BreakPoint Blog

Banner
Banner
Papa and Daddy


I'm glad that I don't have to buy for two dads this Father's Day.

What gets me is that one of them considers himself the "mama of the family." That, and the fact that they hesitate at the idea of letting one of the boys wear a pink dress for Halloween, seems to indicate that -- no matter how it's manipulated to suit our needs -- God's natural order has a way of making itself known.

Also, it's an understatement to say that the line "I'm supposed to be tolerant" could be subject to some serious analysis.


Comments:

(Aha, Gina! If you click the "Preview" button, there's no more "Remember personal info?" checkbox in the new view. When you click the "Post" button from the Preview view, and come back to the regular view, the info isn't there. So I need to post at least once without previewing, on each new computer. Woohoo! Found it!!)
(I'm gonna get this browser to remember my personal info. I think I can; I think I can; ...) In pondering this issue today, I suddenly remembered what C.S. Lewis called "The Four Loves". Four different Greek words are used in the Greek New Testament (and there are others not used in the NT) that are all unfortunately translated "love" in English. They are "storge" (pronounced STORR-gay, coincidentally enough), which is the love of something very familiar, like a pair of shoes you've worn for so long they're very comfortable; "phileo" (fill-EH-oh), the famous "brotherly love" between relatives or close friends, where you love to hang out with someone; "agape" (uh-GOPP-ay), or willingness to sacrifice one's own desires and even oneself for the good of another because you value them so highly; and finally "eros" (AIR-ose), from which we get the English word "erotic", or sexual love. I was struck that evangelical Christians have no problem with storge, phileo or agape between members of the same gender. Where we have a problem is with eros. And of course, anytime GLBT activists communicate with the general public, any discussion of eros is avoided. In particular, gay marriage and gay adoption are shown with only three-fourths of the picture on display. ("We're a loving family," they assert, and hope we won't think about that too much.) But it is exactly eros that distinguishes "two women rooming together" from "a lesbian couple". GLBT activists like to jibe that evangelicals are "obsessed with sex", but this is in fact the central issue, so we can hardly be obsessed if we're focusing on what's important. Note that for hetero couples infertility is unusual (and often emotionally devastating), but for gay and lesbian couples it is expected. That's why it's necessary to have adoption to introduce children into gay marriages. I even suspect that women wouldn't mind which restroom men used, if it weren't for eros. Both sexes, in fact, would like a place where they can expose their nakedness (like showering after a workout) without inciting feelings of eros in someone else. (I expect sales of home workout equipment to skyrocket in the near future, since at home you can shower in privacy.) Eros between same-sex couples is condemned in Scripture (along with all erotic activity that cannot lead to creating children). In fact, eros between opposite-sex couples is extremely proscribed. Eros without agape and phileo, and without an intent to move toward storge, is specifically condemned. (And we reflect this socially as well: "How can you two be getting married so soon? You just met!" I.e., why don't you take time to insure that phileo and agape are present in your relationship? We all know that relationships based on eros only do not last, and cause emotional problems.) So if two men want to live together under the same roof and adopt children, great - as long as those two men don't have eros between them (or toward the children, for that matter). But this story is asking us to celebrate that these men and this boy have phileo, storge and maybe even agape in their relationship. No problem with those three loves. Big problem with the fourth one.
Brian wrote: "To suggest that gay couples actually have an easier time adopting is not only factually inaccurate" But I didn't suggest that. The article stated that gay and lesbian parents are an important new source for adoption and foster agencies. I.e., the existing sources are inadequate. That doesn't square with the anecdotal evidence I'm hearing from Christian hetero parents, who talk about a dearth of adoptable children. One POSSIBLE explanation for this disparity is that adoptions and foster situations are being made easier for GL parents,. But that's speculation with no data. I'm saying **IF** such a disparity is being deliberately caused, it's nefarious, whether it's pro-gay or anti-gay. But there could be lots of other explanations for this baffling situation.
Lee, You rightfully note that adoption can be difficult. From my (limited) interaction with gay parents or those who work with/for them, I understand that adoption by gay people is more difficult. There is even a subheading in the MSNBC story "Some states bar gay adoption." To suggest that gay couples actually have an easier time adopting is not only factually inaccurate, it does a disservice to the gay parents who wade their way through the the onerous process of adoption to provide a family to otherwise family-less kids. Even worse, it rubs salt on the wounds of families which have been torn apart due to the disparity in adoption along sexual orientation.
What doesn't quite make sense is the large number of couples (Christians, in my limited experience) who go overseas to adopt, fighting governments and paying large amounts to do so. I've heard them claim that they tried to adopt within the USA, only to be hit with roadblocks and/or incredibly long wait times. Or is there a kind of discrimination going on here? I.e., "These kids are so screwed up that we can't give them to a hetero family, but giving them to a gay couple won't make things any worse for them."?!? I suspect that Brian and Walter would not like that, at all. Or does someone have a (gasp!) agenda, using foster children as a tool to legitimize gay and lesbian unions? That would be horrendously cruel, keeping a huge backlog of children in the foster system to affect a societal change. The numbers just don't add up. I'm baffled. But I will note in passing that in my area some people have found that being a foster parent can be lucrative, what with government benefits and all. Dunno if that's universal, though.