Love Thy Neighbor
Earlier this week, a list was released of those who signed the petition to put Arkansas Act 1 on the 2008 voter’s ballot. The Act passed, making it illegal for unmarried couples to adopt children or become foster parents in the state of Arkansas. While this bill affects heterosexual couples, much of the campaigning was done with an anti-gay emphasis.
The release of the list has raised some questions. What was the purpose of releasing the list? Would those who signed the petition have signed if they had known their names would be made public? Will this cause a greater divide between the liberal and conservative communities in Arkansas, or help them raise discussion about an important issue and come to some sort of understanding?
First off, let me state that I believe there is a difference between a religious stance against homosexuality and homophobia. I understand people who believe homosexuality is wrong because of their religious beliefs, but I see homophobia as the desire to press this belief into the lives of others through political action. You have made your choice regarding your life, let others make their own. If we’re going to legislate on the legal standing of gays, we might as well legislate on the legal standing of people of faith.
Act 1′s passing is a case of homophobia. People disregarded the number of children who need loving families and focused on their feelings toward the gay community. There have been no studies that show children raised by gay couples grow up any differently than those raised by straight couples. People argue that only married couples should adopt, since children need a sense of stability and permanence. However, with American’s divorce rate, I do not see how permanence and stability are any more guaranteed with a married heterosexual couple. There are no reasons for this bill to have passed once religion is taken out of the equation.
It is scary to think of all those names, addresses, and signatures being out for anyone to see. I hope this information is not abused (hate mail, identity theft, etc.) but put to good use. Those who opposed the bill should strike up conversation with those they know on the list and explain to them the harm the bill created. Personally, I would love for foster and adoption agencies to take advantage of this information and send out letters asking those who signed to adopt a child or become foster parents, since they’ve narrowed down the pool of potential families.
I’m sickened by this whole mess, especially by seeing that the CEO of Wal-Mart was one of the biggest contributors to the anti-adoption measure. Needless to say my family no longer shops there at all. (Not that we did much anyway because of their abysmal labor practices.)
It is disgusting to see that so many people would jeopardize a child’s chances of a family just because of their personal beliefs. This was a well written article that asks very challenging and thought provoking questions.
When I searched through this list for HU professors I knew, I almost wrote an article here naming them by name and calling them out personally to start adopting. Nobody would be surprised to know that there are several HU professors who signed the petition. I did not see any names of people who actually have done anything to give loving homes to Arkansas children waiting for adoption, though.
Becca, you nailed it with the difference between the moral position and the homophobia.
“Would those who signed the petition have signed if they had known their names would be made public?”
One should not be willing to sign something unless they are willing for their signature on or relating to said item be made public.
“I understand people who believe homosexuality is wrong because of their religious beliefs . . . .”
People can, and do, believe homosexuality is wrong for reasons unrelated to “their religious beliefs.”
“You have made your choice regarding your life, let others make their own. If we’re going to legislate on the legal standing of gays, we might as well legislate on the legal standing of people of faith.”
Ummm…we do already.
“Those who opposed the bill should strike up conversation with those they know on the list and explain to them the harm the bill created.”
And, perhaps, during such a conversation, those opposed to the bill should ask those who supported it why they did so. Assuming/Presuming that one did so simply or primarily out of “homophobia” could very well be in error.
* * * *
David M. Manes:
“When I searched through this list for HU professors I knew, I almost wrote an article here naming them by name and calling them out personally to start adopting.”
So, ummmm…what’s stopping you from actually doing that?
“I did not see any names of people who actually have done anything to give loving homes to Arkansas children waiting for adoption, though.”
I hope that you have some actual support for this assertion.
Random Poster — I’m intrigued about these non-religious reasons. Please explain.
Becca Burley:
Well, for example, there are some who believe that homosexuality is wrong because such behavior (when practiced exclusively) cannot result in offspring. I don’t see where religion plays any role in such a belief.
Random Poster,
Then why not make it illegal for infertile couples to marry and adopt?
Becca:
Perhaps because such couples have great lobbyists?
As an additional example, there are some who believe that homosexuality is wrong because they find such behavior to be repulsive. Religion plays no role in their belief. Just like some may find Asians to be annoying, or Hispanics to be lazy, or whatever….their belief may not be grounded in any sort of reality, and they may be complete lunatics, but, regardless, their belief lacks any religious component or grounding.
RP:
You don’t provide support for a vague negative claim. I said I hadn’t seen any. Actually, you don’t provide support for any negative claim. You certainly don’t for a general shoulder shrug of a claim.
What’s stopping me is just deciding not to. I’m not sure that it would accomplish anything, and Becca’s article on the subject is worded perfectly.
Here is your biggest issue: “Ummm…we do already [legislate legal rights based on individuals' faith]“
I think you know this is wrong, but just in case, let me clear it up. There are no rights that Christians enjoy that are denied to Jews, Muslims, or anybody else. It is unimaginable that any state would pass a law that allowed only Christians to adopt, and specifically denied the right to adopt to other religious groups.
But this is more than just your flawed logic. It goes to the flawed logic of the entire legal paradigm that supports something like Act 1. All of the same legal, moral, and practical arguments that could be made against same-sex couple adoption could be made for Muslim adoption. From the Christian perspective, they are likely to teach their children “sinful” or morally wrong things. They are also likely to encounter some teasing in school.
We don’t discriminate based off of religion in this country, though. I’m not sure why you think it is okay to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
RP:
“As an additional example, there are some who believe that homosexuality is wrong because they find such behavior to be repulsive. Religion plays no role in their belief. Just like some may find Asians to be annoying, or Hispanics to be lazy, or whatever….their belief may not be grounded in any sort of reality, and they may be complete lunatics, but, regardless, their belief lacks any religious component or grounding.”
Surely you aren’t saying this is a good reason to discriminate. Even if you are using this to support your argument, it undercuts your attempt to refute Becca’s claim that Act 1 is homophobic. What you described is the definition of irrational homophobia.
Your answer on the infertility is weak sauce.
David M. Manes:
1. “You don’t provide support for a vague negative claim. I said I hadn’t seen any. Actually, you don’t provide support for any negative claim. You certainly don’t for a general shoulder shrug of a claim.”
What are you referring to here?
My response of “I hope that you have some actual support for this assertion” to your statement “I did not see any names of people who actually have done anything to give loving homes to Arkansas children waiting for adoption, though”?
2. “What’s stopping me is just deciding not to. I’m not sure that it would accomplish anything . . .”
Then what was the point of you stating “When I searched through this list for HU professors I knew, I almost wrote an article here naming them by name and calling them out personally to start adopting”? If you decided not to do so, then why mention what you “almost” did at all?
3. “I think you know this is wrong, but just in case, let me clear it up. There are no rights that Christians enjoy that are denied to Jews, Muslims, or anybody else.”
You need to think more broadly, and not restrict your analysis of “faith” to that of “Christian,” “Jewish,” “Islam,” or the like.
4. “All of the same legal, moral, and practical arguments that could be made against same-sex couple adoption could be made for Muslim adoption.”
Your statement is patently false….unless, perhaps, if Muslims were, as a result of their muslim-ness, unable to procreate.
5. “Surely you aren’t saying this is a good reason to discriminate.”
No, but neither was I asked for a “good reason to discriminate.” I’m glad to see that conflating issues is one of your specialities.
6. “Your answer on the infertility is weak sauce.”
Oh, the pain!
Actually, my response to the infertility argument is hardly weak, and it directly answers the immediate point: If a particular group wants to be awarded a certain “right,” which the majority does not currently wish to grant, then said group should not simply attack the majority with cliches and unsupported statements, but rather come up with better lobbyists (i.e., better ideas, better arguments, better campaigns”).
David Manes said, “I did not see any names of people who actually have done anything to give loving homes to Arkansas children waiting for adoption, though.”
And how would you have this exact knowledge of what anyone has done to help Arkansas children?
What have you done personally?
Okay, I’ll bite. Thinking with a broader definition of faith, there is discrimination in this country (although it goes counter to actual law) against people of no faith holding higher office. For some reason you have to comply with the de facto assumption that you’re a Christian and you have to trot out some ridiculous performance of belief–like sucking up to Pastor X of the moment–to be taken seriously as a candidate.
As for your repulsiveness standard for homosexuality, dude, you’re a homophobe. If you find anybody repulsive based on who they are, it’s a bias. Nobody asked you to watch anybody having sex–I imagine you’d be repulsed by most hetero couples doing the same. Maybe you’re just sex phobic?
Neffs:
I guess that your posting of:
“As for your repulsiveness standard for homosexuality, dude, you’re a homophobe. If you find anybody repulsive based on who they are, it’s a bias. Nobody asked you to watch anybody having sex–I imagine you’d be repulsed by most hetero couples doing the same. Maybe you’re just sex phobic?”
is directed towards me?
If so, may I suggest that you read my comments a little more closely?
Nowhere have I said that I (personally) have a “repulsiveness standard.” Rather, I stated that “there are some who believe that homosexuality is wrong because they find such behavior to be repulsive.” Key words: “there are some who believe . . . .”
Well why would you bring it up if we weren’t talking about you? It undermines your argument.
RP, I’ll humor you with some responses:
1) You really don’t understand logic. I made an informal negative claim (“I haven’t seen any…”). It is not possible to provide support for a negative claim. For instance, I have not seen any aliens; I don’t know of any instance where a baby has been born with its head backwards; etc. It is possible that aliens exist and the backwards baby exists. It is impossible for me to document every single thing that I have seen, and show conclusively that no aliens are present in my visual memory and it is impossible to document every baby that has ever been born and the orientation of its head. The answer to a negative claim like mine is to provide a counter-example, not to demand support.
2) Asked and answered. I’m not sure it would serve a purpose at this point, and I like the way Becca’s article reads. We are having a lively discussion stemming from it, see?
3) “You need to think more broadly, and not restrict your analysis of “faith” to that of “Christian,” “Jewish,” “Islam,” or the like.” I thought I was with the “or anybody else” that I included along with those examples. The examples are not meant to be exclusionary. I still have no idea what you are talking about on this point at all. Give me some examples where our laws discriminate arbitrarily along faith lines in a way that is similar to anti-gay discrimination regarding adoption.
4) Not only did I hypothetically muse that the same arguments could be made against allowing Muslims to adopt… I made those arguments. Do you find those arguments convincing? If you think they are off-base, then why? The ability to procreate is utterly irrelevant to the moral/legal issue we are talking about. Plenty of people can’t procreate, but that is not a reason to deny them the opportunity to adopt. In fact, that makes it more reasonable to let them adopt since they cannot naturally procreate.
5) So… what was the point of that rant about annoying Asians? I have no idea what you are saying there. I won’t conflate it any more than that.
6) More weak sauce. Your legal paradigm is philosophically weak. The government does not “award” rights at all in our legal tradition. People start out with the assumption of rights unless those rights must be abridged for the greater good of society, in which case the burden rests on society at large via the government to justify such infringement.
Your political suggestions are also morally weak. You cannot refute legitimate arguments by telling those making the arguments to find better marketing strategies.
You have not made any reasonable connection whatsoever between couples that are naturally infertile and denying them the right to adopt. If anything, the natural approach to the situation is to allow and encourage those couples to adopt, since they cannot otherwise have families.
–
It is very plain to anyone who reads your responses that you are running scared. The reason you personally despise homosexuals is a mixture of inbred and misinformed religious dogma along with personal revulsion. You recognize that neither of those carry any serious weight in public dialog, but you have no real arguments with which to back up your positions. Furthermore, you are either completely ignorant of or severely misinformed on the legal philosophy that rules in this country. You are, as Becca first observed, the very definition of a homophobe.
Neffs:
Are you really as dumb as you come across, or are you just trying to act that way?
I brought up the, to use your words, “repulsiveness standard” because I was providing examples, at the request of Becca Burley, of non-religious reasons why people can, and do, believe homosexuality is wrong for reasons unrelated to “their religious beliefs.”
That you apparently are unable or unwilling comprehend that, and the distinction between “there are some who believe” and “I believe . . .,” is simply mind-boggling.
Yes, you’ve figured it out. I am every bit as dumb as I come across.
RP, so on the repulsiveness standard… just to be clear…
You were basically saying: “here is an argument that is not logical or valid, and not one that I agree with at all, but I am going to mention it here anyway as an answer to what possible reasons there could be for legal discrimination.” Is that right?
David M. Manes:
Sigh…..I really do have a day job, so this will have to be brief:
A) “You really don’t understand logic. I made an informal negative claim (”I haven’t seen any…”). . . . .The answer to a negative claim like mine is to provide a counter-example, not to demand support.”
Your comment was “I did not see any names of people who actually have done anything to give loving homes to Arkansas children waiting for adoption, though.”
Thus, you are effectively stating “of those who did sign the petition, none of them have done anything to give loving homes to Arkansas children waiting for adoption.”
As DB concisely noted, how would you have this exact knowledge of what anyone has done to help Arkansas children?”
No one is asking you to “provide support for any negative claim.”
B) “Give me some examples where our laws discriminate arbitrarily along faith lines in a way that is similar to anti-gay discrimination regarding adoption.”
You really aren’t this dense, are you? Think about some of the more “fringe” groups of Christianity in the United States. Current law prohibits polygamy, even though the enactment and enforcement of such a law discriminates against certain “faiths.”
C) “The ability to procreate is utterly irrelevant to the moral/legal issue we are talking about.”
Why? Because you say so?
D) “Plenty of people can’t procreate, but that is not a reason to deny them the opportunity to adopt. In fact, that makes it more reasonable to let them adopt since they cannot naturally procreate.”
Again, why? Because you say so?
E) “The government does not “award” rights at all in our legal tradition. People start out with the assumption of rights unless those rights must be abridged for the greater good of society, in which case the burden rests on society at large via the government to justify such infringement.”
Which law school did you attend?
F) “Your political suggestions are also morally weak. You cannot refute legitimate arguments by telling those making the arguments to find better marketing strategies.”
Whether the “gays should be allowed to adopt” crowd have “legitimate arguments” is debatable. After all, if their arguments are so “legitimate,” then why have they been so unsuccessful to date in their various campaigns?
If you can’t sell your product, maybe it isn’t because your product sucks. Maybe it is because your marketing of the product sucks.
G) “You have not made any reasonable connection whatsoever between couples that are naturally infertile and denying them the right to adopt. If anything, the natural approach to the situation is to allow and encourage those couples to adopt, since they cannot otherwise have families.”
Or, a “natural approach” would be to tell such couples “Well, life sucks. You should have considered the possibility of infertility before you all got married.”
What makes your approach any more “natural” than the approach I have suggested above?
H) “It is very plain to anyone who reads your responses that you are running scared. The reason you personally despise homosexuals is a mixture of inbred and misinformed religious dogma along with personal revulsion. You recognize that neither of those carry any serious weight in public dialog, but you have no real arguments with which to back up your positions. Furthermore, you are either completely ignorant of or severely misinformed on the legal philosophy that rules in this country. You are, as Becca first observed, the very definition of a homophobe.”
Oh good freaking lord. Are you a psychologist, or do you just play one on a blog? Quite honestly, there isn’t a single sentence in the above-quoted paragraph that is accurate.
You have no real idea who the heck I am (just like I have no idea who you really are), but yet you seemingly feel compelled to make wild-a$$ comments with absolutely no basis is fact.
I’ve often thought that you were a bit of a blowhard, a pompous twit, and a smug self-righteous buffoon. Thanks for confirming that for me.
Should you wish to actually learn about my background and who I really am, feel free to contact me. Until such time, however, all I can say is “goodbye,” because there is obviously no reason for me converse with someone who makes such outlandish and unsupported accusations.
RP, is there a reason why you switched from numbers to letters? …And completely lost your mind?
RP, There are a couple of interesting items above that I want to rescue from the thicket of nonsense. The first is something you brought up and the second is something that I brought up that you completely ignored.
First, your example of polygamy being illegal is an interesting one. It would be a good argument against me, except that I am also opposed to our current polygamy laws. I don’t think there is any legitimate state interest in preventing one adult from entering into a marriage relationship/contract with one or more consenting adults. I don’t care about the number, their religion, or their gender. Our polygamy laws are thinly veiled anti-Mormon relics from our national past. Are there any other ways in which our society overtly discriminates against faith groups? I am probably against most of those, too. If a crime is victimless, then why is it a crime? For your original point to be relevant, you still need to provide examples where our laws discriminate arbitrarily along faith lines in a way that is similar to anti-gay discrimination regarding adoption.
Second, I am beginning to think that the legal philosophy aspect of this is at the core of the debate. You and many others like you misunderstand where rights come from and what the very role of the government is in a liberal democracy, and that is why you have so little turmoil when arbitrarily denying rights to others. Let me try to explain a bit more.
Our Constitution does not grant, award, or create rights for the citizens of this country. It recognizes and protects certain rights, but these rights are inherent (“among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”). People are not born slaves to the government, pleading for every particular right from the almighty state, and thank goodness for that! In fact, it is quite the opposite. The government must justify the state’s intrusion into individual liberty. The Supreme Court has various levels of scrutiny, depending on the importance of the right being infringed.
For support of this, read Locke, the Constitution, or any Supreme Court opinion dealing with individual liberty.
Surely… surely… you don’t really think that people are born without rights, and they have to be given those rights by the government? Surely you don’t think that unless individuals can justify their need for certain rights to the government or to the majority, then they are cut off from them?
I am beginning to think that if those in the anti-gay movement understood the basics of the American legal structure, then they wouldn’t be so quick to deny rights to same sex couples.
David said to RP while suggesting he was dense, “As DB concisely noted, how would you have this exact knowledge of what anyone has done to help Arkansas children?””
David, ole boy, I was addressing the question to you.
You said, “I did not see any names of people who actually have done anything to give loving homes to Arkansas children waiting for adoption, though.”
My question was to you. Presumably you saw names. You state you saw no names of anyone who has done anything to give loving homes to Arkansas children waiting for adoption. If you saw names, you are saying the ones you saw have done nothing to give loving homes to Arkansas children waiting for adoption.
So, let me ask again. How do you come about such knowledge?
I really don’t think you need to be calling RP (or anyone) dense.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I didn’t call anyone dense. There have been some misinformed and misguided opinions here – and I have called them such. But I see no reason to make this personal.
I did see a lot of familiar names, but I did not see any names of people whom I know to have adopted children. Of course I am there are adoptive parents who signed the list. It just happens that I saw a lot of names of people who have not, and I thought it was worth noting.
My point was a minor and informal observation, and never meant to be a vast, exclusionary argument. Personal hypocrisy is not even the core of this issue, anyway. The other issues are much more interesting than this personal stuff, which is why I didn’t write about it and why I am at a loss as to what else to say about it.
David, I don’t think you can get off that easy. Yes, your rants against RP appear to be very personal. For instance, “You really aren’t this dense, are you?”
Are you saying that the only way one can show that one cares about the orphans is to adopt one? Is that the only way one can help? If that is the only way one can help, then perhaps your point was “worth noting.” If not, your point was nothing more than a rhetorical cheap shot. So, I ask, is actually adopting a child the ONLY way one can help with children who do not have parents?
Perhaps you didn’t mean for your point to be an “exclusionary argument,” but that is exactly the implications of your statements. You were saying of those you saw on the list, they had done nothing to help provide homes to children in Arkansas.
The bottom line is you don’t know what anyone on that list may or may not have done. And, you have yet to tell us what you have done. You want to take a cheap shot against those on the list by implying they only signed the list because the hate homosexuals, are ignorant, and don’t really care about the homeless children. If you are going to be so bold as to make such a charge on no evidence at all, then tell us exactly what you have been doing.
You said, “Personal hypocrisy is not even the core of this issue, anyway.” I don’t know, I think it may be. I’m still waiting to hear all the wonderful things you do for needy children. So far, all I am hearing is how outraged you are on behalf of the homosexual lobby.
Just saying – it was RP who called David dense, not the other way around.
Ah, well then RP is smarter than I gave him credit. Apologies to RP.
DB,
I know these comments are not directed at me, but David and I share a lot of opinions about this issue, so I’d like to weigh in.
I think there is a difference between David and Becca pointing out that probably a lot of people who signed this list will not do anything to help those orphans, and not doing anything themselves. There is a difference in age, economic status, maturity, and proactive measures. David and Becca did not sign the list, therefore they are not…I hesitate to use the phrase “morally obligated,” but I will for lack of anything better…to provide another way to help those children. Those who did sign the list, for whatever reason, prevented children from being adopted by willing couples. No matter what their intentions were, this is the result. Since they brought about this conclusion, I think it only fair that they should compensate for it in some way.
You’re right to point out that we have no way of knowing if those who signed the list are making monetary contributions, spending time with the orphans, etc. However, monetary amounts given and and volunteer time logged only go so far to halt the massive effort they have taken to prevent these kids from having homes.
To sum up, it’s not what we have done that is the focus of this minor argument, it’s what we have not done. By signing the list, these people became somewhat responsible for the lives of the kids. I’m sure David and I will go on to do as much as possible for our community in the future, respectively. A failure to act now should not be taken in consideration of our willingness, but of our present ability.
“There is a difference in age, economic status, maturity, and proactive measures.”
Yes, I suppose there is, but that does not prevent them from posting here that they know all the answers to all the moral and poltical issues of the day, does it? Oh, it might prevent them from lifting a finger to help the orphan, but it does nothing to prevent them from spewing ignorant rants against others.
Seriously? Because they didn’t sign some list they have no moral obligations to help care for the orphans (or the widows, but I hesitate to get Biblical with you guys)?
And because some people signed the list who might genuinely believe two guys who like to engage in oral and anal sex with each other on a regular basis might not be the best two adults to raise a child — then, somehow they are the ones who are morally deficient?
Oh, well, for crying out loud! It all makes so much sense now. You should have spoken up sooner and cleared all this up.
“Yes, I suppose there is, but that does not prevent them from posting here that they know all the answers to all the moral and poltical [sic] issues of the day, does it?”
Yes.
Also, we have plans to take over the world.
How is it any different from two heterosexual people who like to engage in oral and anal sex with each other on a regular basis?
Becca, the sad thing is, they would probably sign a petition to not allow those folks to adopt either.
Go away Dr. Burks. No one’s fooled by your initials.
“How is it any different from two heterosexual people who like to engage in oral and anal sex with each other on a regular basis?”
I think, in the situation you are describing, one is a man and one would be a woman. In the situation I described, I specifically made clear it was two males. (sarcasm)
However, the answer to your question, based upon how you view homosexuality, is there is absolutely no difference whatsoever, aside from anatomical considerations.
That’s why it is pointless to discuss this with such enlightened ones as yourselves. You see absolutely nothing immoral about homosexual behavior. Therefore, it makes no sense to you. It is just as if I saw nothing wrong or immoral with pedaphilia and you did, I would be at a loss to explain why you believe allowing such people to adopt would be a problem. Or if I saw nothing wrong with a man having seven wives, I would be at a loss as to explain why you believe allowing such to adopt would be a problem.
The issue is that we are coming at this from drastically different moral views. I believe morality is a reality because God is a reality and he has made himself known through the scriptures. I’m pretty sure you think that is hideously ignorant of me (you know, you being so smart and all), so we will continually talk past each other on this.
Becca,
I can tell you two differences off the top of my head.
#1 – Heterosexual couples don’t typically have anal sex. They are quite capable of normal sex, unlike homosexuals.
#2 – Married heterosexual couples are not participating in sin and immorality with each other every time they have sex, whether it be on a regular basis or not.
RE: Polygamy Laws
i just wanted to weigh in on the polygamy issue discussed rather briefly up above. first, i think we need to draw a distinction b/w “anti-polygamy laws” and “allowing a person to hold only 1 marriage license at a time.” An anti-polygamy law would be something along the lines of disallowing more than a certain number of adults to live under 1 roof for a certain amount of time or, perhaps, requiring a 1-to-1 male-female ratio of adults living on a parcel of land, or any other arrangements under which Random Poster could have been reared. I believe several states may actually still have laws like these still on their books but I know they don’t enforce them (not even Utah), and for good reason too. However, the situations today, where you see the S.W.A.T. team raid polygamous compounds, may look like the state is enforcing its anti-polygamy laws, but, in fact, they are enforcing their child predator laws. The problem with current polygamous LDS sects is not the polygamy itself, it is the fact that they force 12 year old girls to “marry” 50, 60, & 70 year old men, which of course are hastily consummated.
On the other hand, I think a state has a pretty compelling reason to grant marriage licenses to only 2 people at a time and to refuse the granting of a new marriage license to anyone who currently holds a valid one. The shear complexity of a polygamous social and legal structure would wreak havoc on everything from inheritance laws to the tax code; from gym memberships to parent teacher conferences. So, I’ll have to disagree w/ you, here, david. I really do not think the government should get into the business of granting polygamous marriage licenses.
DB & LS:
RE: Homosexuality as “sin”
I am going to (for the sake of argument) temporarily concede a lot of points to you because I think you will still be wrong at the end of it.
1) Can we all agree that even if homosexuality is a “sin” (whatever that means), then it is a victimless sin? It is therefore not in the category of rape or pedophilia or murder or theft. It is more in the category of cursing to yourself or working on the Sabbath or looking at porn. I would probably be willing to let all of those debates go because I think this is a fair categorization. Modern same-sex relationships are not exploitative and are completely consensual.
2) What is the connection between parents who sin constantly and their legal right to adopt children? Did your parents NOT sin constantly? If you have children, do you claim to not sin constantly yourself?
3) What about other victimless-sin sinners? Would you support laws that prohibit adoption in homes where the father looks at pornography or the mother reads sex novels? Would you support laws that prohibit adoption in homes where a single parent lives, but she sleeps around constantly with other men who just aren’t cohabiting with her? What about any other comparable sin to homosexuality? Please name at least one so I don’t think you are just singling out homosexuality out of every sin out there, including a lot that actually do hurt people.
4) Since when did anyone’s personal sin become justification enough to deny them equal legal protection? If they hurt other people, then yes, the state is justified in punishing them, incarcerating them, or denying them certain rights. But same sex couples do not meet that qualification.
j_ball, you might be right. I have gone back and forth on this issue over the past few years. And yeah… I know… it isn’t even really a current issue for most people.
I don’t think it would really be all that complicated or wreak all that much havoc and here is why. The complication would be minimal because it would just be a slight change to all of those current policies. Instead of the common law default of a surviving spouse inheriting 100% of the deceased spouse, the two surviving spouses would inherit 50% each. The havoc would be avoided because very few people would have polygamous marriages, anyway. So whatever intensity of complexity resulted would be very limited in overall scope.
That isn’t the part that has ever troubled me. I think gyms can figure those policies out, and I don’t foresee a lot of people getting polygamous marriages for the gym benefits. The troubling part is, as you point out, the associated behaviors. Polygamy is associated with some very troubling cults with some very troubling sexual practices.
Where I ended up on the issue (for now) is that the laws we have to protect minors and other people who are being victimized and abused are enough to protect them in a country that allows legal polygamy. As you admit, the SWAT teams get their warrants to enforce those laws, anyway.
I don’t see any state interest in preserving “traditional family structure,” which is the usual argument, and so I don’t see much of an interest in prohibiting polygamy.
david, i think you’ve got a valid argument that sanctioned polygamy would not “wreak havoc” on our social and legal structures. however, i think you may be oversimplifying property law. it’s been a while (1 year, to be exact) since i last had a property law class, but i am currently watching a bunch of frantic 1Ls running around like chickens with their heads cut off, who could firmly attest to the fact that property law and the estate system are quite a bit more complicated than one might assume.
of course, simpler inheritance law, by itself, is not necessarily a valid reason to deny someone marriage benefits. but i think there are a number of other legitimate interests the gov’t has in limiting marriage rights to monogamous couples, including, _inter alia_, tax benefits, child custody, and inbreeding.
again, i have no problem if a group of weirdos want to move in together and start referring to each other as “spouse.” i just don’t see a problem with the gov’t refusing to give tax benefits, etc. to more than just 2 of them.
My point was that I don’t understand what sexual practices have to do with someone’s ability to raise a child unless they’re sexually abusing the child. What happens when the child isn’t around shouldn’t really matter. Don’t tell me there aren’t hetero couples who get up to some pretty kinky stuff behind closed doors.
You know what, none of this stuff about sexual practices or whether David and Heather or whomever support orphans is relevant.
This situation is just like the aftermath of Proposition 8 in California; some people put their names on that and then were shocked–shocked–to find out that their names were published and they were subjected in some instances to a boycott of their businesses. If you have the cojones to sign something saying that you are interested in depriving other citizens of their rights, then as the right likes to say, you need to take responsibility for your actions. You need to man up and take your heat on the chin and shut up about it.
This is another reason why I think same sex marriage is definitely going to happen:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/index.html
This “survey indicates a vast generational divide on the issue.”
Overall, 44 percent agreed that same-sex marriages should be considered legal.
“But among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents aged 35 to 49, and to 41 percent for those aged 50 to 64. Only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages, according to the poll.”
So we pretty much have to wait for the old people to either die or change their minds. I wonder which is more likely…
I also don’t know why we spend time trying to change the minds of these people:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/joe-the-plumber-queer-mea_n_196116.html
Ms. Burley,
A few questions.
1. Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a choice when you write “You have made your choice regarding your life, let others make their own”? If this is not what you are saying, if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then is homophobia a choice? If so, why, and how do you know this?
2. You are right. There are no long-term studies on how same-sex parenting affects children. That fact cuts two ways: no one can aver that same-sex parenting is harmful, and no one can aver that it is harmless. Hence, since it is not KNOWN, isn’t it at all wise to err on the side of caution? After all, we do know that children raised in hetero-homes do benefit from both parents, at least when both parents are functioning fairly well: We DO have long-term studies that support the claim that two parents of the opposite sex living under one roof are good for a child’s development. Should we just permit something rather new and untested merely so we can study its effects and then LATER determine if children are harmed by this novel yet noble social experiment? Yes, it is tragic that their are orphans looking for homes. But what is REALLY ideal for a child’s social and cognitive development? Shouldn’t that be a first priority?
3. Is homophobia really the imposition of one’s own religious values, feelings, or moral convictions re: homosexuality on others? I thought homophobia was one or all of three possible things: A) the fear of one’s own homosexual inclinations, B) the fear of homosexuals in general, and C) hatred of homosexuals rooted in ignorance. But if homophobia is defined “as the desire to press this [religiously influenced] belief into the lives of others through political action,” then what do you think of those religious folks who believe gay marriage (and “gay” adoption) are in accord with their religious beliefs? Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, Episcopalians — many of these churches BELIEVE that homosexuality is a gift of God and that gay marriage is a “move of the Spirit” toward justice, equality and true love. The UCC claims that, regarding gay rights, “God is still speaking.” In Vermont, some activists arguing in favor of gay marriage contended that to deny that “right” was to deny them the right to freely practice their religion. So, if homophobia is the imposition of one’s religious values on society, is the redefining of family and marriage by religious activists through “political action” in favor of gay marriage homophobia? Or could it be construed as heterophobia?
I know I’ve asked some big questions here. But this is a big topic. It deserves our very best.
Be well.
BG
Bill I just have to quibble with one of your assumptions; there is a longstanding trend, always on too few cases to be considered statistically significant, that in looking at indicators of quality parenting across same-sex/opposite-sex parent households, occasionally kids raised by lesbians come out on top. It was further explored in a book by Peggy Drexler and the outcome of her research is under some debate. But there you have it. I don’t think erring on the side of caution as you put it is called for at all.
http://www.peggydrexler.com/peggydrexler.htm
@Neffs,
I love Joe the Plumber. Well, I think he is an idiot. But I think it is hilarious that he is now referred to as a “conservative spokesman” and I think he says the funniest dumb things ever.
@Neffs,
I wish Drexler hadn’t been “curiously cagey on the numbers,” as the Amazon book review suggests. Anecdotes are not very convincing, even though I am inclined to agree with her on a theoretical level.
“Though she’s curiously cagey on numbers, she does reveal that she interviewed a variety of lesbian mothers, single mothers, sons of single moms and sons of two-mother families. The results of her survey serve as a refreshing antidote to critics who insist that family life today is on the verge of being atomized.”
@Bill,
The idea of “erring on the side of caution” does not uniquely apply to same-sex couples. If we are going to adopt that mindset, then there are a lot of other groups that we should cautiously exclude from adoption long before we get to stable homes with two moms. Do you really want to apply that standard to the entire pool of potential adoptive parents?
Well I imagine that cageyness is exactly why you haven’t seen that finding before–it’s too few cases to submit to a statistical test, and I’m sure also why most of her book is built around interviews instead. Funny how when you Google her you find the vociferous objections to her book quicker than you do actual information about her book.
Truth is if you wanted to ‘err on the side of caution’ you would never place a child in a home with a man who was not their father because of the rate of stepfathers/boyfriends abusing and killing children. But that never counts as something worthy of caution, because this argument really isn’t about the welfare of children.
David and Neffs,
My comments are circumscribed by Ms. Burley’s own words. She said there were no studies (at least no long-term ones) regarding the harm of same-sex parenting on children. IF what she says is true, then how do we proceed when one side says children will be harmed and another says they won’t? There is nothing to which either side can appeal, at least nothing substantively quantified across a broad range of indicators and benchmarks.
I also suggested rather clearly that we do have information about the positive/negative benefits of hetero-parenting. As far as I can tell, this is a baseline; all other variants should be approached with caution, don’t you think?
Neffs, we probably disagree here. You cite one bit of research that is clearly limited in scope. You see NO need for caution based on Ms. Drexler’s work? None whatsoever?
As an aside, I don’t think most people who oppose same-sex parenting models do so largely or solely because they think such models are bad for children. I think there is something far more intrinsic and fundamental to the idea of same-sex coupling that opponents of same-sex adoptive parents actually oppose. To opponents of such couplings and parenting models, how children are affected is secondary, even tertiary.
BG
Neffs,
Here’s an interesting question related to your post (elsewhere) about sex differences: why are fathers/stepfathers more likely to abuse children than mothers/stepmothers? Is that a learned behavior? Why are so few women sexual predators/pedophiles (and why are so few women serial killers)?
I know in several if not many species of large mammals fathers often kill their own offspring. Again, is that a learned behavior?
You need not answer these questions. I raise them solely to highlight a small point among many that suggests the science of sexual differences is complex — and VERY interesting.
BG
@Bill,
I think you are unintentionally oversimplifying the issue to two categories: intact heterosexual married couples and same-sex couples. You correctly refer to studies that demonstrate positive effects of the first category and correctly identify a lack of statistical study related to the second. Those are not the only two categories of potential adoptive parents, however. So it is not reasonable to “err on the side of caution” by permitting adoption for those in the first category and denying it to those in the second.
There are thousands of different categories of potential parents with measurable demographic differences. Just to name a few:
A single woman who works full time outside the home
A single woman who has been divorced and works full time outside the home
A single woman who has no high school education
A man and a woman who live together but are not married
A man and a woman who are married, and both work full-time outside the home
It is not necessary to name too many more, I don’t think. The point is, there are more than just two categories, so we cannot just say that since one very specific category is supposedly “the best,” then it should be the only. In fact, I would guess that most statistical studies would show the above parents to be less successful in measurable outcomes than your typical hetero-married couple. Should they all be denied adoption rights as well because they are not “the best?”
Also, I find it interesting that you seem to have such a reliance on science. Statistical studies can play a role in the debate, but are they really the only things that matter?
I would argue that it’s become more acceptable for men to do so. Like most of the things we consider sex differences.
Also, consider the possibility that maybe some of us are just serious self-enhancers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/health/05mind.html
James 1:27
My funny for the day, from the comments here http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/archives/2009/06/if_we_followed.php
“The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals.
That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision.”