifestyle will result in a degradation of the importance of family in society, which will cause all sorts of societal maleffects which I can foresee even if you can’t yet, therefore you should try to keep this from happening.” These people therefore conclude that, while prejudice towards homosexuals or anyone is not desirable, they must make an exception in this case, for the good of future society, because they trust this wisdom revealed from God more than they trust their own reasoning abilities. This trumps all the rest.

2-a belief that the second revealed point above did not in fact come from God, but from man. They might further believe that homosexuality is an inherent quality, and as a result it would be inconceivable for God to discriminate against such people. Consequently, any “revelation” condoning political stances opposed to gay rights must be born from the imaginations of man, not from God. But either way, they conclude that it is absolutely wrong for the government to take a prejudiced stance against homosexuals. And this belief trumps the faith that they would normally have in their church leaders / positions taken by the church.

But who am I to belittle either of these two viewpoints? Don’t I trust my own reasoning more in some instances, and trust in my religion more in others? While I admit to a degree of uncertainty as to the true nature of things in this area, I find it disappointing to hear the condescending tone that members from each camp tend to use towards the other. The first camp can’t conceive of how a temple recommend-holding member could possibly be so proud and nigh-apostate as to oppose stances taken by the church, and the second camp can’t believe how a truly Christ-centered person can be so small-minded, mean, and prejudiced. But for each, it tends to come down to a question of faith – faith in my own reasoning, or faith in my church leaders, or faith in an answer I may have received about it. Why is it so hard to see where the other side is coming from? (Note: I am not calling out people on this thread, so much as speaking of what I have heard generally. Other than a couple mild “you’re just prejudiced” comments, the tone on this thread has been fairly respectful.)

[footnote 1: Yes, there are many other reasons for arriving at a viewpoint (including outright prejudice for some), but I find that for most of the people described in the first line of this comment, 1 of the above 2 arguments is the true foundation of their viewpoints, and impacts their selective consideration of other evidence/reasons.]

[footnote 2: Before anyone drags out a list of historical prejudices that have been erroneously enacted in the name of God, please don't. Yes, we are all familiar with these, but they don't constitute evidence for the merits of either side of this question.]

We allow “sub-optimal” situations for the raising of children all the time in this country, so it’s hard to make a case that gay couples can’t adopt simply because it is “sub-optimal”. (and I think it is very EASY to make the argument that it actually is sub-optimal)

If the evidence indicated to me that fatherhood and motherhood were indeed fluid concepts that anyone can do equally well, I wouldn’t like it, but I would accept it. It would be a major concession to the postmodern ideology, but c’est la vie, right?

That said, the evidence simply isn’t borne out by it. And I’m not referring to FRC, to Focus on the Family, or to think tanks. We’re talking about Yale academics. And while there’s a debate to be had, we can’t just silence the debate by saying the jury is prejudiced. I just dealt with this today in my grad. seminar where an obviously and explicitly biased book was given a free pass b/c the “jury” happened to like her biases, b/c the author was one of them.

Yes, there is evidence suggesting that gay parents are just as competent. But there is *definite* evidence suggesting that children need both genders in the home to have the best shot at success. As Kyle Pruett of Yale suggests: “Gender plays a large role. … We may not think these [gender] differences are politically correct but…they’re developmentally correct.”

Just a sampling of the works which indicate the importance of having both gender roles represented:

David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996)
Sarah Tippit, “Kids of Gay Parents Don’t Stick to Gender Roles,” Los Angeles Times
Marilyn Elias, “Growing Up With Gay Parents,” USA Today

Now if we want to give up gender roles as being something worth taking seriously, then that’s one thing that society can decide upon. But let’s not try to proclaim support for separate gender identity and support for gay adoption concurrently.

I would also add that with a separation of legal household and marriage an adopting agency would be able to put children up for adoption according to their standards of marriage. So a Catholic adoption agency would most likely go through Catholic parents. While another agency may not have any problem viewing Gay couples as fit parents. I’d imagine this would be challenged as discrimination but there have to some caveats.

IMO, even considering the notion of gay parents being suboptimal is simply an indication of the prejudices of the “jury members”.

And if they are not different, then perhaps with regards to infants, or “children likely to be adopted”, aren’t we back in the place Russell started in, choosing the best types of couples to raise the child, among all the applicants?

Unless Russell wants to provide a system by which EVERY child that’s currently in an orphanage or in the subpar foster care system is adopted by loving straight parents (it starts when people themselves adopt, but anecdotal evidence is one thing — every child should have a home before people start disallowing gay couples the opportunity)…well, UNLESS and UNTIL he can provide such a situation, I think anyone who wants to adopt and is committed to the task and has not been shown to be an inferior parent (he questions the equality of gay parents to straight ones…but the studies are still out on whether over the long term, gay parents are “worse.” And compared to an alternative of sticking in foster care or an orphanage, I think adoption would be a better solution) should be allowed to.

I ask some of the same things Jenkins asks in his final paragraph in 23. Why be afraid, ESPECIALLY when the alternative is a doubtlessly worse environment? Why be afraid of a stable, caring household that just happens to be same-sex. Why be afraid of a stable, caring single parent? And why be afraid of THESE things when, however they differ from your ideal, they are much better than an unstable, uncaring home.

%%%%%%

“The church “does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships,” that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. That stand was outlined in a statement the church posted on its Web site earlier in the campaign. ” How does this stack up with what is happening in Illinois right now?

Looking at these two statements I have to come to some conclusions. Either 1. Elder L. Whitney Clayton (head of Same-Gender Attraction issues in the Church) was not authorized to make the statement concerning the apathy towards civil unions that is now the Church’s reported position that was not only clear in the Press release statement from Elder Clayton, but also by their clear demonstration that they do take an apathetic statement towards civil unions and equal rights as seen in their silence on the Common Ground Initiative.

Or 2. The bishop of the Nauvoo 3rd ward is following the precedent set by the Church’s actions during the Prop. 8 campaign and taking upon him a stewardship that is not his own?

So is this a call from the Church Headquarters disguised to appear as coming form an individual ward? Or is it the actions of a bishop who has fallen into the trap of all men who “as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”

What will church Headquarters do? Will they stand by and let this bishop take unrighteous dominion over the people? Or will they come out with an official statement saying that this order came from them? Or will they stay silent yet again? And if they stay silent what does it mean? To me it means that they support the actions of Bishop Church and Susan Combs of the Nauvoo 3rd ward to 1. Use the Church ward as a political powerhouse and 2. the political message can be counter to the official church statement with no repercussions. IF that is so, what is to stop a bishop in Vermont to call for support of Civil Union legislation? Would that not cause great division within the church?

So Elder Clayton, and President Monson, I urge you to take a stand on this issue, do not sit on the fence take a stand if the actions of Bishop Church are from you then say so please. If it is not please make a statement and rebuke his attempt to turn his ward into a political machine but rather focus on Christ and his message of Love. But whatever you do, please do not sit back and do nothing.

http://mohodichotomy.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-first-presidency-and.html

%%%%%%