Comments on a recent post about an article in the Southern Poverty Law Center have drifted toward a discussion about same-sex parenting. Commenters noted that several professional associations (APA, Pediatrics group) have policies which endorse gay parenting. Other commenters have questioned the wisdom of such endorsements citing research based concerns.
So here is the first of a multi-part series summarizing what I can find on the subject. I am not as aware of this literature as I am some other aspects of social policy so I do not claim that this is exhaustive but I do want to put up some links and get our conversations based on something besides anecdote and irrelevant studies.
Let me start with a link to a 2005 article by William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch, titled, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children. It is a serious effort by advocates of gay rights to examine the literature. They find much contention among bonafide scholars about the quality of the research. For instance, they note
The significance of this body of evidence is a matter of contention, to say the least. Steven Nock, a prominent scholar reviewing the literature in 2001 as an expert witness in a Canadian court case, found it so flawed methodologically that the “only acceptable conclusion at this point is that the literature on this topic does not constitute a solid body of scientific evidence,” and that “all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution. . . . Not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.” Two equally prominent scholars, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, vigorously disputed the point: “He is simply wrong to say that all of the studies published to date are virtually worthless and unscientific. . . . If the Court were to accept Professor Nock’s primary criticisms of these studies, it would have to dismiss virtually the entire discipline of psychology.”
Dismiss psychology? Stacey and Biblarz say that like it would be a bad thing…
Meezan and Rauch identify only four studies that meet sufficient criteria for examining claims about gay parenting. I encourage readers to review their summaries. My impression is that the studies are suggestive, they are far from a basis for making policy recommendations. Meezan and Rauch acknowledge as much when they write
We believe that both sides of that argument are right, at least partially. The evidence provides a great deal of information about the particular families and children studied, and the children now number more than a thousand. They are doing about as well as children normally do. What the evidence does not provide, because of the methodological difficulties we outlined, is much knowledge about whether those studied are typical or atypical of the general population of children raised by gay and lesbian couples. We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. To make the same point a little differently, those who say the evidence shows that many same-sex parents do an excellent job of parenting are right. Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite-sex parenting (or better, or worse) are also right.
This seems to be about as good a summary as I could write. We have precious little to go on and I believe social conservatives are correct to say we are not inspired to make national policy based on the positive results obtained thus far. Advocates of same-sex parenting, Meezan and Rauch go on to suggest a research strategy
In particular, the clustering in four neighboring states of all three kinds of arrangement— same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut, and neither in New Hampshire—offers a near ideal natural laboratory. A rigorous study of how children fare when they are raised in these various arrangements and environments would not be easy to design and execute, and it would require a considerable amount of time and money; but the knowledge gained would make the debate over gay marriage better lit and perhaps less heated, to the benefit of all sides of the argument.
Although some would never agree, I believe there is some merit to this suggestion. Doing such a study would not interfere with the ability of advocates on both sides to make their cases on ideological grounds, nor would people who are not in favor of gay parenting be required to change their moral views in order to acknowledge that such arrangements exist and should be reviewed.
Now what do you think? What are the promises and pitfalls of such a study?
In beginning this series, I hope that commenters will add specific references to studies which I should consider adding to future posts.
Fitz has responded to the question asked as he could. The question related to specific data remains open. The question could also have been asked as, What data can be advanced to indicate that being raised in an agency is worse than being raised by two or three men, homosexual or not? There is also a difference between “foster care” and being adopted and I don’t think an adoption agency is technically “foster care.”
I’m also curious about what data exists that demonstrates homosexuals are specifically selecting only those children that are not being selected by heterosexual couples. Are homosexuals going to adoption agencies and turning down healthy kids that are say, under three years of age? This sounds rather strange to me and implies that homosexuals are more altruistic than heterosexuals when it comes to adoption. Where is the data showing a significantly greater proportion of otherwise “rejected kids” being selected by homosexuals? I can understand that homosexual men would see the problem of trying to raise very young children and prefer raising older children but I’m suspicious that lesbians would prefer trying to raise older boys.
Are these “rejected” kids also willingly and knowingly preferring to be adopted by homosexuals, particularly two men? At what age can they make such decisions? Can parents or next of kin who may put up kids for adoption make specific requests for who may adopt their children? Can they request for a Catholic or Christian home?
Much of my reflections here relate to whether we can possibly make conditions, criteria for adoption depending on the perhaps dire needs of the children or the wealth of the adopters, etc. Different adoption agencies and state laws do make such decisions.
I think it’s important to reflect on this because we often have a concept of adoption agencies that may stem from some Dickens novel. I have two half-brothers and a half-sister that spent many years in an adoption agency so I have some direct knowledge of the pros and cons. I’ve also been a foster parent on several occasions.
Jose’,
I don’t know if gays are more altruistic about adoption or not. If you put it on a continuium, I’d bet it would come out pretty evenly as compared to straight folks. There’s no basis for an argument for gay adoption in that line of thinking anyway, since it would put more worth and value on some kids than others. I’m not willing to do that. There is a big difference between children being adopted from state foster care systems and in private adoptions. I looked at the stats on kids in foster care and it’s no wonder I have such strong feelings for the issue; Texas, where I taught elementary school for 18 years, nearly leads the country in the amount of children who are living in foster care.
I don’t have a Dickens view of adoption agencies or state care for minors. I have a student in my class right now (i seem to have at least one every year and I’m no longer in Texas) who is in the foster care system. He’s moved 3 times since school started and is finally with family (aunt and uncle). When possible, these kids ARE adopted out to members of their own family. The majority of kids I’ve taught who were in foster care, sadly, didn’t have that option.
Timothy–
I’m very sorry that you feel Dr. Brown didn’t see you as a person. As I read his posts to you, my impression was that he liked and respected you. Or to put it another way, if there were a room full of people that included both gay activists and evangelicals, my hunch is that Dr. Brown would prefer to spend more time getting to know you rather than talking to a good many of them.
I’m not saying my impression is correct but it did strike me how greatly it differed from the impression you got from the same dialogues. I know that you hate the expression “love the sinner, hate the sin” but, if you’re going to understand where people like the doctor are coming from, it might help for you to imagine what it must be like to really believe that with all your heart.
My impression had been that someone in early Exodus first coined that phrase. When we wanted to bring the message that God loves gay sinners too to the local churches, that phrase was the simplest way to cut through the ‘bull’. This is what we believe. This is the message your church could stand to hear. “Yes, it’s important to hate sin BUT you’ve got to see the person as someone, just like you, ensnared except by the grace of God.” (And yes, there was a congregation or two that thought we were too hard on sin.) So, they love you. Heck, sometimes they even like you. But, they also believe you’re caught in a snare.
I know that stings. But, think about it, don’t you likewise believe some very unflattering things about Dr. Brown, about ex-gays? It’s inherent in our theological differences that we’re going to have these ‘clash points’. When you attack ex-gays or ex-gayness, I experience that sting. Yet, for some reason, I keep coming back. I think the fact that we can disagree on something so fundamental and yet manage to have mostly civil and intelligent discussion–well, I think that speaks volumes for all parties involved.
Peace. BTW, I’d look you up in that crowded room. Happy New Year All! I gotta feel we’re all going to disappear again.
MY NEW YEARS REQUEST TO ALL OF THOSE WHO “LOVE” ME:
If your definition of love is to make my life as miserable as you possibly can; if you think that love requires you to force me to adopt your theology; if you think your love justifies denying my relationships, taking away my children, denying me tax breaks you insist on for yourself, insisting that I stay in the closet, keeping me out of the military, not tracking hate crimes against me, insisting on the right to fire me for being gay, lying about my “lifestyle”, or setting yourself up as some victim and blaming me; if your love looks more like stalking; or if your love in any other way resembles what any rational, sane, non-Christian person would call “hate”, then,
PLEASE STOP LOVING ME.
Love someone else for a change.
Eddy,
Why is the sin that is hated always in someone else’s life? And why is the reaction to the sin never have any impact on the sin but simply harms the sinner?
You must realize that outside of the insular conservative Christian world, the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” is seen in exactly the same light as “some of my best friends are negros”.
The world does not see this as some great evidence that Christ’s followers demonstrate love. They see it as self-righteous justification that church folk throw out there right before they do something cruel.
And the gay community didn’t give the phrase that reputation. The anti-gay church folk earned that reputation on their own.
I hear you Pam and I certainly empathize with your compassion for these kids in and out of foster homes and adoption agencies. And there are all those kids living in broken homes, fatherless or in chaotic situations. I’ve taught at all grade levels and in ghetto schools. I currently serve on our local school board in a district in which 20% are identified Special Ed kids. My wife is an educational consultant working to improve reading and math programs. We know the kids of the meth parents and those that have been affected by FAS. So we are with you in trying to address these problems. The question is how best to do this and I don’t see how placing them with homosexuals for parenting in any way helps these kids and none of my questions in my previous posts have been addressed.
I see the issue of placing kids with homosexuals as one of politics that serves the wants of some homosexual adults and has nothing whatsoever to do with the real interests of needy children.
Timothy,
I am hoping to see a change in christians overall in the next decade (slow I know). But I would like to see christians truly show kindness and compassion to gays without trying to preach to them or impose their way of living on them (gays) and instead just be nice.
I doubt you can convince some people to take the next step and vote for gay rights but at least I would hope to see christians really showing the model of christ to others without preaching and that they start being authentic about their own lives.
Timothy asked:
Why is the sin that is hated always in someone else’s life? And why is the reaction to the sin never have any impact on the sin but simply harms the sinner?
These words don’t apply to me. You insult me when you talk to me like I’m “them”. You insult me with the broad generalizations you make in these questions.
I’m sorry the phrase got cheapened. Fortunately, the truth behind it survives and the message will continue to go out for at least as long as evangelism is still legal.
Timothy–
I didn’t read your post 76347 until after 76350. Ouch! I think I’m going to steer clear of you for awhile. Happy New Year!
Jose,
And it’s there in your last sentence where you and I agree to disagree. I just see it differently. And, as Dr. T has pointed out earlier, we each remain compassionate in that view.
It does concern me a little….the way you keep referring to “homosexuals”. It’s become my experience that those of you who refuse to call gay folks “gay”….well….there’s just alot more going on with you than just being against gay adoption or whatever the issue is at hand. It’s more like you’re against gays/homosexuals even existing. This may not be an accurate description of you at all……I’m just telling you that your language gives me that perception based on my experience.
I do appreciate you coming back and speaking to me in a way that is easy for me to understand, and your sharing a bit of personal information/experience…those sorts of things humanize you in my view. It just helps.
Timothy,
I hate to get sidetracked here but you really are giving a cry for help.
A quick suggestion, throw it away if it is meaningless to you. But I think they way you wear your sexual orientation like a chip on your shoulder might be intimidating people away from you. If you are feeling cast aside, perhaps you are the one looking down and people are wondering what they ever did that you hate them.
It is something I see in many people, they wear their black fingernail polish like a chip on their shoulder, or their expensive shoes, or their gold teeth. Things I have no problem with, but none the less things people are more confronting others with, and while wondering why people don’t give them more attention don’t realize how intimidating their emotional state of hating the world really is.
My favorite line from Death by Pizza, “It’s not that the world didn’t appreciate the genius, it’s that the genius didn’t appreciate the world, and the people in it. After all, solitude is a whole lot nicer when you have someone to share it with.”
We all share this planet, lets learn better how to get along okay?
The infantile concept of love: Give me what I want and don’t ask me to change anything. I won’t listen to Christ Himself if He asks me to change. I’m not a Christian or accept any religion but the one I construct at any moment and which can change at any whim. My true god is called concupiscence.
Mary,
I sincerly hope your wish comes true.
I’d love for “Christian” to mean generous, loving, kind, and forgiving again. It used to.
Eddy,
I wasn’t including you. You seem to be more interested loving the sinner than you are in hating the sin.
But I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve heard that phrase when it wasn’t being used to justify cruelty.
Mary: I would like to see christians truly show kindness and compassion to gays without trying to preach to them or impose their way of living on them (gays) and instead just be nice.
I think it’s a mistake to judge “Christlike behavior” by what some Christians say on the internet and inpress releases. I’ll be the first to admit that I often say some very harsh things here, and on other blogs, but if you were to ask any of the gay people that I interact with I’m sure they would be the first to admit that I do not preach to them, impose anything on them, and am always nice as can be. I do truly love my many gay and lesbian friends.
As for being Christlike, you should note that when Jesus interacts with a person, he is kind and loving and compassionate without exception. Yet when he “preaches” to the masses, he says some very harsh and intolerant and offensive things, and is most certainly trying to “impose a way of life” on them.
I think this is true for most Christians — kind and loving and compassionate in ALL personal relationships, yet preachy and intolerant of sin when speaking in public. Very “Christlike” imo.
Marty,
I am a christian, go to church regulary, attend a small bible group, etc…. and my statement is based on my interaction with christians who are less than kind in their personal opinions and attitudes of gays – even though I am ex gay (some people don’t know.)
Jose –
You stated:
“I see the issue of placing kids with homosexuals as one of politics that serves the wants of some homosexual adults and has nothing whatsoever to do with the real interests of needy children.”
Perhaps because you see this as an issue about “homosexuals” and not one about children? If you’ve met a mother or father, you know that an instinct is to protect the child you have. Same-sex couples have families already…in many places both in the USA and abroad, they adopt children…and many seek rights to protect their existing families.
In your statement above, I’m not sure you can really make that claim, at least not with any authority. You cannot claim to know the motivations of all in a particular group. Can we make the same claim of heterosexuals who seek to adopt? The groups are just as diverse, I’m not sure why heterosexuals would have a different motivation for seeking adoption than homosexuals.
Marty,
One of the interesting things about Jesus and his preaching is that he did it to those who came specially to hear him.
In addition Marty. Some people did not follow Jesus and that was the end of that. And no offense but some people who call themsleves followers of Jesus – just don’t look like it to me. Granted – I have had my days where I looked like a mega hypocrite, too. But for folks to be batting away at other peoples sins (the way that some do) and not paying attention to many of their own is just pharasee like to me.
But he travelled about and people heard he was coming and gathered around him. There were no telephones, newspapers, websites, radio, TV’s. How did people hear he was coming?
Jag: “Perhaps because you see this as an issue about “homosexuals” and not one about children?” I’m entirely concerned with the children. Jag: “If you’ve met a mother or father, you know that an instinct is to protect the child you have.” I am the father of four children.
Jag: “Can we make the same claim of heterosexuals who seek to adopt?” There is no politics necessary for heterosexual adoption. But it is true that some heterosexuals may adopt for their own interests rather than the child’s.
Nevertheless, regardless of the diversity that may exist among human beings if the homosexuals had the best interest of the children in mind they would want them to have a mother and father and if they wanted to raise children they could do so with someone of the opposite sex so that the kids would have a mother and a father. They would adopt only after they have tried to have children through the natural method.
In talking about saints and sinners I observe that people somehow imagine that Christians are not or should not be sinners. Well, no one should be a sinner but we all are. It’s an all too common confusion of non-Christians that they can somehow commit all sorts of sins and yet not be as bad as the Christians because “at least” they are not “hypocrites.” They are often just as hypocritical as the hypocritical Christians if they have any sense of right and wrong, if they have any conscience.
What really differentiates Christians from non-Christians is not their level of goodness—indeed, the non-Christian may actually sin less and do more good—but the fact that the Christian looks to Christ for forgiveness and has faith in the redeeming power of Christ while the non-Christian stands in an essentially hopeless situation with no one to turn to for forgiveness, or not accepting that there is someone to turn to for forgiveness and salvation, someone actually calling the sinner to repentance. Though one should certainly do good for Christ’s sake, it is not the doing of good that makes the ultimate difference but belief and faith in the Person of Jesus Christ. Though people may hear this a lot, too many just don’t get it.
I say this in response to several comments made about Jesus and I know this takes us off the theme of this post. Yet I need to add one more point, Jesus most certainly approached people and forcefully expressed Himself to them. He even chased people out of the temple with a whip of chords. We have of late been constructing a concept of a very wishy-washy Jesus. That’s not the Jesus described in the Bible.
Jose –
Given your personal experiences as a father of four children, I would assume that you understand the desire to protect them. Same-sex parents have that same desire…so perhaps their “motivations” are a bit less selfish, and just as much about children as their heterosexual counterparts. If you see a discrepency between the two groups on the desire to protect their children, I’d love to see the research.
Even if you “personally believe” that it is in the “best interest” of the child to be raised by heterosexual parents, it is clear that the conclusion of research (and every major scientific organization) does not support your personal opinion. Sometimes we must resign that even though we have certain beliefs and hold them rigorously (like the world is flat), that under closer examination they may not be true.
I do find it interesting that you believe that heterosexuals “would adopt only after they have tried to have children through the natural method.” There are many who feel the desire to adopt who are perfectly capable of having children (some who also have existing biological children). I applaud these individuals for seeing beyond biology in what makes a person a parent.
Many heterosexuals “get” what we all know deep down. It isn’t sperm or a womb that makes you a father or mother. Those things do, however, make you a biological contributor to the existence of the child.
As an aside, With divorce rates and children out of wedlock being what they are, I think your notion that children in heterosexual couplings are being raised by a mother and father are a bit out of line with the data. If you need the research on this, I’d be happy to provide it….but I assume you have read the data on divorce and are further aware that most custody arrangements are not 50/50. The effect on children of this epidemic of divorce, is something we could also write on. I certainly wish that many heterosexuals would give more consideration to marriage, child-rearing and the effects of their relational dissolution.
While I certainly respect that it is due to heterosexual couplings or contributions that children come into existence, please also remember that it is because of heterosexual couplings or contributions that so many children are created, unwanted and/or abandoned in the first place.
Jag, with all due respect I think you are covering too many topics simultaneously and not focusing on one or two specific issues that we might be able to objectively address in a sound-bite forum. Broad generalizations based on inclusive or poorly structured studies merely express what one might wish. These wishes may relate to what is the universal, historical and sociological norm or to some new experimental approach on child rearing.
Let me address at least a couple of things. This thread is about comparing homosexual and heterosexual “parenting.” Same-sex couples cannot reproduce therefore at best only one of the couple can be a natural parent while the other must be a step-parent. I have been a foster parent on several occasions and know that, though I try very hard to care for them well, I cannot compare the love that I have for my own children with the love that I have for foster kids. This is a simple and honest reality. We know the general impression that exists about stepparents. We cannot be denying the obvious because we do not have studies that might clearly indicate that stepparents are simply not as good as the real parents. But from this the argument jumps to comparing stepparents with bad parents. When we make this leap we enter the abstract because we then assume that the homosexual stepparent is better than an assumed bad parent. Rationally everything gets very foggy at this point. We begin to talk about “good” homosexual stepparents vs. “bad” heterosexual parents. This confounds what we are essentially addressing which is really how does the best or optimal homosexual couple compare with a similar heterosexual married couple in parenting? When we address the question in this way we must conclude that the natural heterosexual must be superior to the homosexual couple. Whether or not we have adequate studies to demonstrate this does not matter, the conclusion is rational.
Now, in our democracy, like it or not, if one in the homosexual couple is the natural parent he/she may cohabit with someone of the same sex and bring up the child. The question of corrupting the morals of minors by exposing the child to acts of moral turpitude is no longer a legal argument.
A second point for now: You say, “It isn’t sperm or a womb that makes you a father or mother. Those things do, however, make you a biological contributor to the existence of the child.” This is not true. It is indeed the sperm and the egg that make you the father and a mother. The reduction of father and mother to the appellation of “biological contributor” plays right into the contemporary effort to demean the responsibility that the true father and mother should assume and contributes to parents disengaging from their moral responsibility to parent the children that they have fathered and mothered. What you are talking about is not whether or not they are father or mother, which they are by definition, but whether or not they are good parents. That is a value judgment and not the biological fact that they are the father and the mother and as such should be held responsible for the good parenting of their children.
Jose,
As much as I read Scripture, I still cannot find your Jesus in the pages. I don’t see some “forceful” militant angry man insisting on strict observances of the Law and intent on condeming the world into submission. Which, if you’ll excuse the assumption, seems to me to be the one you follow.
And you probably can’t find the one who is wishy-washy about adherence to the Old Testament commandments and isn’t much concerned about rules as he is about how we treat each other. You probably think my Christ is a cop-out, a self-justifier and weak.
I guess we’ll just have disagree about the nature of Christ. That’s fine. I don’t assume the Holy Spirit works the same with all of us – or indeed that God reveals himself the same to all of us.
Perhaps God knows that you need a forceful Christ that has a very exact list of rules. And perhaps He knows that I need a Christ that is applicable to a modern world and relevant to my daily life. So you worship Christ the King, and I’ll worship Christ the Redeemer and we’ll let each other work out our own salvation.
God bless.
Jose –
You stated:
“I have been a foster parent on several occasions and know that, though I try very hard to care for them well, I cannot compare the love that I have for my own children with the love that I have for foster kids. This is a simple and honest reality.”
I am not sure what you were attempting to say in this. If you mean that because your foster children were temporary, you kept an emotional distance from them – I certainly understand. If you are implying that someone cannot establish an equal emotional bond for these children because they are not theirs biologically,
this is a commentary on your own state, but not necessarily generalizable to others. This would be a commentary not just on same-sex couples, but any couple who adopts or uses reproductive technologies.
You also stated;
“When we address the question in this way we must conclude that the natural heterosexual must be superior to the homosexual couple. Whether or not we have adequate studies to demonstrate this does not matter, the conclusion is rational.”
Interesting logic here. “I believe the world is flat so it is” logic. In this case, we have the majority of scientific studies and the backing of every major scientific organization stating the opposite of your conclusions. To believe otherwise is rather “irrational.”
As for biological parents…there are plenty of same-sex couples that produce children that have some combinations of both parties. For example, a woman who is fertilized by the sperm of the brother of the partner. But, to me this is neither here nor there. Heterosexual couples use reproductive technologies avidly, and the “parenting” that takes place is not from the bio parents.
The argument that the only true parents are the biological ones, is untrue, but moreover likely offensive to heterosexual couples who choose to adopt to add to their existing families, adopt exclusively, use IVF with a donor, and same-sex couples who use similar means. Every child is a wanted child….that’s not to say that they are all treated well, but it’s a pretty good starting point.
However, this more clearly reveals your stance:
“The question of corrupting the morals of minors by exposing the child to acts of moral turpitude is no longer a legal argument.”
I’m not sure what “acts of moral turpitude” you are speaking of. I don’t know any same-sex couple that commits any “acts” in front of their children that any average opposite-sexed couple wouldn’t. But then again, I don’t see same-sex affection, and loving relationships between parents as something morally corrupting…rather, I see it as a positive presence in the household to see that your parents love one another as well as their child.
I don’t know Jose – by your terms – I would not want you role modeling fatherhood or manhood to my children. Your definition of Christian and goodness seem awfully close to justifying all sorts of criminal thoughts and behavior. And your certain discrimination of the variety of homes that children are raised in (in the real world) may be too much condemnation for me. I have read little to no grace in your posts and definitely lacking an understanding of society and family in history (please read any book by Stephanie Coontz – you will not like her research). The idea of papa, mama, brother and sister as a single social unit is relatively new and one that existed for a blink of an eye in our history.
Moving back in time one hundred years and the roles of parenting looked very different from even your prescribed ideal of parenting and role modeling for today. Society is not static and constantly changing. With the new family laws in practice today (ones that allow women to sign for credit and loans from banks, allow us to own property, ones that give financial and wlefare protection to children etc…) has changed the way we negotiate the terms of marriage, co-commitment in relationships, income, roles etc… and we will continue to change and renegotiate those roles as time goes on.
Your words frighten me because unfortunately some people still think we live in a fantasy land where papa and mama are always there for their children. They aren’t. In addition, if I did adopt children I would certainly make it clear that love is love – niether greater nor lesser because of blood.
One last remark – Remember we are the adopted sons and daughters of our Father.
Let’s see now, how shall I best respond as I duck the flying shrapnel? Hmm, the issue of determining the comparative adequacy of heterosexual and homosexual parenting is already a forgone conclusion so that to think that, all things being equal, heterosexuals make better parents is like thinking the earth is flat. I don’t know why Dr. Throckmorton would even bring up the question. Sorry, I’m so behind the absolute conclusions that some say the research has provided. I still believe that the best upbringing for kids is provided by their mother and father when not comparing dysfunctional heterosexual parents with idealized homosexual couples.
Now Jag, I never kept any emotional distance from my foster kids. I loved them intensely and strove to offer them the best I could. One stayed with us as he went through life-saving open heart surgery. I do not function in fantasy idealism. It may be possible for people to love a foster child or stepchild as they do their own it the probability I do believe is highly unlikely. Do you have any children Jag? Have you ever been a foster parent? Or are you thoroughly dependent on some research you’ve heard about or read?
“The argument that the only true parents are the biological ones, is untrue. . . .” Jag. But I was talking about “father” and “mother’ not “parent.” I understand that today a parent can be anyone who is bringing up a child. But not anyone can be a father in the strict sense. A father is “a man who has begotten a child.” The word parent also had this meaning originally: “one who begets or brings forth a child.” It still has this meaning among others. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals most face the fact that the earth is not flat. If their sperm or egg did not go into the creation of the new person they cannot possibly claim fatherhood or motherhood of that child. If they have any integrity they should confess to the child that they are not the mother or the father. Just about every child wants to know who his/her father or mother is. Don’t you?
Timothy Kincaid and Mary can’t find the Jesus that I speak of in the Scriptures. All I can say is keep searching because just about all of Christendom recognizes him. The Jesus I speak of is acknowledged by the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Mennonites, the Amish, the Baptists, etc. I know that some of the upper echelon of the ECUSA and the UCC have lost sight of Him.
Mary actually sees Satan himself in my Jesus for she says, “I would not want you role modeling fatherhood or manhood to my children. Your definition of Christian and goodness seem awfully close to justifying all sorts of criminal thoughts and behavior. . . . I have read little to no grace in your posts. . . .”
What can I say? Mary, I wish you nothing but peace and a joyful Epiphany.
Typo: The sentence should read, “It may be possible for people to love a foster child or stepchild as they do their own. The probability I do believe is highly unlikely.
Mary,
One last remark – Remember we are the adopted sons and daughters of our Father.
You are absolutely right
Jose,
Be careful – I did not say I could not find your Jesus in scripture. I said your doctrine is very close to justifying some criminal behaviors. I said I saw little or no grace.
“Mary,
One last remark – Remember we are the adopted sons and daughters of our Father.”
“You are absolutely right.” Jayhuck.
Actually Mary and Jayhuck, you’re quite wrong if you mean that “we are (all) adopted.” God adopts only a few. In reality “Many are called but few are chosen.” You are still imagining that wishy-washy Jesus I spoke of earlier. I would urge you to sober up in your understanding of the Christian teaching.
Peace.
Jose,
I would urge you to sober up in your understanding of the Christian teaching.
I would ask the same of you Jose. You sound very angry and judgemental at times.
Jose,
I’m not imagining a wishy-washy Jesus. In fact – that is what YOU imagine I imagine.
Grace is not wishy washy. It takes a lot of strength, alot of personal battles, and experience. God does not impose himself on people – he offers a gift of salvation. And for those of us who call him father (or perhaps you overlooked that) we are his adopted sons and daughters. A good example – I am emphasizing that statement.
Jose,
I think you’ll have to remove the Mennonites from your list. As hardcore pacifists, they don’t much worship Jesus the Warrior.
You make the rather easy mistake of assuming that all Christendom agrees with you. You are quite mistaken.
Most mainline churches in America are seeking a way to love God inclusively. They are seeking to apply principles of faith to daily life rather than a recitation of rules.
To your list of churches who have “lost sight” of your angry vengeful Christ, you can add the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the American Baptist Church, the Friends (Quakers), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Chuch, the Bretheren, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and the list goes on. And that’s just the US.
Now not all members or leaders of all of these denominations agree with me on issues of theology. But they do pretty much agree that Christ is applicable to our age and that he is not found in a recitation of rules. Nor do they tend to see Christ as forceful, militant and angry.
I would suggest that the Catholic and Orthodox lay persons and local priests – even with their great insistence on tradition and the authority of the leadership – do not see us all as “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God who abhors us and is dreadfully provoked”.
I would even go so far as to suggest that many a Baptist or Pentecostal would have difficulty recognizing your Christ.
But you are certainly entitled to believe as you wish. I have no desire to convert you or convince you of “your error”. If you are following Christ then you are a brother, whether or not I agree with how you view our Father. Just as earthly siblings often have very different relationships with their parents, I think we need not expect that our relationship with our Father be identical.
I think Jose is going to be dreadfully disappointed when he gets to heaven and finds that God let in so many of the people that Jose wants to keep out.
Jose –
You stated:
“It may be possible for people to love a foster child or stepchild as they do their own it the probability I do believe is highly unlikely. Do you have any children Jag? Have you ever been a foster parent? Or are you thoroughly dependent on some research you’ve heard about or read?”
Any person of attempted objectivity realizes that their own personal experiences is not the appropriate barometer to judge the masses and generalize. Whether or not you have a child or foster children really has no bearing on whether statements about populations are true or untrue…but studies, which draw samples to examine populations *accurately* would be important to look at. I don’t base my opinions on only my own biases….they should be supported.
Again, I’m sorry you feel that it is unlikely to love a foster child as one’s own biological one. I don’t know of studies that support that, but perhaps you can reference them? You see, I don’t just base things on what I *feel*.
As for “mother” and “father,” you and I will have to disagree on this one. While many people have joined to create children, what it takes to be a mother is far more than the act of birthing. For example, when you say the phrase “Was she a good mother?” Are you asking if she delivered the child or conceived adequately? Of course not, you are talking about the parental role of mothering. It’s not linked solely with biology, but biology can certainly be a part of it….for example, “she is my biological mother,” but, as you can see…biology is hardly the sole factor or even the important one when we judge who is the “mother” or what type of a “mother” she is.
Jose, you seem angry. I hope that you resolve whatever is troubling you and have a good new year.
Mary –
“In addition, if I did adopt children I would certainly make it clear that love is love – neither greater nor lesser because of blood.”
Thank you for your contributions on this. It was refreshing to read your thoughts.
Jag,
You’re welcome. My father had step children and always included them in his count of all his children. He was not a perfect man but did understand the need for people to belong. And today I count them as my true siblings, too.
Well, where shall I begin? Let’s take you one at a time to the extent that I have time.
77150. Jayhuck. I am neither angry nor judgmental. I was just sitting around the fireplace cuddling with my wife and daughter after having come home from a sumptuous wedding anniversary dinner and enjoying an excellent IPA. I’m just talking about the increasingly common perspective, perhaps stemming from some Asian philosophy syncretism, that does construct a very wishy-washy Jesus that has nothing to do with what the Scriptures reveal of Him.
77177. Mary. Cheap grace is wishy-washy. Try reading Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship for a start. Christ does not offer cheap grace.
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads t destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
Guess who said that. It wasn’t me.
77286. Timothy Kincaid. “I think you’ll have to remove the Mennonites from your list. As hardcore pacifists, they don’t much worship Jesus the Warrior.”
Surprise!! I am a Mennonite and a complete pacifist.
I’m talking about what the main churches of Christendom teach and not what certain individual members or heretics within them imagine, and I’ve already referred to the apostasy within the upper echelons of the ECUSA and the UCC. Many Quakers have become totally wishy-washy and getting far more into yoga and Buddhism than Christianity. A few I think are still within Christ. I can’t speak for all the churches you mentioned but I doubt that they are all advocating a wishy-washy Jesus, a Jesus without a wrathful aspect. If they are it’s their fabrication and has nothing to do with Scripture. Best you reread the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
I do agree that Christ is most certainly applicable to our age but He assuredly has very specific rules, indeed Commandments that must be obeyed. There are real consequences to our disobedience.
You say certain Catholics and Orthodox, “do not see us all as “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God who abhors us and is dreadfully provoked”. Soooo. Who said anything about that? God loves us.
Baptists and Pentecostals have no difficulty recognizing my Christ, in fact, I’ve learned a lot from them. It’s the wishy-washy Christ that they don’t see in Scripture.
You may not want to convert me but I definitely wish to convert you, simply because I really do love you.
77289. Timothy Kincaid. “I think Jose is going to be dreadfully disappointed when he gets to heaven and finds that God let in so many of the people that Jose wants to keep out.”
How can you say such a terrible thing? I don’t want to keep anyone out of heaven. That’s why I’m taking the time to explain what the Scriptures are really saying. I’m only the messenger. If I didn’t want you to go to heaven I would keep quiet and let you believe in a wishy-washy Jesus.
77325. Jag. By the circumlocution of your response I would have to assume the answer is “yes,” you have no children or ever fostered a child, and that yes, you are thoroughly dependent on some research you’ve heard about or read.
Nevertheless, your answer is at least somewhat intellectually correct and your understanding will remain at best cerebral.
You are completely wrong about “mother” and “father.” A child can have only one mother and one father even if you choose to distort the real meaning of these words into figurative speech. Much of chaotic deconstructionist thinking today depends on confounding the meaning of words so as to produce shifting and incomprehensible tongues.
To label me “angry” is merely to descend into ad hominem attacks. Should I call you a few names? I won’t. We are talking about the Jesus revealed in Scripture. This is not my invention.
77327 & 77352. Jag and Mary. This is noble and idealistic. I wish you well in raising children and any children you might adopt. Eh, do you have any?
Peace.
Jose,
I am neither angry nor judgmental.
If you say so
A blessed New Year to you!
Jose,
If you really cared, you would take the time to get to know gay people before slapping down the rules. Gay people are well aware of how some interpret the bible and its stance on homosexuality. Getting to know someone might open up dialogue and understanding. Right now, your tactic is oh so familiar of the hating christians that really just want homosexuals to stop grossing them out with their behavior rather than truly being interested in transformed lives. Jesus ate with us sinners.
Jesus – because he is God – in my book, knew us all before we spoke, before we thought, and was intimately aware of our soul and presence in the womb. You on the other hand do not have that insight and should probably take a different approach to judging, denouncing, shaming etc… others.
You are not Jesus. You are a man who is imperfect, with sin, and in need of grace as well. We all are such. Please take time to show real concern.
It is clear Mary that you are in way over your head when it comes to entering any rational discourse on the Jesus of the Scriptures and you have descended into merely making irrational ad hominem attacks on my person. I will certainly not stoop to insulting you personally.
But you must realize that, while you have the audacity to make baseless statements, you know absolutely nothing about what homosexual people I have known throughout my life
Jayhuck, through your cute smiley face and smug comment you likewise demonstrate you have nothing intelligent to contribute to what is essentially a theological discussion. You are carrying too much baggage of Scripturally unfounded assumptions to objectively understand Orthodoxy or Scripture. If you’re interested in the Orthodox Church consult with an actual priest on what I’ve been saying here and you’ll see that he agrees totally with what I have said.
Good luck on your nursing career aspirations.
Jose,
You are carrying too much baggage of Scripturally unfounded assumptions to objectively understand Orthodoxy or Scripture. If you’re interested in the Orthodox Church consult with an actual priest on what I’ve been saying here and you’ll see that he agrees totally with what I have said.
I am IN the Orthodox Church, Jose. I have been Orthodox for many years, and I do understand the church. One of my best friends is an Orthodox priest. You don’t even know me Jose, yet you throw all these accusations at me like you do. This is why many of us on here believe you are angry. Take care and good luck to you too.
Jose,
Surprise!! I am a Mennonite and a complete pacifist.
My, that IS a surprise. I didn’t know the Mennonites – or other pacifists – view Christ as wrathful.
But in any case
A blessed New Year to you!
Jayhuck. What I know about you is what you have stated in your blog profile and what you have stated in this discussion. I knew you had interest in the Orthodox Church, that’s why I mentioned it. If you are IN the Orthodox Church and one of your best friends is an Orthodox priest then he can confirm that what I have been saying is the Scriptural truth and that you are quite confused about what the Scriptures are saying regarding the forcefulness of Christ and His return to judge both the living and the dead. I read daily the Orthodox Study Bible and under no conditions do they affirm homosexual behaviors. This is what the Orthodox Study Bible teaches: “To claim that homosexuality is natural or an ‘alternative lifestyle’ is delusion. Rather, it is unnatural, shameful and unacceptable to God.”
If the Orthodox Church sees homosexuality as “unnatural, shameful and unacceptable to God” do you think they would endorse their adopting children? Hopefully your Orthodox friend is helping you through these misunderstandings. The Orthodox and the Catholic Church see eye to eye on this issue. No homosexual unions and no homosexual adoptions. It’s an abomination. If you are IN the Orthodox Church when will you accept its teaching?
I haven’t accused you of anything. I’m just disagreeing with your understanding of Jesus and your repeated ad hominem attacks calling me “angry and judgmental.” It is you who are being accusative. I’m referring to the unfounded assumptions you have of a wishy-washy Jesus. That’s the baggage I see you carrying around.
I suspect your Orthodox priest friend may be already telling you this ad more.
Timothy Kincaid. Mennonites are strict Biblicists even though, as in all denominations, we have our heretics. As Biblicists we believe in heaven and hell, salvation and damnation. We believe in a final judgment and we know that Jesus is the one who will judge us. We know that Jesus was not jovial or being “pleasant” when he addressed the scribes and Pharisees calling them “Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?” In this, as when he clears out the temple with a whip of chords, and many other passages we clearly see the wrath of Jesus in action. And “He will come again to judge the living and the dead.”
“The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Hmm. Sounds pretty wrathful to me. And Jesus is the one doing the judging. I didn’t write this. This is from the 20th chapter of the Revelation of Jesus Christ written by St. John. I’m not judging anyone. I’m only a messenger pointing to what the Scriptures really say. If you wish to be a Christian and not a heretic, then it’s better to accept the teaching than distort it and invent your own.
Peace.
“Orthodox” is a most interesting word. Used to be, when not capitalized it meant “sound or correct in opinion or doctrine; conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the primitive ecumenical creeds.” When capitalized it was ‘designating the Eastern or Greek Church’ or ‘pertains to the Greek Church’. Are these the definitions either Jose or Jayhuck were speaking from?
In one sense, almost anyone could say that their church was ‘orthodox’…don’t we all believe that our church is the right one? Jayhuck, it is my impression that you’re Catholic. But I admit I assumed Roman Catholic rather than Byzantine, Greek, Russian or one of the other Orthodoxes. Are you saying you belong to one of these Orthodox persuasions? Is your friend who’s an Orthodox priest from the same branch as you?
Jose, I’m thinking that the word ‘orthodox’, with or without the capital ‘O’, has morphed in definition both through time and across cultures. Did the traditional definitions I presented represent what you meant? If not, can you elaborate on what you mean by the Orthodox Church?
Yours for obliterating orthodoxy obfuscation,
Eddy
Remember we are the adopted sons and daughters of our Father.
Mary,
Happy New Year!
I understand and appreciate what you said here and would like to add this – I don’t believe God has any step children, we are all equal in His eyes.
Jose –
“Nevertheless, your answer is at least somewhat intellectually correct and your understanding will remain at best cerebral.”
Thank you for acknowledging that I am correct. However, I don’t know if you have any “special skills” at predicting how my understanding “will remain” and how my own evolution may or may not continue. You see Jose, I anticipate that on every subject and in life, I will continue to evolve – to grow and change in the depth and range of my understanding. I strive for this…and I hope you consider this path as well.
As for your blatant attacks on others and Mary (you stated things as “It is clear Mary that you are in way over your head when it comes to entering any rational discourse on the Jesus of the Scriptures…”, I’d cut it out. It detracts from your statements, appears bullying, and shows an inability to debate thoughtfully….it’s hard to tell through the mud-slinging what your point it. As you might know, people tend to tune-out and not give your view full consideration while they are being insulted.
Do yourself a favor, and attempt to offer others the consideration you would like to have.
Jose –
I believe you were reprimanded by the Family Scholars Blog for the nature of your comments as well (when they had comments way back when)…
Jag, please keep my comments in context. Here is the context:
Mary States: 76933. “I don’t know Jose – by your terms – I would not want you role modeling fatherhood or manhood to my children. Your definition of Christian and goodness seem awfully close to justifying all sorts of criminal thoughts and behavior.”
“Your words frighten me because unfortunately some people still think we live in a fantasy land where papa and mama are always there for their children.”
My response at 77004.
Mary actually sees Satan himself in my Jesus for she says, “I would not want you role modeling fatherhood or manhood to my children. Your definition of Christian and goodness seem awfully close to justifying all sorts of criminal thoughts and behavior. . . . I have read little to no grace in your posts. . . .”
What can I say? Mary, I wish you nothing but peace and a joyful Epiphany.”
Mary at 77119.
Jose,
Be careful – I did not say I could not find your Jesus in scripture. I said your doctrine is very close to justifying some criminal behaviors. I said I saw little or no grace.
My response at 77120. Actually Mary and Jayhuck, you’re quite wrong if you mean that “we are (all) adopted.” God adopts only a few. In reality “Many are called but few are chosen.” You are still imagining that wishy-washy Jesus I spoke of earlier. I would urge you to sober up in your understanding of the Christian teaching.
Peace.
Mary at 77526. “Right now, your tactic is oh so familiar of the hating christians that really just want homosexuals to stop grossing them out with their behavior rather than truly being interested in transformed lives. Jesus ate with us sinners.”
“You are not Jesus. You are a man who is imperfect, with sin, and in need of grace as well. We all are such. Please take time to show real concern.”
And now for my full sentence response at 77543 which you distort by cutting in half:
“It is clear Mary that you are in way over your head when it comes to entering any rational discourse on the Jesus of the Scriptures and you have descended into merely making irrational ad hominem attacks on my person. I will certainly not stoop to insulting you personally.”
******************
Jag, this is not grade school. Be assured that I reprimanded some at FSB more than they “reprimanded” me. There were some pretty hysterical people commenting on that blog. Two of the most irrational bloggers left (were dismissed?) and they then closed the blog. They are functioning much better now. Brad Wilcox and Elizabeth Marquardt are doing some excellent work.
Peace.
Hi Eddy,
I agree completely with your definition of Orthodox/orthodox. The Orthodox Church (upper case) covers Eastern/Greek, Russian, Coptic, etc. Lower case “orthodox” is, as you say, “sound or correct” teaching/doctrine. So I see myself as “orthodox” but not “Orthodox.” I hope this reinforces your effort to “obliterate orthodox obfuscation.”
I do believe and find that there are some fundamental teachings that all Christians accept and I’ve been addressing these in my comments. Then there are add-ons and omissions, some of which rise to the level of outright heresy, and by virtue apostasy, so that those individuals or denominations can no longer be called Christian no matter how much they claim the title.
Justifying homosexual conduct, as a church, rises to that heretical level. The mere discussion of the justification of homosexual conduct does not rise to that level. So, what the ECUSA has done in “consecrating” as bishop a practicing homosexual who has divorced his wife and fragmented his family to engage in a homosexual relationship is pure heresy and drops ECUSA from the Christian family. Many Episcopalians have recognized this and are leaving the ECUSA to join with the Anglicans, who remain within the Christian fold, or with Catholics and other faithful Christian denominations.
Blessings to you.
How did a discussion on the relative merits of the scant studies done on same-sex parenting turn into what this has become.
76184 Is the departure point for the topic as presented.
Eddy and Jose,
Actually, the Orthodox Church, big O, also lays claim to the small o meaning of the word. The Orthodox Church in America is a somewhat odd phenomenon. It is really only in this country that the ethnic distinctions become a big deal. First, the Orthodox Church is the second largest body of Christians outside of Catholicism – and no Eddy, I am not Roman Catholic.
And most of the Orthodox Churches are all in communion with each other. So while we don’t have a figurehead that is exactly like the Pope, we do all look up to the Patriarch of Constantinople as a spiritual guide. The main thing to understand about what I just said is that almost all Orthodox Christians can take communion in other Orthodox Churches – if that makes sense. There is so much more to it than that, and please remember, I am relatively new to the faith, so while I feel comfortable with the basic tenants of the Church, I’m still liable to get some things wrong – especially when trying to explain it to other people.
Anyway – I love Wikipedia – If anyone is interested, here is a good Wiki article on the Eastern Orthodox Church – The article does a very good job of “nutshelling” the faith: Read the Article Here
Hi Fitz,
It depends somewhat on what we mean by “departure point.” The departure point leading to a religious discussion on this thread I think is 75814 where Timothy Kincaid starts insulting people who do not approve of homosexual parenting and then begins expounding his wishy-washy construction of an all tolerant Jesus and some weird non-biblical theology.
In 76687 I mention that we are off the theme but feel compelled to respond to several comments made that confound the Jesus of Scripture. I try to bring it back in at 76778, reminding people what this thread is about but in 76813 Timothy Kincaid goes off again pontificating accusatively that he can’t find my Jesus in the Scriptures. So, I help him by showing him the numerous places where the non-wishy washy Jesus is revealed.
I think they got into this religion discussion because they were trying to identify Jesus-like parenting skills and Mary could not resist insulting me by saying “I would not want you role modeling fatherhood or manhood to my children” (what children?) and that my “definition of Christian and goodness seem awfully close to justifying all sorts of criminal thoughts and behavior.” Pretty bizarre and libelous comments about a highly respected, lifelong educator and father of four wonderful children. It seems like some people feel free to say things on blogs that they would never dream of saying to them in person.
I do thank you Fitz for helping us to get back on the thread.
Jose,
For someone who doesn’t like accusatory comments, you seem to make an awful lot of them! Is it just me or do you seem to think highly of yourself and no one else on this thread? I am still with Mary, I hear very little compassion in your messages and a great deal of self-righteousness.
There you go again Jayhuck with your personal attacks and nonsense statements. I’ll try to ignore you when you have nothing of substance to say.
Jose –
You stated:
“Jag, this is not grade school. Be assured that I reprimanded some at FSB more than they “reprimanded” me.”
Well, to me, it seems very simlar to you stated “grade school,” when you state things like:
78087 – “Timothy Kincaid goes off again pontificating accusatively..”
“Mary could not resist insulting me…”
78145 “There you go again Jayhuck with your personal attacks and nonsense statements…”
In the past two posts only, it seems very much like your stated reference of “grade school.” Please attempt to be kind and demonstrate the kindness, intelligence and thoughtfulness that these important issues require.
Thanks.
Thanks Jag for republishing my responses to the ongoing personal attacks.
Jayhuck–
Thanks for clarifying on your Orthodoxy. Realizing that it’s a term that seems so specific on one level and yet has the varied meanings, I wanted to be make sure that you were both speaking to the same thing. This may be a first for us (you and me) but I totally agree with your definition and usage!!!
Eddy,
You’re welcome!
I just posted this to another thread and realized it should be on this one instead – sorry for the duplicity.
it is interesting to ponder why God made it impossible for a woman to have a child without a man’s participation and why He also made it impossible for a man to have a child without a woman’s participation. We can finagle this all we want to, and we do, however, it is a sobering thought to wonder about God’s discernment in it all.
Ann –
You stated:
“t is interesting to ponder why God made it impossible for a woman to have a child without a man’s participation and why He also made it impossible for a man to have a child without a woman’s participation. We can finagle this all we want to, and we do, however, it is a sobering thought to wonder about God’s discernment in it all.”
Why has God given us the ability to transplant a human organ (having an organ inside of us that otherwise would not be present and leads to life extension)?
More controversial… Why has God given us the technology to actually prevent a life from existing with only the swallow of a pill (birth control pills) or condom? People seem not to find these so offensive….but they sometimes prevent life that would otherwise exist, and many don’t think twice about it.
We seem okay with sex for recreation, mutual affection, and non-childbearing if it serves the majority. I’m not sure why people get so hung up on the man-woman sex aspect of reproduction. I would assume that most couples in the USA have the majority of their sex as nonreproductive…but somehow the reproductive capacity of some becomes this odd standard the the measure of a relationship.
I would consider that God gave us the technological capacities to overcome the man/woman participative nature of reproduction – to both allow us to have children without it, and to prevent us from having children with it. It runs both directions.
I wonder about these questions too. I think God’s discernment in giving us such capacities is interesting to consider.
I’m not going to fathom why God has or has not done something because any reason I come up with is from my imagination and any reason someone else comes up with is their imagination (and alot of us imagine the bible being written from very different kinds of God) So – the argument can go on and on – I don’t care.
However, when people start to talk about attractions being the “natural way” or that technology has exceeded our “original” intent you might as well group yourself into the segment of people who say that ” If God intended man to fly he would have given him wings.” Really -
Jag,
I did not write about the possibilities that God has given us – I wrote about what He has made axiomatically impossible and thought it would be interesting to ponder that and wonder about His discernment with it. Focusing on that, do you have any thoughts?
Ann –
To be frank, I don’t know if we truly know the anatomic limits of the sexes yet….what is possible or impossible. I am often surprised at the findings of science.
I was astonished when we just discovered that even a mammal (such as the hammerhead shark) could have asexual reproductive capacity. I have no idea what is possible under God in human sexuality or reproductive capacities, but I know that my mind certainly doesn’t think our understanding ends in the year 2008.
http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/2007/05/a_virgin_shall_be_with_pup.php
This is technically a “virgin” conception…I don’t claim to know what is possible or impossible….and what we’re capable of just yet.
I know it sounds blasphemous (and I don’t mean it to, being a good Christian myself), but reading this made me wonder about Mary. Who knows, eh?
Thanks Jag for the reply and info – it is all very interesting – I am not sure if I would put Mary’s conception in the same discussion as it has only happened once, and with a divine purpose, but I can definintely see your point. Other than that example I think God has made it impossible for a human being to produce another human being without the participation of the opposite sex. I think that is worthy of taking a moment to ponder. Happy New Year!
Ann,
I think God has made it impossible for a human being to produce another human being without the participation of the opposite sex.
I’m pretty sure all of us are already aware of this. However, just because two opposite sex people can have a kid doesn’t mean that they will be good parents, that they are Holy, that they are decent, etc. ALL this means is that they can reproduce. Is there anyone on this blog who isn’t aware of this? I doubt it. AND, science has already progressed to the point that we don’t have to have sex in order to create a baby – even though God created the act as one of its purposes. How long will it be before we need even less participation from the genders? I don’t know, but that is also something interesting to ponder.
Happy New Year
Hi Ann,
That’s a truly excellent thought to contemplate and I hope to share ponderings soon.
I will say now that hammerhead sharks are not mammals but parthenogenesis in Komodo dragons and other lizards is quite fascinating.
God’s original plan for humans and creation was wonderful but we are fallen creatures and I fear we are falling deeper ans deeper.
I too share Ann’s thought and think that if there was no such plan men and women would not have been so different sexually and instinctually. Sexual difference is there in humans to draw them together in order to conceive life. Like any faculty, it can be used and misused in many ways, but that will not erase its primary aim without humans becoming something else.
Happy New Year Jayhuck!
Thanks for your reply – my post did not talk about sex or the ability to be a good parent or what happens after a child is born – those things human beings are capable of and responsible for, rather it spoke to the observation that God has made it axiomatically impossible for a man or men to have a child without the participation of a women and that He has also made it impossible for a woman or women to have a child without the participation of a man. Does that speak to His discernment and what does it tell us? Is it something that merits and is worthy of pause and consideration? Focusing on that, what are your thoughts?
This is great to ponder, but we have diverged from the original discussion which was same-sex parenting. The fact that men and women can reproduce is something I think we are ALL aware of, and I’m fairly certain that all of us on here appreciate and marvel at the ability of our species to create life (I know I have a much greater appreciation for it after my OB rotation) – however, that really wasn’t the point of this thread
Ann,
Focusing on that, what are your thoughts?
Hopefully I answered that in the above post. To me, basically, it means our species can reproduce, and that men and women have the tools needed to CREATE life.
BUT, we know that one man plus one woman don’t necessarily make a good or healthy family, and that two women or two men CAN be good parents and form a healthy family unit.
Ann,
How about this – men and women can create the children and gay people can raise them?
Jayhuck,
I think it is very revelent to this thread. It speaks to the point that while we have a lot of possibilities available to us, God has made this one issue impossible and I thought it was sobering and would be interesting to ponder. I know two people can pro-create, there are single parents, whether by choice or tragedy, that heterosexual couples do not always make good parents, etc., but my question is – do you have any thoughts on His discernment in making it impossible for a man or men to have children without a woman’s participation or involvement and that He also made it impossible for a woman or women to have children without a man’s participation or involvement?
How about this – men and women can create the children and gay people can raise them?
Jayhuck,
Is it possible or impossible that this can be reversed – can same gendered couples create children and have others raise them? No. This is what I was referring to when I said that God has made some things impossible for us and I was wondering about His discernment in it.
Ann,
I’ve already answered your question. I think if God created male and female to have kids – that’s it. Its all about procreation. Why did God do this – I’m not sure I want to even try and answer that question. God has done many things that I couldn’t even begin to answer the why question for. All we know Ann, is that Gay people can and do make equally good parents.
Here’s something else to ponder, if God just meant for men and women to be parents, why are gay parents parenting just as well as them?
I understand what you are trying to do Ann and where you are trying to take the conversation, but you cannot make the inference that just because men and women can CREATE life, that they can SUSTAIN it as well. Its been proven already that this isn’t the case.
I’m not sure I can say anything more about this.
Jayhuck,
You keep referring to the things that we CAN do and what God has made possible for us and I agree with you on these – my question is, do you have any thoughts on why He has made this one thing impossible and what do you think, if anything, His discernment is in it? Also, you mentioned that you knew what I was trying to do and where I was trying to take the conversation and what inferences I was making – please don’t say these things as they are all assumptions you are making about me that have no merit. Others on this blog resort to these tactics but I believe you don’t have to – at least with me.
Ann,
I will not try and pretend to be able to read the mind of God. And I did answer your question and not with an answer that talks about what we CAN do. God had to have some way for us to create children, so he gave us males and females – that’s all we know, and that is all we can ever know for sure. You are free to interpret his discernment in this as you see fit. Personally, i don’t see that his discernment has to extend beyond the mere fact of creating life. Why did God do this? What is his discernment? My answer: to create life. Which is the same answer I’ve given you several times above.
I just posted this on the thread about marriage and again realized it should go here on parenting
If we were to ask any child whether they would want a mom and dad or just a mom or just a dad or two moms or two dads, what does anyone think they would say? Sometimes adults are not the only people who matter when it comes to life decisions.
Ann,
If we were to ask any child whether they would want a mom and dad or just a mom or just a dad or two moms or two dads, what does anyone think they would say?
First, we don’t let children make many decisions for themselves, because they are, well, children.
Second, it depends on how we ask the question and to whom we ask it. Would we be asking children who understand that there are both gay parents AND straight parents who raise children, or are we only asking children who have no exposure whatsoever to the gay parents who are out there?
I think there would be many things wrong with asking this question of children anyway. Should we ask children if they want the parents they currently have or new ones?
Jayhuck,
Yes, I agree and know what God has done and made possible – created male and female as a means to pro-create children. Do you have any thoughts on why He made it impossible for men to create children with each other and impossible for women to create children with each other. Perhaps you have already answered this question by saying that you do not try to pretend to read the mind of God. I don’t either and that is why I am only pondering this instead of having the answers.
I would venture to think that children would answer that they would like a MOM and DAD. This does not preclude them from being happy and healthy and safe and stable in other familial settings, it only indicates a preference – one I think adults should pay attention to, regardless of what decisions they make.
Ann,
And I would venture to suggest that, if children are made aware of both kinds of parents, and know kids who are happy in both kinds of households, and have been appropriately exposed to both kinds of parents – that they might answer either way.
Do you have any thoughts on why He made it impossible for men to create children with each other and impossible for women to create children with each other
Sigh – Ann – I’ve already answered this – I cannot answer it because I cannot read the mind of God. Why does God do bad things to good people? Why did God create men and women who CAN’T have children? Why has God created gay parents who are just as good parenting as straight parents? Can you answer these questions?
Ann,
I don’t like to try and pretend to know why God does many things – because, in then end, I will never know for sure. THAT is why answering that question of yours about WHY God created men and women to have children, is impossible for me. I would rather deal in what we KNOW rather than in speculating on why God did or did not do something.
I don’t like to try and pretend to know why God does many things – because, in then end, I will never know for sure. THAT is why answering that question of yours about WHY God created men and women to have children, is impossible for me.
Jayhuck,
This is not the question I asked – again, I did not ask about what God has made possible and why, I asked about what He didn’t make possible, his discernment in that, and if anyone had any thoughts on it. Now I am sighing. Anyway, I agree with you about not pretending to know the mind of God and I hope in the fullness of time we will have all the answers that we ponder about now.
Does anyone else have any thoughts about #78343?
Ann,
My answer is the same – I cannot know the mind of God, and I won’t pretend to.
I think that, in the fullness of time, we all will know
For now we see through a glass darkly, right?
No, Ann, we don’t really have any thoughts on 78343
Primarily because it is extrapolation. It takes a fact and add a “because”. And to guess about the “because” requires knowing the mind of God.
We don’t know if God had a reason. And if He did, we certainly can’t guess what it is. I think Jayhuck has well explained this.
If you enjoy pondering, then ponder. I know there are many things that I like to think about, they take us out of the day-to-day and let us try and make better sense of the universe.
But don’t think it odd if we don’t join you on this one.
Ann –
Happy new year to you as well!
You stated:
“If we were to ask any child whether they would want a mom and dad or just a mom or just a dad or two moms or two dads, what does anyone think they would say? Sometimes adults are not the only people who matter when it comes to life decisions.”
Any child? I think if I asked the 3 year-old I know adopted as an infant from Vietnam by two women what she would want, I can almost guarantee she’d say her moms. They dote over her like crazy, and offer her a life ahead that she might likely otherwise never have.
I think the answer would vary greatly based on who you ask and when. Those raised in a loving same-sex household may love it, those raised in a loving hetero household may love it also…some might want anything other than what they have…and heck, ask a teenager, and many might want to scrap their parents altogether.
Ask a child anything and I assume they will give you they answer they think YOU want. They are easy to manipulate and have not developed psychologically. I swear, I could yell at my child (if I had one) for no good reason and easily convince my child that I was not yelling and that I was telling him how good he was. And guess what – later in an interview with someone else he would tell you just that.
Oh- and yes Jag, all teenage girls can’t stand her (her being their mother) but then by around 23 or there abouts and all is good back on the homefront.
God finds a way for all His purposes….through all sorts of avenues….all sorts of folks stepping up to take care of one another in all sorts of situations….
He even found a way to cause a virgin to give birth….(just noticed that was mentioned)
The creator is innately creative in ways we just don’t fathom, but he continues to accept our efforts whether or not we are able to discern His intent….
I’m sure some will disagree that he’s accepting of all our efforts….hence, this sort of continuous disagreement..
From what I can see, no one here has argued against the idea that the absolute best environment for a child is in the home of a perfectly loving mother and perfectly loving father. We’ve all been in agreement that traditional family is the most zippidy doo dah thing around when it’s ACTUALLY in order and working correctly. And then, there’s all the rest of the real people and kids in the world who are left to fend for one another. That’s what we were talking about here for the most part. Wasn’t it?
Ponder for a moment that some of those boys and girls who were raised in perfectly loving families turn out to be gay. They’ve seen real live role models of great parenting and some of them might make great parents. Or, some might be great at parenting for the same reason some straights are great at it…they’ve learned what NOT to do from bad parenting skills.
One thing I’ve often pondered is this….
Most reparative therapists argue that gay men were raised by distant fathers with whom they never bonded emotionally. If that’s the case, it stands to reason that a gay man would make an exellent father because he is more likely to be intuitive and loving toward his son. Just some pondering of my own.
Pam –
“Ponder for a moment that some of those boys and girls who were raised in perfectly loving families turn out to be gay. They’ve seen real live role models of great parenting and some of them might make great parents.”
Great thought.