Reason.com
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|1.18.05 @ 3:01PM|#
Julian, come on! You KNOW we can't have children exposed to gay people. It will rub off on them and make them gay!
M1EK|1.18.05 @ 3:16PM|#
The link to Olasky's loathsome blog entry needs ".html" appended to it.
I live in the same town as this waste of blood and hair - and it's increasingly difficult to resist the urge to apply a little justice in the form of a flaming bag of doggie doo.
|1.18.05 @ 3:38PM|#
Ironic that this is the guy credited as the father of "compassionate conservatism".
Only in the pharisaic logic of these Good Book martinets does a life of inconsistent affection, uncertain care and the risk of abuse and death become morally preferable to the love and ganuine compassion of people who just happen to be gay.
As a Christian myself - I'm just going with my gut here - I think Christ would have a real problem with Olasky and his ilk.
|1.18.05 @ 3:59PM|#
I commented on this one when it was addressed last week. I'll let my earlier statement stand:
A child could:
A) Be adopted by a gay couple.
B) Grow up as a ward of the court. Years of abusive and/or neglectful orphanages and group homes. Or the joy of being shuttled from foster home to foster home every few months with all your possessions in a trash bag. Eighteen years of transientory relationships with mostly disfunctional, institutionalized or (gag) idealistic people...the worst being when you meet truly good people who care but you lack the ability to tell. Finish it off with being uncerimoniously introduced to the street when you reach 18.
Anyone who would choose B for a child must be possessed of pathological hatred of gays that renders them nothing less than fully inhuman.
|1.18.05 @ 4:00PM|#
Anyone who would choose B for a child must be possessed of pathological hatred of gays that renders them nothing less than fully inhuman.
Doesn't this go back to the previous discussion about the compulsion of heteros against gays?
|1.18.05 @ 4:07PM|#
Eryk,
I don't know...maybe they're posessed ofa pathological hatred of children in the foster care system.
I just posted myself on the blog. I'll say it here. The argument made by the folks is as if theres a choice between gay and straight parents, when in fact its a choiuce between gay and no parents.
If they want to impress me, they can get off their asses and go adopt these kids out of the foster care system themselves.
Not that they'll do it, of course. They're chickenshits.
|1.18.05 @ 4:18PM|#
If they want to impress me, they can get off their asses and go adopt these kids out of the foster care system themselves.
That would mean helping people with their own effort instead of calling for the state to order things according to their preferred vision of the world.
|1.18.05 @ 4:34PM|#
Thoreau,
I guess it's only a bad idea if it's not theirs.
|1.18.05 @ 4:54PM|#
Speaking of inconsistent bible-thumpers...
I heard some commentary on a midday NPR program today; the guy was an evangelical christian, but was highly critical of the Bush administration's policies. All well and good, but this is what he had to say about the gay marriage issue: that, while the bible does mention homosexuality, it also instructs its followers to help the poor and protect the environment. The idea, here, is that True Christians� should not only use the government as a tool to further the biblical abhorrance of homosexuality, but they should also petition the government to help the poor (aka wealth redistribution) and enact environmental barriers.
Quite frankly, this all disgusts me. Yes, the bible may mention homosexuality and helping the poor and protecting the environment, but this does not mean that the strong arm of the central government is the tool with which to do so. Not to mention the fact that "Thou Shalt Not Steal" is actually one of the ten commandments (as opposed to some obscure old-testa verse), yet Christians have no objections when the government STEALS 1/3 of our earned wealth every year. While the evangelical guy on NPR was right to point out the hypocrisy of the bible-thumping anti-homosexuals, he was going in the wrong direction; instead of saying that christians should be less dependent on the government to enforce their beliefs, he advocated for more dependence. Shameful.
The moral is, the government is not your personal vehicle with which to force biblical principles on the whole of the nation via the iron fist of the feds.
|1.18.05 @ 4:55PM|#
I noted earlier that I had posted similar sentiments on the WORLD blog that is home to Olasky's statement. I did refrain from using the "A" word.
All in all I thought it was a very good and direct post and certainly not as blistering as some of the postes on there.
They took it off sometime in the past 15 minutes.
I guess they really CAN'T handle criticism.
|1.18.05 @ 5:18PM|#
The problem with Christian teachings and issue of submitting to taxation is that someone will bring up "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."
Sunday-school refresher: A bunch of Pharisees came up to Jesus and asked if the (Jewish) people were supposed to pay taxes to the Romans. The question was supposed to put Jesus in a corner: If he said yes, it would piss off his Jewish followers royally; if he said no, it would be subversion against Rome. So the J-Man said, "Whose face is on the Roman coins? Caesar? Then give unto Caeser what is Caesar's."
Of course, this was only a clever evasion of the question. The J-Meister didn't say, "Yes, pay taxes," he merely evaded the verbal trap. Nor did he say, "Take other people's crap and give it unto Caesar so Caesar can give it to the people you should be helping yourself."
I think St. Paul also says something about having to "obey your worldly rulers" but that self-evidently had qualifications, since many early Christians were martyred by the civil authorities for refusing to acknowledge the Roman emperor as a deity, or whatever. I've read the correct interpretation of Paul's injunction is, "Obey your rulers as long as it's the right thing to do" or possibly even just, "Keep your head down and don't make waves for no good reason."
|1.18.05 @ 5:26PM|#
Hey, I have an honest question that is probably ignorant and Neanderthal and homophobic and whatnot, but I really would like to know.
My only concern about adoption by gays is whether the children adopted will be properly "socialized" with parental role models other than the usual het male/female. Are there any studies that show how well-adjusted kids grow up to be if they are raised by heterosexual pairs versus gay pairs versus an institution (no stable set of parents)?
I add the last because Madpad does well to point out that in practice it's often not a question of whether a kid gets adopted by straights vs. gays, but whether a kid gets gay parents or none at all. I assume gay parents would have to be more beneficial than none at all, but do we have studies to back this up? Also, if both a gay couple and a straight couple want to adopt the kid, should the straight couple get some preference? Any studies to back this up?
Thanks.
|1.18.05 @ 5:34PM|#
Stevo-
See the link to the CWLA brief in the story and some of the other links in that graf for summaries of the available social science on that question. The short answer is that there's no credible evidence to suggest that kids raised by gay couples do any worse.
|1.18.05 @ 5:40PM|#
If we must discuess the bible on the subject of taxation (and centralized government) the one to remember is Samuel's response to the Isrealites when they asked him to annoint a king for them:
11And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
1 Samuel 8
Take a tenth? We should all pray for such tyranny.
|1.18.05 @ 5:41PM|#
The idea, here, is that True Christians? should not only use the government as a tool to further the biblical abhorrance of homosexuality, but they should also petition the government to help the poor (aka wealth redistribution) and enact environmental barriers.
I thank my notgod daily that the Xian right and left are divided by issues like evolution, sex ed and prayer in schools, abortion and homosexuality. The government that these self righteous busybodies would erect if they were united boggles the mind.
The day that Bill Moyers and Jerry Falwell decide they need to overcome their differences and work together will be bleak indeed. :)
|1.18.05 @ 5:44PM|#
Stevo,
I believe the studies that I read stated that children raised in a two-parent home (both kinds) are better adjusted than those in single parent homes. Those in mixed sex homes tend to be slightly better off than those in same sex homes. Here's where it gets interesting, children in same sex homes are more likely to experiment with homosexual relationships, but are just as likely to end up heterosexual as they would if they were brought up in a mixed sex environment. My memory could be off and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
|1.18.05 @ 6:16PM|#
Julian: Thank you very much. I'm afraid I didn't have time to RTFA yet.
Mo: Very interesting tidbit, if true.
|1.18.05 @ 6:53PM|#
Mo, your recollection about children raised by same-sex couples being more accepting of homosexuality is correct, and gosh darn it, the bigots aren't happy about it: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17454
|1.18.05 @ 8:29PM|#
If they are advocating traditional values (mohter + father families), why don't they reinstate the traditional value of selling/abandoning excess children to servitude? Joseph was sold, Moses was raised in a pagan, pansexual home (those Egyptians could get jiggy!), blah blah Biblical reference, etc. They turned out just fine.
It bothers me when big money Christians forget that Jesus spent all his time on the road demonstrating God's love and compassion by his personal works. He hung out with tax collectors, prostitutes, and poor indiginant as well as immigrant trash. He didn't judge them--he lead by example and was against sin, not their specific sins. Life is supposed to be too short to judge others; there is too much helping that needs to be done. When the last homeless person is off the street, when every child has access to nutritous food, clean water, and basic medical care, then we can pick the splinter out of the the homosexuals' eye.
In the meantime, the anti-gay-adoption-for-religious-reasons should take their allies where they can find them. There is an obvious shortage of adoptive/foster parents. The objectors should be able to show the homosexual cabal the error of their ways by example of a fulfilling and loving relationship with them.
delagar|1.18.05 @ 9:49PM|#
Stevo, I think I'd avoid saying things like "the correct" interpretation of any text as complex as the Bible -- speaking as someone who teaches the Bible over here in Arkansas.
Same thing might be said of most texts, of course, but multiple interpretations are possible of each piece of text in the Bible. Nor do I think that's accidental.
That's what makes Fundamentalism/Literal interpretation of the text so sad: putting God in a box, as it were.
|1.18.05 @ 9:56PM|#
Erik,
He he he. :)
|1.18.05 @ 9:57PM|#
"Their model for emulation, Florida, is currently 'protecting' quite a few children from gay adoption: Its foster care system holds more children than any state's save California's and New York's."
Here we are on Hit and Run wringing hands and anguishing about the distinction between libertarian, liberal, La Rouche and librarian.
Meanwhile talk about "framing" a debate: what the hell is "protecting" supposed to mean?
Could it mean ruining the life of?
Or, how about this: leave no more children behind than it takes for us to promote our aenda.
|1.18.05 @ 11:04PM|#
I'm an adoptive father, and I'm a son of a pro-choice lesbian who had a partner when I was a young'un. So I know exactly what this issue is about: image.
These people don't care about the children, they just want them raised in the "correct" way. And since those children are under the state's care, the state gets to set the rules. In theory, that's a wonderful thing, as parentless children need someone in charge. But in practice, it can lead to some ridiculous things: why this willing parent-to-be is okay while that one isn't can be a matter of argument. The fact is that there aren't nearly enough willing parents-to-be, so the logical response would be to lower the standards (not throw them out, but lower them). Gay parents-to-be are thought of as too dangerous, however.
It's all about image. If gays (by which I mean gays and lesbians both) are allowed to get children from the state, then they can have families. And if they can have families, then they'll demand marriage. And if they demand marriage, Western Civilization will collapse, and people will mention the Roman Empire's Fall, remarking as if that was caused exclusively by anal intercourse. (As if the collapse was a bad thing: would you like to be ruled by men in leather kilts? Please don't answer that.)
Being raised by a couple of moms only affected my in that the copy of The Joy of Lesbian Sex I found in their nighttable really made me jealous of lesbians. Everything else was normal, since about half my classmates had a parent living elsewhere. Not many ever asked why I had two moms, since not many care.
|1.18.05 @ 11:32PM|#
delagar: Stevo, I think I'd avoid saying things like "the correct" interpretation of any text as complex as the Bible...
Yes, excellent point. Instead of saying, "I've read the correct interpretation of Paul's injunction is..." I meant to say, "I've read that the correct interpretation of Paul's injunction is..." -- and better, I should have said, "I've read one writer's opinion that the correct interpretation of Paul's injunction is..."
That's what makes Fundamentalism/Literal interpretation of the text so sad: putting God in a box, as it were. That is an interesting way to put it. Recently I noticed both the Hotly Disdainful Atheist and the Fundamentalist/Literalist have something in common: both tend to have very cramped, limited and anthropomorphic conceptions of God, which leads to an absurd picture of what an all-powerful, all-knowing, unlimited creator of the universe would be like. It leads the Hotly Disdainful Atheist to reject a God as absurd ("If I can't understand what God does, He must be stupid"), and it leads the Fundamentalist/Literalist to believe in absurd things ("God molded all animals out of the earth with His hands.")
|1.19.05 @ 1:03AM|#
Let gays adopt! Let gays marry!
(Disclosure: I am a married heterosexual agnostic (formerly evangelical Christian) male living in San Francisco.)
These people are so stupid. There's no worse parent than a teenaged mother (or father). (I know from extensive experience growing up in a welfare community, born to an 18-year-old mother who divorced my father when I was 7. I love my mom, but she was an ignorant child when I was born, and for much of my childhood.) I have no proof, but I bet that the average mid-30s homosexual would be a better parent as a single than the average mid-20s heterosexual couple. In the modern world, having children before 30 is just plain moronic. Most people younger than 30 (and many older) simply don't have the wisdom to raise a child well in modern America.
|1.19.05 @ 10:24AM|#
This level of bigotry is infuriating. If the evidence is that adopted kids are at least no worse off with a gay family, then what's the bloody problem? Once again, outside agendas of pressure groups get policies enacted that actually harm the people they are trying to "protect". It's only ever these poor kids who end up suffering. Surely a gay/lesbian couple (who more often than not have a pretty solid financial base from which to build a family) caring for these children is better than them being a ward of the state!
|1.19.05 @ 1:18PM|#
Julian Sanchez,
Nice nod to Tolstoy, BTW.