Let me begin by expressing sympathy to our gay friends. Indeed, under God's law, as most of us see it, they have no sexual recourse.
But that doesn't stop me from speaking out against gay behavior. My two points are these: 1. Gay relationships can't produce children, our most precious commodity. 2. To sanction those relationships by allowing them to marry is another step, a big step, toward further acceptance of this behavior by our society. As it gains more acceptance, more people will consider it as an optional lifestyle, resulting in fewer heterosexual marriages and making it ever rarer that children are born into families where there is both a mother and a father, which children need and deserve.
So, both of my arguments revolve around children and their best interest. There are very good reasons it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. And it takes both of them to raise the child, optimally.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, could you start by telling me where I'm wrong? Is your argument that kids don't really need a mom and a dad? As far as making babies, we can do that in the laboratory, but my other argument, it seems to me, is ironclad, under ideal conditions. And it's not possible in all situations, but where it is possible, why not give kids the best, if not perfect chance in their upbringing? As dysfunctional, in some ways, as my own situation was, I wouldn't want to have gone without my mother or my father.
ReplyDeleteIn the time since I originally posted the above about gay marriage, I've come to see the error in my statement in said post: "...allowing them (gay people) to marry..."
ReplyDeleteIt's not my place, mush less the governments place, to sanction or prevent a sexual relationship between two consenting adults.
Think about it. Do you need anyone on earth's permission to do whatever it is you do in your bedroom?
I stand by my assertion that the further general acceptance of gay behavior does no favor to children and their ideal rearing. But a personal stance on my part doesn't give me the right to force anyone to live to my stance or standard. I don't see God forcing anyone to do or not to do anything, do you?
With that in mind I'm going to excerpt here, though no one ever read it, from my side of an email conversation I had with my beloved gay brother-in-law, Tim:
The one thing I can tell you with which you may agree is that neither one of us needs anyone's, least of all the government's approval of the contracts we make, including marriage. Emotionally, I'm with you. But rationally, I believe my arguments stand.
I refer to the arguments I've made on my blog. You know, the ones you've never actually addressed. I've said nothing against love or being nice to people. I've never denied the fact that you're in a painful conundrum or that people from different backgrounds, situations or lifestyles can't excel or don't have anything in common with me. I'm starting to doubt you or Kelby have ever read anything I've ever written. That or I'm correct in my assumption that what I've said is unassailable since you refuse to directly refute it. Or maybe your mind closes down so completely when confronted with my arguments that you find yourself unable to form any of your own.
I sympathize with your feelings. And I have a higher respect and regard for you than I have for most people I know. But wow, are you really going to ignore my specific points and hide in your victimhood? Help me see where I'm wrong. Put your feelings aside, as I have done, as any rational being must do to reason anything out and let's have a free exchange of ideas without rushing to take offense.
I alleged, for instance, that raising a child in a home with a father and a mother is superior to raising a child in a home with either two dads or two moms. Implicit in my argument is my assertion that neither of the two men on the one hand could act fully as a mother; and that neither of the two women on the other hand could act fully as a father.
That's as briefly as I can state it. Now, in a profitable exchange of ideas, your job would be to specifically describe where I'm wrong.
I sympathize with you as I see and understand that when it comes to these things, in so many ways, you have no recourse. I feel badly for you. I really do. But our feelings are irrelevant to the needs of a child.
If I ran an adoption agency and had to decide between a hetero and a homo couple for the placement of a child, all other things being equal, I would choose the hetero, in the best interest of the child. I'd feel badly for the homo. But, in that case, my job would be to advocate what's best for the child, not to assuage anyone's yearnings. And it's irrational to make decisions based on emotion. I won't fake reality to make myself or anyone else feel better.
Look. Life sucks. I know what it's like to subjectively feel that everyone else in the world has a better lot in life than you and that "nobody knows the trouble (you've) seen." There's a reason that song was written. But the truth is, your life is no harder for you than mine is for me. We're different. We have different strengths and weaknesses. When I look at you, I see mostly strengths. But, laying that aside, you're best equipped to deal with all that's on your plate as I'm best equipped to deal with mine. Challenges are perfectly balanced and in harmony with ability. We can't see it because we can't walk a mile in the other guy's moccasins.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm right about heaven, I anticipate the various explanations of things when I get there and chief among those explanations is this thing we call sex. Someone has some explaining to do- on all counts.
As I said. It sucks. Each of us is doing the best he can. We have a responsibility to do our best. In the adoption scenario I described, I view "doing my best" as giving the kid to the family that has both a mom and a dad. And I have too much respect for you and for the truth to lie and say otherwise, though it cuts you to the bone. Think: what's best for the child?
Thanks for FINALLY addressing (conceding) my point. It took you long enough. Although you then attempted to walk back your concession. Different people have a different levels of "respect for the value of a child." Those different levels have nothing to do with sexual orientation. In fact, for a homo couple to even try to adopt an infant shows a fundamental disrespect for the value of a child, for reasons I've already stated. But everyone knows there are non-infant kids out there in the foster system who aren't wanted by anyone else, so I'll concede that there may be a place for them in a homo home. But in the world of adopting infants, there is no shortage of hetero couples who are happy to provide a "Norman Rockwell" home. And they find themselves in exactly the same position as you- they aren't able to have kids. And they spend thousands of dollars trying to adopt, as evidence of their high regard for the value of a child. I'm fairly sure you aren't advocating more power for the government to forcibly enter hetero homes where things aren't up to your standards and ripping kids away from their families. That's a whole other argument, amply addressed in my blog, which you'll never read, out of fear of having to make more concessions. You're loath to agree with me on anything because I won't sanction your sex choices. Why the hell do you need my approval? Who cares what I think? What's more important is the rest of the arguments I make, for freedom.
You're right to say that it's not all about sex. Marriage is chiefly a vehicle for having and raising children. I always find it so interesting when you try to paint yourself as the expert on "relationships" and child-rearing. You have zero experience at either. You'll find me a much better listener when you come to me after you've been in an 18 year relationship and 14 years as a parent, as I have. You back-seat-driver. What? You didn't read what I said about walking a mile in the other guy's moccasins? Let's see you stay with someone exclusively for 18 years, adopt 4 kids and after 14 years of THAT, we'll talk. It's easy to envision yourself as perfect when it's all hypothetical. But until you've had some experience, shut the hell up about relationships and child-rearing.
Sorry, I have too much reverence for the truth to back down. And you've agreed with my argument, so it's hard not to feel vindicated after all of your avoidance of even directly addressing anything I've said.
ReplyDeleteAnyhoo, my only goal in any of this, beyond doing what I can to ensure kids are raised in the best situation possible, is to restore the freedoms that made this country great. Hence, "Vote Ron Paul."
Truce?
I love you. I do. But I'm sure you'll choose not to believe it.
I'll never convince you I'm right. You'll never convince me. So why try? Incidentally, why DID you try? My initial email to you contained no reference to gayness whatsoever. Although, I have to admit, I struck the first blow all those years ago in my letter to you and the again, more recently, on my blog, after I had invited you to view it. So, touche. I'm actually the one who brought it up so, mea culpa.
Anyhoo, I'm willing to let sleeping dogs lie and bury the hatchet. I'm sorry I offended you. There's room for more than one opinion in the world. I've always said we agree/have much more in common than not. I have no problem being around you. I don't just love you. I like you.
BTW, if it seems like I've exalted myself above you or anyone, I'm sorry. I'm lower than pond scum. What I seek to exalt is the idea of liberty; of which I'm a poor example. Talk is cheap. My pledge to you is to move forward in my life and further embrace and live my ideals as time goes by. And I'm only referencing my libertarian ideals, here. Laying our main point of contention aside.
Please, let's just go back to agreeing to disagree and never discussing our points of contention. It's not worth it because it pains you. And again, I'm sorry for bringing it up in the first place. God looks on the whole man. And as I try to look on you from that perspective, I've said it before but it bears repeating, I'm likely looking up to you.