This is blog #9 of a continuation of my response to a missive/blog posted several months ago entitled "Why I am a Christian Who Supports Gay Marriage." Please Google it and check it out before continuing.
Concerning the Notion that God Approves of Same Sex Marriages for Adopting and Raising Children
Now we come to one of the most insidious and problematic suggestions the author poses in her support piece for homosexual marriages: The concept that gay marriage would provide a great panacea for a supposed lack of families to adopt orphaned or displaced children that has God's recommendation and seal of approval. Here is what she suggests in her article:
"I think gay marriage might be God’s way of saying, “Now, be fruitful and adopt.” How many of his beautiful children could be saved from starvation, death and the pain of abandonment because there were more loving, committed, married families to welcome them in? And just because people don’t have the proper “equipment” to make babies together, that is not proof that their love is unnatural or any less than a man and a woman who do – otherwise barren women or infertile men should not be able to marry either."
If there is a concept we as Christians need to understand that is probably even more important than the sacrament of marriage for its spiritual significance in representing Christ's relationship to His Church, it is the concept of adoption, because of its use in the New Testament Scriptures (clearly outlined in Romans chapter 8) to define the spiritual definition of what happens when we become born again, in terms of our relationship to Father God and His Son, Jesus. And just as society's attempt to redefine the sacrament of marriage according to our definition distorts the use of the husband/wife relationship as an allegory to the Christ/Church relationship presented several times in the New Testament Scriptures (e.g., Ephesians chapter 6) through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so also does the concept of allowing same sex cohabiters to engage in the adoption of children violate the sacredness of the "Sonship" model presented in Romans chapter 8 and three other Scripture references in the New Testament. To adopt a child into a relationship between parents that will not, nay cannot, nourish his or her intrinsic need for both uniquely male and female contact, input and modeling because it would challenge that relationship's validity, is, I believe, a sacrilege. Even when adopted into a single parent family, a non-infant child at least recognizes that either a male or female gender parent is missing; and if that need is not addressed through an appropriate surrogate, that child will "act out" or compensate accordingly, in various ways, to secure input and approval from the missing gendered parent. In fact, studies have shown it is well known that this is one of the major reasons for early sexual activity and promiscuity among teens caught in this situation.*
A large part of the adoption dynamic is that the one being adopted becomes an integral part of the adopter family, even to becoming a student and participate in traditions, ceremonies, lifestyle activities and functions that insure its stability and permanence, which in turn strengthens and protects the society of which it is an integral part. The adoptee is not brought in just for the sake of some emotion; nor is he allowed to bring in his previous family dynamics to try and change the family he is joining; the adoptee is expected to become immersed in the family dynamic of the family he or she is joining...And therein lies the insidious danger of allowing other than traditional families to adopt children, especially preteen and infant children. Because equally important to parents providing love for their children is the duty to provide training for their children in all areas of life, just as our adoptive Father provides not only love, but also training, instruction and discipline in our spiritual lives, especially concerning His Family's ways.
You see, what this blogger and other proponents or apologists for same sex marriage don't seem to comprehend, perhaps because they have not been involved in the child rearing process, is that by the time children are 8 years of age (in virtually every culture in the world) they have been immersed in society, culture and nature long enough to have observed and are beginning to understand the natural and traditional order of things, including the male/female differences and roles. Actually, every valid study into this matter has shown that children's comprehension of these things comes overwhelmingly not from observation but from instinct (that is why social engineering groups like NOW can't manipulate boy/girl natural behavior like they would like to); and that it is through observation of and interaction with the adult role models and the members of their peer groups that tempers what they growingly comprehend. This, therefore, makes the observation process an extremely important factor in their growth and development, especially in those critical years between the ages of 8 to 16, when their bodies become inundated with sexual hormones, and their minds become flooded with sexual impulses and awareness.
Like every other part of their lives, children need to have established boundaries for their sexual impulses and behaviors, for the good of themselves and for the good of the society in which they live. But how do you establish boundaries for them when you yourself ignore God's stated boundaries concerning sex and marriage? How do you emphasize the proven, extreme importance of BOTH male and female parental influences on the psychological development of every child, whether male or female, when you double up one gender to the exclusion of the other gender in the basic family unit? How do you teach children that the primary purpose of marriage is to create the perfect incubating unit for producing and raising children through its combination of responsibilities, rules role playings, traditions and long term interactions, all bound together by commitment - A Sacred Commitment, ordained by God from the beginning, between the only combination of genders that can produce offspring ("...and the two shall become one."), one male and one female - when you proceed to live a life devoted to changing all the common-good rules and boundaries so that you may do whatever makes YOU feel good and fulfills YOUR desires. Do you really not understand the confusion and lack of confidence this creates in the adolescent mind and psyche?
Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that the confusion that results from exposing developing teen and preteen children to muddled sexual mores and familial and gender roles presented by having same sex parents leads to much higher incidents of depression and suicidal thoughts among them than is found among children of either traditional or one parent households. I would think that this stands to reason given that they themselves can discern that more than ninety five percent of their peers are heterosexual, and that almost one hundred percent of the families they interact with through their peers are traditional or single parent families. By the time a child is ten years old, he/she knows that a single parent family is not missing a second mom or a second dad, but rather, a parent of the opposite sex from their current parent. As proof of the psychological problems that are showing up in children of family units based on same sex parents, many of the middle school and high school state educational systems around the country have already started mandating special in-school counseling programs to identify and counsel these at-risk students, most recently in Maryland, Washington State, and Oregon. One particular area that is NOT being addressed due to the intensive lobbying of LGBTQ groups is the education of teen and preteen youth concerning the health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle, especially among young males, and especially concerning AIDS and HIV.
Concerning the adoption in general, please allow me to inject a little personal experience into the concept of adoption. I have been a member of the Foster Care Review Board for Oldham County and the State of Kentucky for over 25 years, most of that time served as Chairperson; as such, I have been involved in many adoption cases. I have seen many loving couples come into the adoption process thinking that adopting poor little abused, neglected and/or orphaned children is just like adopting a little puppy...All you have to do is provide them with food, shelter, clothing and lots and lots of love and everything will be rosy and wonderful. Unfortunately, that is just not the case, especially where the child has been removed from a home or family because of abuse or neglect. The older a child is when he/she goes through the adoption process, the more likely that child will engage in a behavior called "acting out", which can best be described as an intense effort by the child to test the loyalty of the adoptive family, express angry/hurt feelings for his situation in life and to obtain maximum self attention for himself (even if that attention is negative) through often bizarre, hostile and sometimes threatening antisocial actions. This type of behavior can be extremely challenging, especially during the early period of the adoption, for even the strongest of traditional families and parents; in a high percentage of these cases, the child is rejected and the adoption is dissolved (or worse, the child is secretly "gifted" to another, often abusive, family), with often devastating effects on the psyche and mental health of the child as he/she is returned to the foster care system with the stigma of being an "un-wantable" kid. Some of my most gut-whrenching moments on the board have come with having to deal with the consequences of children being victimized and rejected by irresponsible, naive and selfish adults who seem to have listened to that song, "All You Need Is Love", one too many times. In my opinion and experience, adding unconventional family dynamics to the adoption process for the child to justify and assimilate simply adds to the probability of failure, not success, of the adoption process.
Finally, a thought or two concerning statements equating people who don't have the right equipment to make babies with people who are baron or infertile: I don't mean to sound harsh or demeaning, but this comparison is simply absurd. Under the normal and traditional concept of marriage, a couple has no way of knowing whether they are baron or infertile until they consummate their marriage and attempt to have children; so how then can they be prevented from getting married on the basis information which doesn't manifest itself until they are married? This is a perfect example of a "Catch 22"! There's simply no way that this compares to the idea of two adults of the same sex getting married while knowing they can't produce children through sexual relations in that marriage.
If there is a concept we as Christians need to understand that is probably even more important than the sacrament of marriage for its spiritual significance in representing Christ's relationship to His Church, it is the concept of adoption, because of its use in the New Testament Scriptures (clearly outlined in Romans chapter 8) to define the spiritual definition of what happens when we become born again, in terms of our relationship to Father God and His Son, Jesus. And just as society's attempt to redefine the sacrament of marriage according to our definition distorts the use of the husband/wife relationship as an allegory to the Christ/Church relationship presented several times in the New Testament Scriptures (e.g., Ephesians chapter 6) through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so also does the concept of allowing same sex cohabiters to engage in the adoption of children violate the sacredness of the "Sonship" model presented in Romans chapter 8 and three other Scripture references in the New Testament. To adopt a child into a relationship between parents that will not, nay cannot, nourish his or her intrinsic need for both uniquely male and female contact, input and modeling because it would challenge that relationship's validity, is, I believe, a sacrilege. Even when adopted into a single parent family, a non-infant child at least recognizes that either a male or female gender parent is missing; and if that need is not addressed through an appropriate surrogate, that child will "act out" or compensate accordingly, in various ways, to secure input and approval from the missing gendered parent. In fact, studies have shown it is well known that this is one of the major reasons for early sexual activity and promiscuity among teens caught in this situation.*
A large part of the adoption dynamic is that the one being adopted becomes an integral part of the adopter family, even to becoming a student and participate in traditions, ceremonies, lifestyle activities and functions that insure its stability and permanence, which in turn strengthens and protects the society of which it is an integral part. The adoptee is not brought in just for the sake of some emotion; nor is he allowed to bring in his previous family dynamics to try and change the family he is joining; the adoptee is expected to become immersed in the family dynamic of the family he or she is joining...And therein lies the insidious danger of allowing other than traditional families to adopt children, especially preteen and infant children. Because equally important to parents providing love for their children is the duty to provide training for their children in all areas of life, just as our adoptive Father provides not only love, but also training, instruction and discipline in our spiritual lives, especially concerning His Family's ways.
You see, what this blogger and other proponents or apologists for same sex marriage don't seem to comprehend, perhaps because they have not been involved in the child rearing process, is that by the time children are 8 years of age (in virtually every culture in the world) they have been immersed in society, culture and nature long enough to have observed and are beginning to understand the natural and traditional order of things, including the male/female differences and roles. Actually, every valid study into this matter has shown that children's comprehension of these things comes overwhelmingly not from observation but from instinct (that is why social engineering groups like NOW can't manipulate boy/girl natural behavior like they would like to); and that it is through observation of and interaction with the adult role models and the members of their peer groups that tempers what they growingly comprehend. This, therefore, makes the observation process an extremely important factor in their growth and development, especially in those critical years between the ages of 8 to 16, when their bodies become inundated with sexual hormones, and their minds become flooded with sexual impulses and awareness.
Like every other part of their lives, children need to have established boundaries for their sexual impulses and behaviors, for the good of themselves and for the good of the society in which they live. But how do you establish boundaries for them when you yourself ignore God's stated boundaries concerning sex and marriage? How do you emphasize the proven, extreme importance of BOTH male and female parental influences on the psychological development of every child, whether male or female, when you double up one gender to the exclusion of the other gender in the basic family unit? How do you teach children that the primary purpose of marriage is to create the perfect incubating unit for producing and raising children through its combination of responsibilities, rules role playings, traditions and long term interactions, all bound together by commitment - A Sacred Commitment, ordained by God from the beginning, between the only combination of genders that can produce offspring ("...and the two shall become one."), one male and one female - when you proceed to live a life devoted to changing all the common-good rules and boundaries so that you may do whatever makes YOU feel good and fulfills YOUR desires. Do you really not understand the confusion and lack of confidence this creates in the adolescent mind and psyche?
Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that the confusion that results from exposing developing teen and preteen children to muddled sexual mores and familial and gender roles presented by having same sex parents leads to much higher incidents of depression and suicidal thoughts among them than is found among children of either traditional or one parent households. I would think that this stands to reason given that they themselves can discern that more than ninety five percent of their peers are heterosexual, and that almost one hundred percent of the families they interact with through their peers are traditional or single parent families. By the time a child is ten years old, he/she knows that a single parent family is not missing a second mom or a second dad, but rather, a parent of the opposite sex from their current parent. As proof of the psychological problems that are showing up in children of family units based on same sex parents, many of the middle school and high school state educational systems around the country have already started mandating special in-school counseling programs to identify and counsel these at-risk students, most recently in Maryland, Washington State, and Oregon. One particular area that is NOT being addressed due to the intensive lobbying of LGBTQ groups is the education of teen and preteen youth concerning the health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle, especially among young males, and especially concerning AIDS and HIV.
Concerning the adoption in general, please allow me to inject a little personal experience into the concept of adoption. I have been a member of the Foster Care Review Board for Oldham County and the State of Kentucky for over 25 years, most of that time served as Chairperson; as such, I have been involved in many adoption cases. I have seen many loving couples come into the adoption process thinking that adopting poor little abused, neglected and/or orphaned children is just like adopting a little puppy...All you have to do is provide them with food, shelter, clothing and lots and lots of love and everything will be rosy and wonderful. Unfortunately, that is just not the case, especially where the child has been removed from a home or family because of abuse or neglect. The older a child is when he/she goes through the adoption process, the more likely that child will engage in a behavior called "acting out", which can best be described as an intense effort by the child to test the loyalty of the adoptive family, express angry/hurt feelings for his situation in life and to obtain maximum self attention for himself (even if that attention is negative) through often bizarre, hostile and sometimes threatening antisocial actions. This type of behavior can be extremely challenging, especially during the early period of the adoption, for even the strongest of traditional families and parents; in a high percentage of these cases, the child is rejected and the adoption is dissolved (or worse, the child is secretly "gifted" to another, often abusive, family), with often devastating effects on the psyche and mental health of the child as he/she is returned to the foster care system with the stigma of being an "un-wantable" kid. Some of my most gut-whrenching moments on the board have come with having to deal with the consequences of children being victimized and rejected by irresponsible, naive and selfish adults who seem to have listened to that song, "All You Need Is Love", one too many times. In my opinion and experience, adding unconventional family dynamics to the adoption process for the child to justify and assimilate simply adds to the probability of failure, not success, of the adoption process.
Finally, a thought or two concerning statements equating people who don't have the right equipment to make babies with people who are baron or infertile: I don't mean to sound harsh or demeaning, but this comparison is simply absurd. Under the normal and traditional concept of marriage, a couple has no way of knowing whether they are baron or infertile until they consummate their marriage and attempt to have children; so how then can they be prevented from getting married on the basis information which doesn't manifest itself until they are married? This is a perfect example of a "Catch 22"! There's simply no way that this compares to the idea of two adults of the same sex getting married while knowing they can't produce children through sexual relations in that marriage.
I just can't help but believing that if God had wanted to authorize the indiscriminate use of sexual pleasure and marital unions He would have created two men and two women in the Beginning in order to allow for the variety of combinations we are told that He accepts and have His blessing. You know, I get it that there comes a point that we become adults who can engage in whatever activity or behavior that turns us on or makes us happy (even if, in many cases, it's not legal), but when we start involving children in sexual proclivities that are obviously outside of the obviously traditional and natural design for our bodies, it is an abomination to humanity and a sacrilegious affront to God's concept of adoption as outlined in Scriptures such as Romans chapter 8.
*A Footnote To This Discussion: I was an active participate of the Foster Child Care Citizen Review Board of Oldham County for approximately 25 years (1988-2012), and am still an inactive reserve member of the Board. For 23 of those years, I served as Chairperson. The Foster Child Care Citizen Review Board is a national organization tasked by each State's judicial/court system with the oversight and representation of the physical and mental needs and rights of each child involved or placed in each State's government child welfare and protection organization, such as Kentucky's Cabinet For Family and Children. As a result of my experience and extensive observations of children in crisis on the Board, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on issues of adoption, child welfare and disfunctional family units.
MAJOR UPDATE:
Since February 2015, 2 months prior to this writing, no less than 3 children of gay marriages (2 female and 1 male) and one very famous gay couple, designers Dolce & Gabbana, have come out against gay marriage, especially as an environment for having and raising children. One of those children is Heather Barwick, and she hits the nail on the head with her explanation of why. Here is a link to her essay to the Federalist where she explains the huge problem in her own words: http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/. Another is Katy Faust, daughter of a lesbian couple, who wrote a letter to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy about the plight of children of gay couples; it went viral, so you can look it up on your internet browser. There is also an interview with her at http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/entry/15/27183
*A Footnote To This Discussion: I was an active participate of the Foster Child Care Citizen Review Board of Oldham County for approximately 25 years (1988-2012), and am still an inactive reserve member of the Board. For 23 of those years, I served as Chairperson. The Foster Child Care Citizen Review Board is a national organization tasked by each State's judicial/court system with the oversight and representation of the physical and mental needs and rights of each child involved or placed in each State's government child welfare and protection organization, such as Kentucky's Cabinet For Family and Children. As a result of my experience and extensive observations of children in crisis on the Board, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on issues of adoption, child welfare and disfunctional family units.
MAJOR UPDATE:
Since February 2015, 2 months prior to this writing, no less than 3 children of gay marriages (2 female and 1 male) and one very famous gay couple, designers Dolce & Gabbana, have come out against gay marriage, especially as an environment for having and raising children. One of those children is Heather Barwick, and she hits the nail on the head with her explanation of why. Here is a link to her essay to the Federalist where she explains the huge problem in her own words: http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/. Another is Katy Faust, daughter of a lesbian couple, who wrote a letter to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy about the plight of children of gay couples; it went viral, so you can look it up on your internet browser. There is also an interview with her at http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/entry/15/27183
