Gay adoption and the double standard

First off, Happy Ascension! I hope you all are getting your week off to a good start. I braved the charismatics today since I didn’t have my usual church job this morning and heck, I haven’t been there in a while, so I gave it a go. Turned out that donuts were served after mass in the barn next door. Win.

Anyway, to the meat of my post today. If you haven’t seen the latest from Mark Shea, it’s worth a look.

Now, I love the work that Mark Shea does and I respect his views very much. He is one of the few voices representing heterosexual Catholics who will acknowledge that there are other Catholics out in the world who happen to be gay but are living out the teaching of the Church and are, more importantly, not victims of their gayness (which I particularly appreciate very much). Some of the things he has been saying in the aftermath of his combox/email harassment saga, however, I find, well…interesting. Not so much because he’s being orthodox (as I myself am orthodox), but because he’s being so, er….vehemently orthodox. Almost as if the backlash he received for his initial post concerning Lorenzo Perry really struck a nerve. I don’t want to just lazily assume that he is trying to get back in good with his less receptive readership, but this particular post does make me sit back and think. Much of what he writes really comes off as claiming victimhood for Christianity in the face of this culture war, which, to be honest, isn’t really an argument and it’s kind of really getting tired. I mean, granted there are many people who are self-proclaimed enemies of the Church, particularly those who are on the opposite side of many Catholics in the current culture war concerning LGBT issues, the way he frames his view of gay supporters of gay marriage (never mind that a very large percent of those who support gay marriage aren’t even gay), you would think that they were literally all really pathetic children who are merely trying to stick it to those who are on the “right” side of the argument. First off, it’s not fair to say that people who want legislation that favors gay people or equates their social and cultural constructs with those of the rest of society, particularly those who are gay, are enemies of Christianity. Most of them truly want to be left alone. They also don’t all demand that you approve of their way of doing things. Honestly, a lot of them really don’t care what you think. Just about all the people I know who are on the opposite side of the culture war from most of the people with whom I religiously identify myself to be in rank are more fed up with the vehement disapproval of cultural conservatives than the lack of approval. Just about every voter initiative that has made headlines in the past several years has concerned making sure that one constitution or another banned same sex marriage, not established and protected it. Much of the ground that has been broken in the way of allowing same sex marriage legal benefits has involved either a court or a state legislature and not the vote of the people, and I’m sure those couples who are lining up to be married in Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts are not the least bit concerned with what the opponents are saying insofar as it doesn’t concern a legal measure to reverse the law currently on the books in their state. I think Mark and a lot of other conservatives have gay marriage supporters all wrong on that.

So, what does anything Mark said in his post itself have to do with gay adoption specifically?

Well, to be honest, not much, actually. Much of what he said dealt particularly with gay marriage.

What did get my attention was a comment left by Mark Shea on the aforementioned blog post:

Children have a right to a mother and a father. They do not exist to accessorize somebody’s need to be a parent. Hence, homosexuals will also not receive approval from Christians for gay adoption–and the result is that Christians will be punished for failure to approve. Similarly, the Church will not pretend that there is a such a thing as gay “marriage” though every government on earth pretend there is. And so Christians will likewise be punished for failing to approve. Still and all, there are homosexuals who find the approval they seek from God.

It’s all about approval and mere tolerance cannot be tolerated.

It’s the bolded text that really strikes me. I’m not sure that such a right exists. Maybe someone who has more philosophical/theological training than I (which is little to none) can answer that more definitively, but as far as I can see, it’s just not so. I was raised by a single parent, as were many all over the world (and it’s not as tragic as one may think). We’re not victims, we just have had to go through life with a particular challenge that we couldn’t ameliorate ourselves either due to either one’s lapse in responsibility or even to chance, as some were raised by one parent in the event of the other parent’s death. We as human beings have the right to live (the Church teaches that healthcare is a right for this sake), the right to our liberty, and the right to pursue that which will fulfill us or make us happy. To call being the son or a daughter to both a mother and father a right is, IMHO, as silly as saying one has a right to twenty fingers and toes (no more, no less), to not be sick, to have shelter (homeless individuals live not as comfortably, but just as much as anyone who has possession of a dwelling; gypsies/romani  are known for foregoing it), or to any number of things in this world for which there simply is no guarantee due to circumstances beyond our control (or due to our own choices).

Now, I know of some single individuals (almost exclusively women) who raise children on their own who are not their biological children. This is mainly done through an adoption. It’s one thing to say that children ought not to be confused by two people of the same sex playing roles that are naturally played by two genders. I understand that. Fine. What I’m wondering is if, as he put it, not only is it the right of a child to a mother and father, but that parenthood is itself not a right, and children do not exist for the social experiments of those who simply feel the need to be a parent, then how does one justify the taking in of a child by someone who is not married and therefore will not be able to provide a child with both a mother and a father? Why is this not contested as ardently as gay adoption, and why does it generally seem that people are willing to event grant the single who adopts the benefit of approval for having become a single parent simply because they could do so? Not that it’s anyone’s business (though she is very open about this on her show), but a relevant example of one such individual is Laura Ingraham. I generally like her show because she is seasoned in the topics she discusses and seems to know what she’s talking about, even though I may not agree with her 100% (and honestly, which two people on this Earth do?), but I find it very hypocritical that she be adamantly against gay adoption for more or less the same reason that Mark Shea stated (dual sex parenting being a “right” to a child) yet has adopted multiple children from foreign countries and is a woman who is not married. I find the phenomenon of religious sisters/other communities who do not formally run an orphanage but who adopt/take in children and take care of them as their own suspect in the face of the frown that is given to gay adoption as well, especially since, in this case, the children have multiple female “parents”. I’ve also heard of priests doing this. If it is the right of a child to have a mother and a father, why is the child being deprived of one or the other by these people? I’m not saying that what they’re doing is bad (because at this point, I don’t agree that dual sex parenting is a right for anyone), but I am willing to say that what they say concerning gay adoption and what they allow and sometimes do concerning other adoptions that take place is a bit strange to me. One commenter on the same blog post said that depriving a child of two opposite sex parents is akin to child abuse. Child abuse? Okay, so a couple has kids and one parent is either widowed or gets a divorce or one parent runs away, and so the kids are being raised by the other parent. If the parent who is raising the children doesn’t remarry or find someone of the opposite sex to live-in and raise the kids with them, that is somehow child abuse? I’m sure you see the fallacy of that statement.

As for being raised by two parents of the same sex causing confusion or “child abuse” in some fashion, I don’t see how being raised by a single parent or by adoptive parents with whom the child(ren) have trouble identifying or even with step-parents can’t be just as confusing or abusive. On a very personal note, growing up with only one parent, I definitely had to deal with identity issues, sometimes questioning my worth, how I fit in with the world around me, etc. My mother raised me as a single woman and while I sometimes wish I could have had a man who loved and cared for me like his own, I don’t think I would change the past if I could. I wouldn’t be the person I am today had I not been raised by just my mom. I’m believe a lot of other people, especially those who feel a particular bond with their single parent would agree. Today, I believe that I’m overall happy, well-adjusted, and well-rounded. I’m going to a good grad school next fall after having graduated with a BM in voice performance from an equally outstanding alma mater. This brings to mind another thing that irks me: to gain ground in the various culture wars in which they seem to endlessly be engaged, conservatives will cite statistic after statistic to “prove” their point, or at least persuade someone to believe their case. This usually includes the number of children who are living in one-parent (in some cases, the citation will explicitly include “fatherless”) homes and then other statistics concerning how bad their grades are, what percentage of them graduate high school/go to college/are on welfare later in life/have a criminal record/are incarcerated, yada yada. So yeah, great. Because of this that and another factor, these unfortunate people are merely a statistic that is being used in an attempt to win points in a culture war. Way to promote the dignity of every human being as a unique, cherished, and loved creature made in the image and likeness of God. Oh, and I’m just miraculous because I didn’t end up like the rest of them. :l

Basically, I’m not sure if gay adoption is something that is good, though that being said, I’m not sure a lot of adoptions that go on between children and opposite sex couples are always good, seeing as it doesn’t take a gay couple to be “narcissistic” or to possess the “need to be a parent” when they shouldn’t be. I’m just trying to figure out why it’s so bad if other forms of parenting are supposedly, by the same logic, just as bad, but not frowned upon as much (unless you can score some points when arguing with a liberal, or if the maladjusted, mal-raised kids of a single parent want to associate with your well-adjusted, well-raised, perfect kids; that’s another phenomenon I’ve noticed on a personal level as well).

God bless, and may He prepare your heart to receive his Spirit more fully in the celebration of Pentecost

Rob

Why I identify as gay

I was asked, very respectfully and charitably, on a previous post why I choose to identify as “gay” rather than “same-sex-attracted”, “a child of God”, “a Catholic”, “a human being”, “someone with homosexual inclinations” or whatever the preferred term of any number of people. I have since been on a personal journey trying to explain to the best of my ability to myself and to the questioner why I do identify this way.

This is actually something I started doing within the last year and is not something with which I have always been comfortable. I more or less decided to do it since it was more simple than saying “oh, I’m a person with homosexual inclinations” or “I’m same-sex-attracted”, to only receive the response “oh…so you mean you’re gay?”. (-_-)

This is my experience: I like guys. This doesn’t mean that every bout of butterflies automatically translates to wanting to jump them. It means that for some reason, I aesthetically, emotionally, and personally relate to them in a way that I would conceivably relate to women were I straight. Is this bad? No, not on its face.

Anybody, gay straight, or whatever can tell you about the time when they first discovered the secret door to their sexuality that had always been hidden in childhood. You see someone, maybe you talk to them, maybe you’ve known them your whole life and then one day something changes the dynamic of the friendship/enmity/whatevs. You get a funny feeling, not below the belt, mind you, but in the pit of your stomach. You find yourself grinning when you think of them. Maybe you do something rash for their sake. Maybe you make a fool of yourself in front of them for no reason all because of nerves, nerves you never used to have, which is why this is freaking you out. What’s happening? Welcome to your first crush.

You’ll have many of them throughout your life. Some people will have more than others. Some may not experience them as strongly as others do. The fact of the matter is that if you’re wired like the majority of people in this world, it will/did happen to you. What does it mean? Does it mean you want to jump in bed with them eventually, even if you’re not sure what sex is all about? No, not necessarily. Maybe it’s the way they’re aggressive and loud all the time that makes you swoon, or maybe it’s their quiet, reflective attitude. Maybe its their strawberry blonde locks, their deep brown eyes, or the fine crafting of their shapely nose that entices you. Maybe its their kindness and overall amicable demeanor makes you weak in the knees. Whatever the reason, you’re sold and you never had a chance to say “no thanks”. The point I’m trying to make is that attraction to someone else based on one’s aesthetic features, ones personality traits, or the way in which he/she amicably interacts with you does not equal sexual attraction. Believe it or not, while the criteria are different, straight people choose their friends/those with whom they associate based on one or any combination of these factors all the time.

If you’re straight, chances are you can just go with the flow and be fine. When you’re gay, it’s a whole different ball game. Chances are you don’t know anyone else who is like you. You’re not even sure if there’s anyone else on the planet who feels the way you do. You don’t understand what’s going on because everyone else seems to be dating people of the opposite gender and you can’t figure them out for the life of you. Then one day your world opens up from the endless tunnel of loneliness that you’ve walked, believing that there may have been something wrong with you. Someone else is like you! Not only that, there is an entire group of people who deal with this exact same thing. They apparently call themselves gay. Yay! Your experience isn’t unique. You have an identity with which you can feel comfortable ascribing to your experience in life. You aren’t defining yourself by your attractions necessarily. You’re qualifying yourself in a particular way so as to fit into the giant chaotic mess that is the universe.

One reference to Catholic teaching on human sexuality that has stood out to me for some time is CCC 2332-’33:

2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.

2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. the harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

The bolded text represents the understanding of sexuality that is taught by the Church but is not commonly held by Catholics, particularly those who are North American armchair theologians, as an understanding of the Church’s teaching. Anything that is discussed at length concerning sexuality in most Catholic circles consists of what is limited to the text that is not bolded.

What I gather from this quotation from the Catechism is that sexuality (no matter how affected by concupiscence) is something every human being possesses and affects every relationship that we as men and women will ever have between other men and women. This is seen most concretely in the sacrament of marriage, where we see man leaving his father and mother and clinging to his wife and the two becoming one flesh  (Genesis 2:24). We also each have a sexual identity as a man or a woman. This does not stop with us being men or women, however, since “it is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). In the previous paragraph, the author does go as far as to say sexuality is “all encompassing” and includes affective qualities and relationships with other people. I gather that a man’s sexual identity is more than just being male. Where does the mere phenomenon of being male or female get us when discussing the male or female concerning friendship with other males/females vs. females/males, or attractions to or desires for females/males vs. that for males/females? While sexual orientation is itself a social construct that has been built around the phenomenon of a difference in preference between the sexes respectively, I think the aspect of sexual orientation may be encapsulated within sexual identity for that reason. Whether it is acknowledged by one name or another or at all is completely up to human experience and understanding, which is the same with anything else. Just as sexuality is one’s maleness or femaleness with respect to how it is related to another male or another female, I don’t think sexual identity is merely accepting that one is male or that one is female. God created us male and female and he created us to be in some level of union with other males and females, the highest or most concrete expression of which is in marriage between man and woman. It’s not the only way we live out and express our sexuality as human beings, however. Jesus himself alluded to those who were eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12). Our very own priests  in the Latin rite forego marriage in order to be more fully married to the Church for whom he, who is in the person of Jesus Christ, is laying down his life. Our religious brothers and sisters forego marriage for the sake of celibacy as well because of the calling they feel to have a foretaste of the marriage that we, the Church will have to Christ, her bridegroom, in heaven. These people, all called, for one reason or another, to forego marriage on Earth just don’t stop having a sexuality simply because they aren’t entering into a sacrament of service where sex is not present. Their sexuality, given to God by their devotion to him and his will, is made a gift to all who are served by their vocational duty, who find a friend, a mentor, or a confidant in them, and who experience the presence of God that is allowed to shine through them in a more special way than it tends to be allowed in the laity.

So what of gay people?

The Church teaches that sexual acts between members of the same sex is not in accord with and is a grave act against the natural law and can never be approved, and the inclination to engage in such acts is disordered. That’s it. That said, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding concerning the meaning of the words “ordered’ and “disordered”. They do not in any way carry a moral component within their meaning, which is often what many people mistakenly believe. For something to be correctly ordered, it means that it is in accord with the intention of the Creator. It is the inclination to engage in sinful behavior that is disordered, not the person. With that, we understand that the inclination for sex with the opposite and complementary sex is ordered for the correct and natural intention of the Creator (man leaves parents, joins wife, two become one). The inclination to have sex with someone of the same sex is disordered as it does not bring about the end intended by the Creator. It’s really that simple.

That being said, I think it bears distinguishing between sexual inclination and inclination to seek one’s fulfillment as a human being called to union with other humans with those of the same sex. Is the latter disordered? Not in the slightest. Gay people react differently to social dynamics than straight people do and that is largely because of the slight difference in their sexual identity (which translates to a huge difference socially). Apart from sexual appetite, I think that the bonds that gay men and women share with other men and women, even other men and women who are gay can be beautiful, holy, and guided by God to bring forth greater sanctity in the involved parties.

Still, though, why “gay”? Why not something else?

Because whether you like it or not, the English language uses a word that more or less means “attracted to the same sex”. It’s “gay”. As for the way others interpret it, I don’t mind. Sure, it comes with cultural baggage, but so does saying “I’m Catholic” or “I’m Muslim”, or “I’m a Libertarian”. That’s really not a good enough reason to not identify a certain way, unless you’re that ashamed. Some Catholics get their undies in a wad when I use the word “gay”. Some Catholics do the same when they see/hear the word “homosexual”, since they don’t ontologically exist: there is no human who was created for physically sexual union with someone of the same sex. There are, however, people who exist who experience attraction to their own sex or to both sexes or what have you. The attraction, as taught by the Church does not bear moral consequence (is amoral). The way individuals experience said attractions range from despairing sorrow to general happiness and proper adjustment. The point is that I speak English fluently, so I expect those who also speak English fluently to understand what I mean, and if they’re not sure because they have a different verbal lexicon, when I explain myself, I think it’s fair of me to expect that they understand and not turn into thought police and start an Orwellian inquisition, which many are very, very good at doing.

I have a sexual identity, according to Catholic teaching. Yes, it is as a man. Naturally, one would presume that I am therefore attracted to the opposite sex and will choose a path in life that will correspond with that. That, however, is not the case. In an attempt to be sexually authentic and state that while I am a man, I am attracted to men, I will say that I am gay and not buy into terminology that is semantically friendly to the confusion concerning the nature of sexuality, which we all possess whether married or not, whether celibate or not. To say I am gay is not to buy into a lifestyle. There is no gay lifestyle as there is no straight lifestyle. If one were to reduce the gay lifestyle to engaging in morally illicit sexual behavior with the same sex, one could otherwise reason that the straight lifestyle is engaging in the same with the opposite sex since people walking around making a big deal about their straightness by flaunting their sexuality and sleeping around are defining themselves by their own sexuality rather than by who they are in Christ (HAHAHAHA, who they hahaha, oh geez, I couldn’t keep a straight face typing this). To say I am gay is not to define myself by my attractions. It is one of many ways in which I qualify myself (black, male, Catholic, classical singer, tenor, political centrist, introvert, bibliophile, Latinist, absolute pitch possessor, opera lover, clumsy French/German/Italian speaker, gay, etc.). People qualify themselves. It doesn’t mean they’re making it their life. Many straight people will attest to the fact that they don’t think of themselves as “straight” and don’t use the word. As I have reasoned above, simply because one does not give terminology to an ontological reality does not mean that it does not exist. One’s sexual identity is very important, and gay people merely have a different sexual identity than the rest of humanity. It is an issue? If so, why? IMHO, I do not believe that it is.

God bless,

Rob

Franciscan University - Profiles in Courage!

Reblogged from Vox Nova:

Franciscan University of Steubenville is in the news this week for all the wrong reasons, a perfect emblem of the depravity of latter-day American neoconservative Catholicism.

Read more… 831 more words

*sigh*

Congrats to my friend, Josh, for getting published!! XD

Dan Savage Was Right

The title may be a bit misleading, but trust me, this is good, legit stuff.

Why I am annoyed with both President Obama and Cardinal Dolan on the same day on the same issue!

Reblogged from Vox Nova:

So Obama is now in favor of gay marriage. I can’t say I was surprised. But what did surprise me was the wall-to-wall adulation on sites like Talking Points Memo. This issue is being cast as a huge deal, a watershed moment, a historical turning point.

Read more… 819 more words

So much good commentary today! Yet another example.

Here Come the Grooms: Why Gay Marriage Will Be Legalized in the U. S.

Reblogged from Gay and Evangelical:

Today’s post is by a guest blogger, W. Todd Weedman. He’s writing to fellow conservative Christians about why it’s our own fault that gay marriage will be legalized. You can contact him at w.todd.weedman gmail com.

Do not be misled.  It really is our own fault.

Yesterday’s announcement that President Obama has officially changed his position (1) on the definition of marriage really is a milestone for the cause of the LGBT movement. 

Read more… 976 more words

Um, preach.

I Think Rush is Waging the War Just Fine by Himself

Reblogged from Caelum Et Terra:

Thanks to Mark Shea for this one:

Pretty much.

Why I don’t mind a civil redefinition of marriage

Welp, chances are that somehow today, you found out about this:

So for all the people on either side of the debate who have commented on his talk of civil unions and/or silence on gay marriage,

wabam.

Don’t get me wrong. I still think his policies on social issues and many economic ones are extreme, not to mention his current head-butting with the Church over what I don’t even consider to be at its core a religious liberty, but the liberty not to sell shyte you don’t want to sell.

At this point in time, I neither propose nor do I oppose marriage amendments. If people can divorce with no fault or contracept within a marriage, both things that have utterly changed the definition of marriage, then it’s about time for people to be able to enter into same-sex civil marriages with each other. Just looking at contraception and divorce, the vast majority of Protestants either look the other way or are completely okay with them and Catholics treat them as objectively immoral, yet make no efforts to legislate against them (except Santorum, who is mostly an idiot).

Face it, y’all. You compromised on contraception and divorce. Letting two people of the same sex marry is pretty much the final frontier. And you reached it. And whose fault is that? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Now, for those who honestly object to civil same-sex marriage and would go to bat just as hard for some legislative touching-up on divorce laws and the allowance for the sale of contraceptives, more power to you.

However, for all I can tell, the number one reason for Christian (particularly Catholic) objection to civil same-sex marriage is because people simply want to be bullies. It’s evident in the way that the most unhinged bully each other with their holier-than-thou, must-admonish-the-sinner-in-all-cases-and-at-all-costs attitudes. A quick stop in the Catholic Answers Forums (if you don’t know what it is, that’s very, very okay. Actually, I take that back, it’s more than okay. It’s GREAT. If you do, then you know exactly what I mean) will show you as much. Just take a quick gander at what Mark Shea has had to deal with concerning overly-zealous nutjobs, and he wasn’t even going so far as to say what I’m saying. (More on this in reverse chronological order here, here, here, here, here, and the original here). Looking at the comments on his blog post (read at your own risk), it’s pretty clear what the ultra-conservative Catholic sector is out for.

It all goes back to consistency. I’ve posted before about Catholics who don’t consistently abstaining from things that abhor the faith (ie. don’t get into an argument with me on facebook using your ipad or blackberry while drinking your non-fair trade coffee that isn’t from Starbucks, all of which was produced by child slaves, over the fact that I patronized a business that gives money to Planned Parenthood). Well, this goes for you, too. If you don’t think that it’s the duty of the government to legislate as a theocracy when it comes to how people have sex or what constitutes a marriage between two opposite sex adults, then when it comes to two people of the same sex getting married by the state, you should really adopt the same attitude. Or just join Rick Santorum and his gang. In any case, just be consistent.

This is why out of duty, reverence, and respect to my faith and my God, I will not support any amendment that redefines marriage as between any two parties but one man and one woman.

I simply won’t mind if it happens, as I don’t mind when two people decide to throw their marriage away or when two people consent to sex with each other after a one or both of them has administered a contracepting agent to their person.

That’s all for now.

God bless,

Rob

The Anointed One: Santorum, the Subculture, and Me

Reblogged from Caelum Et Terra:

• 
• 

The only good thing you can say about the Republican primaries, beside the fact that they have been hugely entertaining, is that no matter who wins, it means that someone else just as bad or worse has lost. So I cannot help but be pleased to see  the rich white guy who desperately wants to be the front runner coming in third in the Alabama and Mississippi contests.

Read more… 1,298 more words

"The only good thing you can say about the Republican primaries, beside the fact that they have been hugely entertaining, is that no matter who wins, it means that someone else just as bad or worse has lost." Truer words were never spoken.

US Bishops veering off track

Reblogged from Vox Nova:

Over the past number of years, the bishops in the United States seem to be veering a little off track. They seem more keen on playing up certain aspects of Catholic teaching and playing down others. They seem to be associating themselves ever more closely with right-wing liberals, turning a increasingly blind eye to their deviati0ns from Catholic teaching. They seem to be more inclined than ever to adopt the…

Read more… 1,718 more words

Very interesting.