Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reengineering the Family (What are the consequences of our severing biology from parenthood?)
National Review ^ | 02/01/2010 | Heather Macdonald

Posted on 02/01/2010 8:02:22 AM PST by SeekAndFind

An image from a TV ad for gay marriage, reproduced in the January 18 New Yorker, provides a Rorschach test for reactions to America’s ongoing revolution in family structure. Two men in black suits stand shoulder to shoulder in a group of people, looking into each other’s eyes. In their arms are two newborns in white baby clothes and blankets. Though it’s not immediately apparent from the photo, the men are at a baptism for their infants. The ad, still being test-marketed, is called “Family Values,” and is intended to emphasize the “conventionality of gay couples,” explains the New Yorker.

If your reaction to the image is: “Where’s the mother(s)?” you may not yet be fully on board the “conventionality” bandwagon. If your reaction to the foregoing question, however, is: “Why does it matter?” then you are keeping pace with the revolution. “Why does it matter?” may ultimately prove the more appropriate response, but no one should pretend that it represents anything other than a radical revision of the traditional relationship between parents and children — one whose consequences no one can predict.

Every time a homosexual couple conceives a child, there is another parent offstage somewhere whose sperm or egg has allowed conception to occur (and, in the case of male homosexuals, whose womb has allowed gestation to occur). In some homosexual families, that parent will be involved in his child’s life; in others, he will remain completely anonymous and unknown. Parental identity and responsibility for children in a homosexual family do not flow from biology, they result from choice and intent. To the extent that a gay couple wants to retain the traditional number of parents in the home, it must exclude one biological parent from inclusion in the family unit. To the extent that a gay couple wants to preserve the traditional connection between that biological parent and his offspring, however, the adult side of the family becomes more of a non-traditional threesome.

These features of homosexual families also characterize infertile heterosexual couples who have used someone else’s gametes to conceive. Indeed, the medical revolution that allows gays to procreate was driven by heterosexual demand. Infertile heterosexual couples unwilling to accept a biological limit in their lives spurred the ever-increasing array of gamete- and womb-swapping technologies that now includes sperm banks and complicated surrogacy arrangements. Unmarried middle-aged women, similarly unwilling to give up their assumed right to have it all, have also provided a market for revolutionary fertility techniques. Gays have merely piggybacked on procedures that heterosexuals created for themselves. When a heterosexual couple or single woman (and occasional single man) makes use of someone else’s sex organs, biology is severed from parental responsibility no less than when a homosexual couple engages in that process.

This division of genetic and parental responsibility has been present throughout human history, of course, long before science learned how to manipulate reproductive cells. Orphans and abandoned children are raised by non-biological adoptive parents; divorce alienates one biological parent from the child’s household and sometimes replaces that parent with another adult. But these arrangements were considered outliers to the normal practice of conceiving and raising children, forced on the parties by sad necessity. However felicitous and loving the new family arrangement may turn out to be, it did not challenge the understanding that the ideal route to a family was the shared conception of a child by a married man and woman. Likewise, the use of fertility techniques by heterosexual couples is still regarded as an exception to ordinary conception and child-rearing, and may not even be perceptible to outsiders. By contrast, every gay (and single parent) conception by definition entails an absent parent; it is a visible affirmation of the social acceptability of severing genetic contribution from parenting. Every gay couple and never-married single parent raising a child trigger the same potential question as the couple in the “Family Values” ad: “Where’s the mother (or father)?”

A large number of people will respond: “Why does it matter?” New York Times editorial writer Adam Cohen recently considered the possibility that reproductive technology will eventually allow “three or more people . . . to combine their DNA to create a baby.” Cohen’s response ultimately boils down to: “So what?” The “law should move toward a greater recognition that the intent of the people involved is more important than the genes,” he wrote. The concept of “fractional parents,” a phrase coined by a professor at the University of San Diego law school, causes no obvious disquiet in Cohen, and the legal conundrums that the reality of “fractional parents” would generate — “Could a baby one day have 100 parents? Could anyone who contributes DNA claim visitation rights? How much DNA is enough?” — apparently are to him (and undoubtedly to many others) merely interesting intellectual challenges, not potential sources of heartbreak and chaos for children. (It is just possible that the centrality of tradition-exploding fertility technology to gay conception drives the cheerful acceptance of that technology’s complicated and destabilizing results by members of the enlightened intellectual elite.)

The main answer to the “Why does it matter?” question is this: The institutionalized severing of biology from parenthood affirms a growing trend in our society, that of men abandoning their biological children. Too many men now act like sperm donors: they conceive a child then largely disappear, becoming at best an intermittent presence in their child’s life. This phenomenon is increasingly common among the less educated, and dominates in the black community. Too many children — including the great majority of black children and large numbers of children of struggling working-class mothers — are now raised in single-parent homes; many do not even know who their father is. The negative consequences of this family breakdown for children include higher rates of school failure and lack of socialization. Moreover, in a culture where men are not expected to raise their children, boys fail to learn the most basic lesson of personal responsibility and self-discipline.

If parental status is a matter of intent, however, not of genes, absent fathers can say: “I never intended to take on the role of that child’s parent; therefore I’m not morally bound to act as a parent.” Defenders of the separation of genes and parental identity may respond that when homosexuals and infertile couples make use of fertility technology, the intent of all parties to either raise or repudiate the resulting child is explicit and contractual. Where there has been no contractual repudiation of parenthood, an argument could run, the default tradition that links genetic and social parenting roles should prevail. It is not at all apparent, however, why heterosexual fathers who have engaged in physical intercourse should not be able to define their responsibilities according to intent, like fathers who have engaged in non-physical intercourse.

Gay child-rearing undercuts another understanding of why fathers should stay with their children: that mothers and fathers bring complementary attributes to child-rearing. On average, men and women have different biological dispositions towards aggression, competition, empathy, and cooperation — a proposition that radical feminists and gender constructivists affirm, when they are not denying it as primitive and mystified. While there are of course exceptions and infinite variations on type, a father on average is more likely to serve as the authority figure and the model of manly virtues, the traditional understanding goes, the mother as nurturer. Gay child-rearing proclaims that boys do not need a father and male role model at home and that males can provide the same emotional rapport with their children as females can. Regardless of whether this claim is empirically accurate, it undermines the argument that fathers have a unique contribution to make in a boy or girl’s development. (Obviously, children who have lost one parent through death or separation may be raised without both sexes at home. But gay parenting creates a single-sex home as a matter of deliberate engineering, not accident or unforeseen chance.)

Even if one grants that the case for the biological two-parent family is more difficult in light of recombinant parenting, however, the implications for gay marriage are not self-evident. The primary challenge to traditional notions of parenthood comes from gay conception, not gay marriage. Even if gays never gain the right to marry, the practice of gay conception will presumably continue apace. Given that continuation, gay marriage at least preserves one strand of traditional child-bearing arrangements: raising children within the context of marriage.

Second, the rout of traditional parenting roles that fertility technology has set in motion is arguably so powerful that gay marriage will add little to the ongoing changes in how we think about parents and children. Designer babies engineered by heterosexual parents are in our future, no matter what parenting institution the law grants to gays.

But gay marriage moves the separation of parental status and biology to the center of the marriage institution. To be sure, most of the attributes of gay procreation and gay marriage can be found individually in other family structures. But those attributes — most importantly, the absence of a child’s biological father or mother from his life — have been considered exceptions and second-best solutions to the norm for child-rearing. (Contrary to gay marriage proponents’ favorite rhetorical strategy, the existence of an exception does not mean that a norm or rule does not exist.) When gays procreate and marry, all those exceptions become the rule. To the extent that you worry about, rather than celebrate, the dissolution of biological ties between parents and children, gay marriage could be a straw that you are reluctant to add to the camel’s back.

These are not easy questions. The deprivation to gays from not being able to put the official, public stamp of legitimacy on their love is large. If one were confident that gay marriage will have at most a negligible effect on the ongoing dissolution of the traditional family, I would see no reason to oppose it. And fertility technology is hardly the only source of stress on families; heterosexual adults have been wreaking havoc on the two-parent family for the last five decades in their quest for maximal freedom and choice. The self-interested assumption behind that havoc has been that what’s good for adults must be good for children: If adults want flexibility in their living arrangements, then children will benefit from it, as well. Perhaps children are as infinitely malleable as it would be convenient for them to be. But if it turns out that they thrive best with stability in their lives and that the traditional family evolved to provide that stability, then our breezy jettisoning of child-rearing traditions may not be such a boon for children.

The facile libertarian argument that gay marriage is a trivial matter that affects only the parties involved is astoundingly blind to the complexity of human institutions and to the web of sometimes imperceptible meanings and practices that compose them. Equally specious is attorney Theodore Olson’s central theme in his legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8: that only animus towards gays or religious belief could explain someone’s hesitation regarding gay marriage. Anyone with the slightest appreciation for the Burkean understanding of tradition will feel the disquieting burden of his ignorance in this massive act of social reengineering, even if he ultimately decides that the benefits to gays from gay marriage outweigh the risks of the unknown.

— Heather Mac Donald is the John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute and co-author of The Immigration Solution.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 2disgusting4words; babyfarming; biology; eugenics; family; homosexualagenda; infanticide; parentalrights; parenthood; samesexadoption; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

1 posted on 02/01/2010 8:02:23 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; wagglebee
An image from a TV ad for gay marriage, reproduced in the January 18 New Yorker, provides a Rorschach test for reactions to America’s ongoing revolution in family structure. Two men in black suits stand shoulder to shoulder in a group of people, looking into each other’s eyes. In their arms are two newborns in white baby clothes and blankets. Though it’s not immediately apparent from the photo, the men are at a baptism for their infants. The ad, still being test-marketed, is called “Family Values,” and is intended to emphasize the “conventionality of gay couples,” explains the New Yorker.

Then the church they are taking the baby to for baptism is practicing apostasy. The men celebrate their sin. What is the child being taught in being brought into such a church?

2 posted on 02/01/2010 8:05:20 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

When the kid needs bail money, the father will lower his paper and say “What kid?”


3 posted on 02/01/2010 8:07:10 AM PST by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
To the extent that a gay couple wants to preserve the traditional connection between that biological parent and his offspring, however, the adult side of the family becomes more of a non-traditional threesome.

Polygamy by proxy.

Will the child's birth father/mother also be covered under the loving couple's insurance?

Will visitation rights be protected?

4 posted on 02/01/2010 8:07:37 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Reengineering the Family (What are the consequences of our severing biology from parenthood?)

If "family" is whatever the usual arrangement is of offspring and parents, then the traditional family of the west is the oddball. This isn't to say that it isn't the best way to raise kids and that it doesn't provide the most sound foundation for an advanced civilization. It's just to say that it is as rare throughout history as are a government and economy like those of the United States.
5 posted on 02/01/2010 8:08:16 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

[Every time a homosexual couple conceives a child]

Huh? It is physically impossible for a “homosexual couple” to “conceive” a child.


6 posted on 02/01/2010 8:11:31 AM PST by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
By contrast, every gay (and single parent) conception by definition entails an absent parent; it is a visible affirmation of the social acceptability of severing genetic contribution from parenting. Every gay couple and never-married single parent raising a child trigger the same potential question as the couple in the “Family Values” ad: “Where’s the mother (or father)?”

I ask this question when I see tv ads all the time. TV ads have many examples of a mother feeding her sons/daughters at supper with no father to be seen. Dads appear in commercials for comedy relief. Dad is dumb, mom is wise, but the kid is the smartest one of all. Wash, lather, rinse, repeat for sitcoms.

7 posted on 02/01/2010 8:11:47 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
A very well-written article, but I stumbled over one sentence:

The deprivation to gays [...] is large.

That's a weird grammatical construction. I wonder what it actually means?

Regards,

8 posted on 02/01/2010 8:12:59 AM PST by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
reproductive technology will eventually allow “three or more people . . . to combine their DNA to create a baby.”

And what becomes of the resulting birth defects as they perfect their technologies? Abort the "freaks"?

9 posted on 02/01/2010 8:13:25 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Will the child's birth father/mother also be covered under the loving couple's insurance?

No, because under this arrangement, the birth father/mother are simply considered sperm/egg donors. They sign a contract to disavow any future relationship with the child for a handsome fee ( I'm not sure if Michael Jackson's arrangement fit this category ).

I can see this scenario as being another business that will experience some growth if marriage becomes redefined. No longer will one need to work, all one has to do is be willing to donate his/her sperm/egg and he can make a living.
10 posted on 02/01/2010 8:14:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Never forget the “cosmic battle”.

There are only two sides, Christianity and Satan.

Homos are just another one of satan’s weapons to destroy Christianity and ultimately, humanity.


11 posted on 02/01/2010 8:14:43 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Moreover, in a culture where men are not expected to raise their children, boys fail to learn the most basic lesson of personal responsibility and self-discipline.

Women are not expected to raise their children either. 50million abortions since Roe v. Wade.

12 posted on 02/01/2010 8:15:59 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Feministas attacked the patriarchy and they act “surprised” when men no longer respect their family obligations.
13 posted on 02/01/2010 8:16:59 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Defenders of the separation of genes and parental identity may respond that when homosexuals and infertile couples make use of fertility technology, the intent of all parties to either raise or repudiate the resulting child is explicit and contractual.

And what of the lesbian couples we've seen who celebrate having David Crosby's babies only to later separate?

All parties do not stick around to raise the baby they wanted at one time.

14 posted on 02/01/2010 8:19:20 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I remember watching a BBC special on a family who's father was confused about his sexual identity and dressed as a woman in front of his family. The children were interviewed and asked how they felt about their father and his dressing like a woman. Four children and all of them had sadly painful looks on their faces. The oldest boy was about eleven, spoke up and related all of their feelings, "We love our daddy, but he is just wrong."

Just because you want a child does not mean that you were meant to have a child. A child deserves unselfish action on the part of their parents. The best thing a child can receive is a father (male) who shows love for his wife (female) and a wife (female) who shows respect for her husband (male).

Rosie O'Donnell's oldest son is always telling Rosie that he wished he had a father. The selfishness of Rosie is more important than him having a real dad.

15 posted on 02/01/2010 8:20:12 AM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The reason Americans oppose same sex marriage is the family is not the subject of a radical social experiment. There is no reason to throw tradition just because some people left out. Single people are left out and no one is demanding compulsory marriage to make singles feel inclusive. Same point applies forcefully to gays.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

16 posted on 02/01/2010 8:21:51 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If one were confident that gay marriage will have at most a negligible effect on the ongoing dissolution of the traditional family, I would see no reason to oppose it. And fertility technology is hardly the only source of stress on families; heterosexual adults have been wreaking havoc on the two-parent family for the last five decades in their quest for maximal freedom and choice.

"Heterosexual adults" have not been wrecking havoc on the two-parent family for the last five decades, liberal red diaper doper babies have been.

They have attacked the institutions of marriage, church, and government. We are seeing the results of their attacks.

Free love wasn't free and we pay the price today. Thanks hippies.

17 posted on 02/01/2010 8:22:50 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
It's just to say that it is as rare throughout history as are a government and economy like those of the United States.

I'm not quite sure I understand your post. Are you saying that the traditional family of a Father, Mother and children has been rare throughout history?

18 posted on 02/01/2010 8:26:19 AM PST by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Feminists of the liberal ilk are also tools in the battle.

True elevation of women comes from biblical precepts.


19 posted on 02/01/2010 8:27:12 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

baptism is for the child, no matter whose arms it rests in during the service


20 posted on 02/01/2010 8:30:23 AM PST by silverleaf (My Proposed Federal Budget is $29.99)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The self-interested assumption behind that havoc has been that what’s good for adults must be good for children:

In a nutshell. Good line.

21 posted on 02/01/2010 8:30:24 AM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Can you elaborate?


22 posted on 02/01/2010 8:34:52 AM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

The church that is officiating the baptism would be ok with same sex couples as members of that church. That is a celebration of the sin.

Go forth and sin no more. These so called churches deny it is a sin to begin with. Thus apostasy.


23 posted on 02/01/2010 8:34:57 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stylecouncilor

Ping


24 posted on 02/01/2010 8:38:50 AM PST by windcliff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The ad is just part of the sodomite war on what is left of our Christian culture. Male sodomites don’t want children any more than they care much about “gay” marriage as an institution for themselves. The ones who want these things are primarily lesbians. The males have generally gone along, without much enthusiasm, as culture warriors.

McDonald is an atheist/agnostic (made clear in other writings), and her argument rests on claims about evolution and what is best for the child. As she should know, you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is” (David Hume). Consequently, her argument can always be dismissed by the great liberal “So what?” if they tire of trying to convince people of the lie that the sodomite burlesque of marriage is “just as good for children” as the “repressive, patriarchal, heterosexist, blah, blah” model that they seek to eliminate.

But the central point is that in a postmodern worldview, liberals have no reason to “privilege” the interests of children above their own - even if they were to concede that in some sense traditional marriage is better for children. Even if a metaphysical naturalist like McDonald were to effectively refute postmodernism (not all that hard to do), she still faces the the Humean dilemma, for there is no solution to the is/ought problem within metaphysical naturalism (which may have inadvertently been Hume’s deeper point). Consequently, for a metaphysical naturalist moral discussions are ultimately just chit-chat about personal preferences, and any conventional morality is just an artifact of a successful sales job.

It is this moral hollowness of metaphysical naturalism - which is associated with “modernism” - that the left has so effectively exploited to destroy our culture. A Christian culture cannot be defended within the context of a materialistic metaphysics.


25 posted on 02/01/2010 8:40:59 AM PST by achilles2000 (Shouting "fire" in a burning building is doing everyone a favor...whether they like it or not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

So your church would withhold baptism from the child of a sinner. Do you think Christ would turn the child away?


26 posted on 02/01/2010 8:41:09 AM PST by silverleaf (My Proposed Federal Budget is $29.99)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

You think that that church even considers homosexuality sinful? You’re dreaming.


27 posted on 02/01/2010 8:42:50 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

I guess that the religious gay couples want to see same sex marriage legalized, otherwise God will see them “living together in sin”.


28 posted on 02/01/2010 8:43:59 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is beyond comprehension are there no Normal couples left to adopt and provide a healthy upbringing???


29 posted on 02/01/2010 8:52:07 AM PST by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I think YOU do and that is why you think the church should not baptize their adopted baby

Aside from the baptism of a child being for the child, regardless of the sins of his parents...

In Christ’s time it was lepers and prostitutes that his followers sought to turn away from His touch- and we know how he reacted


30 posted on 02/01/2010 8:53:30 AM PST by silverleaf (My Proposed Federal Budget is $29.99)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

So you say that homosexuality is not a sin.

Tell me, do churches baptize children when the parents do not have a membership there?

Do churches typically look past ongoing transgressions like open swingers (who hold a monthly wife swapping party) to extend membership?

Hey, live and let live.


31 posted on 02/01/2010 8:59:37 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I never said homsexuality was not “a sin”

I said Christ would reach through that to baptize a child presented to him by two homosexuals

Your church must have a pretty stiff litmus test for infant baptism, if you must prove the parents were sinless


32 posted on 02/01/2010 9:04:14 AM PST by silverleaf (My Proposed Federal Budget is $29.99)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Mike Adams:

Little Boy Blue Devil.

33 posted on 02/01/2010 9:06:31 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

What religion and what god? ;-)


34 posted on 02/01/2010 9:15:50 AM PST by achilles2000 (Shouting "fire" in a burning building is doing everyone a favor...whether they like it or not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
baptism is for the child, no matter whose arms it rests in during the service

True but to ask God to protect the child with common grace above and beyond those parents that don't have their kids baptized is a mockery of the whole thing. I really doubt if the homosexual couples that might try to claim Christianity and have their kids baptized really give a rats ass about the Law, and about asking God to protect their kids, my gut feeling is that they are going through the motion of the Christian Cultural trying to act like Christians but not yielding their heart to God, because if they really yield their hearts to God they won't be Homosexuals. A generation that does keep God's law will be bless and those that don't keep God's law will be cursed. Being Homosexual is not in the spirit of keeping God's law, so right off you can say figuratively speaking that you are going to be cursed through life and your generation that Ok's the act will also be cursed too. To ask God to bless your kid through Baptism, is like asking a judge and jury to reverse their decision of guilty to not guilty and to declare the law invalid. My gut feeling is that homosexuals that try to claim Christianity are messed up people that can't rationalize things to well they make most of their decision by emotion. And the people that go to the Churches that ok homosexual I would say are also in the same boat. I don't think going to a Church that Ok's homosexuality is a good thing to do in regards to God's law, and his blessing and curses of in associated with it. I'd be always be worried about the roof caving in on me as a form of a curse.

35 posted on 02/01/2010 9:19:35 AM PST by ReformedBeckite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

How many faiths besides Christianity have a baptism ritual?


36 posted on 02/01/2010 9:20:02 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The negative consequences of this family breakdown for children include higher rates of school failure and lack of socialization. Moreover, in a culture where men are not expected to raise their children, boys fail to learn the most basic lesson of personal responsibility and self-discipline.

Barack Obama is a living example of that.

37 posted on 02/01/2010 9:42:20 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

“Tell me, do churches baptize children when the parents do not have a membership there?

Do churches typically look past ongoing transgressions..”

Most churches I’m aware of will not. The baptism ceremony involves the sponsors (usually the parents) of the candidate. They are required to affirm under oath that they will help guide the baptized to follow Christ and his teachings; pretty hard to do when they are openly UNREPTENTANT of their own sins!!


38 posted on 02/01/2010 9:42:26 AM PST by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY (It's the spending, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
It depends on how the church in question understands Baptism. In the case of infant baptism, in the Catholic Church, there must be a safeguard and a solemn pledge that the child will be raised a Christian. That's why the baptismal vows are taken by the parents, and that's why the child has godparents, who are supposed to help ensure that the child will receive a Christian upbringing.

The idea is not that his family is "sinless," but that his family understand their Christian obligation.

Absent such an understanding by the parents and godparents, no: the infant would not baptized in the Catholic Church.

A comparable situation; as far as I know, if living-together-unmarried parents want their child to be baptized, they would ordinarily be expected to marry before the child's Baptism.

This is not a rejection of the child, nor of his parents, but an attempt to encourage both the child and his parents in a Christian way of life.

39 posted on 02/01/2010 10:09:49 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("It is God our Savior's will that all men be saved, and come to a knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim 2:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

The couple must be members. And to obtain church membership, the church would have to practice apostasy to say that same sex couples are in good standing.

We are all sinners. Some seek to claim that their sins are not sinful.

Gay pride parades celebrate sin (even if there is no debauchery on parade).

It is about norming the abnormal. As is the tv campaign showing two men in suits getting “their” child baptised. The article comments how some would ask “where’s the mother”, I also am asking “just what kind of a church is this”?


40 posted on 02/01/2010 10:11:40 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Keep on truckin', Senator Brown.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I don’t know, but would like to....


41 posted on 02/01/2010 10:11:45 AM PST by achilles2000 (Shouting "fire" in a burning building is doing everyone a favor...whether they like it or not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So what does this mean? Will the back half of the hospital be a birthing center, and the front half be a storefront for people to choose the babies that they want?

Natural parents will have to prove that they will be better parents to the offspring they produce?

-PJ

42 posted on 02/01/2010 10:30:00 AM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

as a protestant, the protestant baptism of my kids is recognized as a valid Christian baptism by the Catholic church they now attend

In fact I have known a Catholic nurse who has in emergency baptized dying infants where a priest was delayed- I think the imperative of Christian baptism of infants (unlike the other sacraments) is pretty accepted by the Catholic church apart from the worthiness of the parents. Not that there aren’t some priests who would refuse

I would not feel at peace with any church that imposed a litmus test on the faith or worthiness of the adults before baptising a child. Baptism is about the child’s direct relationship to God, not the parents

Peter himself baptized gentiles, to the amazement of Jesus’ jewish believers.


43 posted on 02/01/2010 10:34:22 AM PST by silverleaf (My Proposed Federal Budget is $29.99)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I also am asking “just what kind of a church is this”?

Methodist? Catholic? Lutheran perhaps. Or Presbyterian? Any church of which at least one of the parents is a member.


44 posted on 02/01/2010 10:37:12 AM PST by silverleaf (My Proposed Federal Budget is $29.99)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MrB
"There are only two sides, Christianity and Satan."

All Buddhists are satanists.
All Hindus are satanists.
All Shintoists are satanists.
All Muslims are satanists.
All agnostics, athesists, etc. are satanists.
Lots of people who call themselves Christians are really satanists.

45 posted on 02/01/2010 10:57:05 AM PST by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Your post, if it wasn’t intended to try to shame me,
would be

ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE.


46 posted on 02/01/2010 11:09:33 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk; brytlea
I'm not quite sure I understand your post. Are you saying that the traditional family of a Father, Mother and children has been rare throughout history?

Yes. It's usually seen only in advanced civilizations and not always there. One could say Roman culture was an advanced civilization, but a father, mother, and children living together in relative isolation wasn't the case. In the United States the practice among Southern plantation owners of enforcing monogamous single family units among slaves was a giant step up for them from Africa. Such was not the case in the West Indies and Brazil where slaves were so brutally treated that they did not, on average, live long enough to establish families, not that it was encouraged to begin with. If you want a review of "family" dynamics around the world throughout history, look at The Origins of War in Child Abuse and The Emotional Life of Nations though I'm not convinced by the author's central thesis. He does, though, point out how much the anthropologists tried to put a good spin on really horrific child-rearing practices around the world. The section on pre-WW II Germany is quite interesting.
47 posted on 02/01/2010 11:18:11 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
You are quite right when you say that the Catholic Church recognizes all Christian baptisms "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (understood to mean the Holy Trinity) with water and with intent: which means intending what the Church intends.

What the Church is looking for here is not "sinlessness" but intent.

If the Church only baptized those who are "sinless" or "worthy," there would be nobody baptized. Nobody! We all realize this!

But look again at the idea of "intent." Let me use a rather obvious example: if some movie-maker wished to portray a baptism, and filmed me (an actress) baptizing a baby as you described, though there was real water and the real words and a real baby, the baby would not be considered "really baptized" because there was no intent. It was just a movie.

However, I myself could certainly baptize a baby (same "me," same baby, same water, same words), and it would be recognized as a "real baptism" if the intent to baptize were there: if I intended what the Church intends by Baptism, and if the parents as well intended it.

No dount one can produce counter examples ("Hey, I know a couple didn't intend to raise their child with Christian beliefs but got him baptized anyway...") But they were supposed to think about, and accept the responsibilities of Christian parenthood. Nowadays, parishes ordinarily have parents attend pre-baptism classes in order to clearly understand their obligation to give their baby a Christian upbringing.

And -- back to the original topic --- if two men in an openly sexually disordered situation intend to remain in it, that might well indicate that they don't intend to raise the child in a Christian manner.

On the other hand: say you had a single mother who was a lesbian, but she left the lesbian lifestyle and wanted to have her child baptized: no problem. Because of her intent to raise her child in a Christian manner.

A thousand "welcomes" and many blessings to all such people!

48 posted on 02/01/2010 11:44:27 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("It is God our Savior's will that all men be saved, and come to a knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim 2:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

So, you are simply taking issue with nuclear families being the norm (mom and dad with kids, instead of mom, dad, grandma, etc and kids)?
This seems not to be very germane to the issue at hand, which would be non biological parents raising kids in unusual combos, such as 2 dads, a mother and 2 dads, etc. Nuclear families are certain a much more modern construct, but then again so is living in single family homes and driving cars. Not sure why you bring it up.


49 posted on 02/01/2010 11:53:44 AM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf; a fool in paradise
baptism is for the child, no matter whose arms it rests in during the service

Baptism is for the child yes but infant baptism demands that the Parents and God Parents profess their faith. The Parents are the first teachers of the child in the faith, therefore one of the requirements for baptism into the Catholic Church is that there is the hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith. One of the sponsors also has to have received the sacraments of initiation (Baptism, Eucharist, and Confirmation).

50 posted on 02/01/2010 12:02:18 PM PST by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson