Facilitating dialogue to promote open and multi-faceted discussion and awareness

Who would rather see a child suffer in sub-standard living conditions without the support of a loving family than see that child adopted by a financially- and emotionally-stable homosexual individual or couple? It is difficult to imagine that any person would inflict suffering upon a child in order to fulfill his or her own ideological desires, but through political action—or lack of political action—many persons are denying individuals or couples who identify as homosexuals the privilege of adoption based on their failure to conform to the supposed standard of heterosexuality; many are consigning children to sub-standard conditions while they wait to be adopted by a heterosexual family. This is neither fair to the individuals who are seeking to adopt nor to the children hoping to be adopted. Homosexual individuals who otherwise meet the legal qualifications that heterosexual individuals meet—whether they are single, in a marriage, in a civil union, or in a domestic partnership—should have the privilege of adopting children.

One of the main opponents of homosexuality and therefore the adoption of children by homosexual individuals is Evangelical Christianity. Sixty percent of Evangelical Christians in the United States believe homosexual behavior is morally wrong.¹ They are certainly entitled to that opinion—ignoring their perspective would be as unfair as excluding the homosexual community’s opinion from consideration, but the problem is that mainstream Christianity seems to be more concerned with its own ideals than with people. Evangelicals seem more concerned with quarantining what they view as the immorality of homosexuality than with providing quality homes for children. They seem more concerned with propagating their ideology than with understanding the perspectives of the disenfranchised. They seem more concerned with colonizing into homosexuals into rehabilitation programs than allowing minorities the opportunity of personal experience, and they seem strikingly less concerned about making sure that children who are waiting to be adopted are quickly placed in homes with financially- and emotionally-stable parents.

Outside the context of Evangelical Christianity and religion in general, there is little effort to suppress homosexuality, although eleven percent of adults in the United States with no religious affiliation do strongly believe homosexuality is immoral.² Part of the reason homosexuality is viewed as immoral outside of religious contexts is that it subverts the socio-biological impulse to engage in sexual reproduction; it promotes engagement in sexual intercourse without the purpose of reproduction. Traditionally, this has been discouraged because a society will collapse if it sustains a negative birth rate for a prolonged period. A society needs heterosexual parents to produce heterosexual children who mature and marry and produce heterosexual children; if this cycle is not continued, the population will plummet which would cause the society to be susceptible to economic collapse or colonization.

Since the presence of homosexuals in a society does not increase the birth rate, homosexuals are merely consumers of sexual intercourse without being producers of future citizens: they have no positive effect upon reproduction. This would be a fair critique of homosexuality, if unrestrained population growth were necessary in the United States. But this is not necessary. There is no reason to create more U.S. consumers when there are orphaned and impoverished children who need families already in existence. Adopted children are ideal potential citizens—birthing a child into a heteronormative family merely adds a producer to the scale of poverty and wealth, whereas adopting a child converts a pure consumer into a proactive producer. Even if the model of unrestrained population growth were necessary, same-sex parents would be the perfect candidates for adoption since they are physiologically incapable of conceiving a child through sexual intercourse; by providing parents for children waiting for adoption, same-sex parents allow heterosexual couples who are capable of sexual reproduction to conceive: this both increases the population and incorporates orphaned children into society rather than forcing them to its fringes.

Among those who believe that homosexuality is immoral, the primary argument against homosexuals adopting children is the belief that children raised by same-sex parents will eventually appropriate a homosexual identity for themselves. Some statistical evidence indicates that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to consider the possibility of a homosexual identity and be involved in a homosexual relationship; the parent’s sexual orientation does influence the child’s orientation, but most likely only in the sense that the child is more comfortable with a homosexual identity since the parent is receptive to  homosexuality—therefore  the child is more likely to embrace homosexuality as a part of his or her identity rather than exclude it.³ A secondary argument, made by both those who believe homosexuality is immoral and by those who do not, is that the children of same-sex parents will exhibit undesirable behaviors, such as substance abuse or suicidal tendencies, to higher degree than children adopted by heterosexual individuals exhibit those behaviors. Although differences do exist in children raised by same-sex couples when compared to those raised by opposite-sex couples, there is statistically no difference between children raised by heterosexual parents and those raised by homosexual parents concerning undesirable behaviors; not only do children raised by same-sex parents fail to exhibit negative behavioral patterns, they instead exhibit positive behavioral patterns: namely, increased levels of affection and emotional responsiveness in both sexes, increased levels of self-reported peer-popularity among females, and reduced levels of aggression and dominance among males.⁴

Since scientific evidence seems to dispute the heteronormative ideology—i.e., it cannot be proven that heterosexual parents are naturally better able to raise children than homosexual parents—a more specific argument is made against single homosexual individuals who are attempting to adopt children. The argument that two parents are better than one parent is valid, especially if the cause of the single-parent home is a divorce; however, single heterosexual adults are legally able to adopt, therefore single homosexual adults should be able to as well.⁵ Frequently single homosexuals are accused of attempting to adopt so that they can sexually abuse the child—solely targeting homosexuals with this claim is ridiculous. Occasionally, sexual abuse does occur with adopted children, but the abuse is not exclusive to homosexuals: rather, it is almost exclusive to heterosexuals as “the overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse cases can be characterized as heterosexual in nature.”⁶ This faulty yet pervasive argument of abuse in families of homosexual parents capitalizes upon “[f]ears that children in custody of gay or lesbian parents might be at heightened risk for sexual abuse,” conveniently ignoring any factual evidence.⁷ If this argument is taken seriously, perhaps heterosexuals should be denied the privilege of adoption due to the statistical likelihood that they will sexually abuse their adopted child.

While mainstream Christian discourses may not agree with the morality of homosexuality or a family environment which endorses—and perhaps encourages—homosexual behavior, any person can certainly see that the benefit of allowing a child to be placed in an environment with a loving parent who happens to identify as a homosexual far outweighs the supposed benefit of preventing someone with different beliefs regarding sexuality from the privilege of raising children—especially if that person identifies as both a Christian and a homosexual—or the personal detriment of allowing a child to be influenced to believe something that opposes mainstream Christian ideology. Regardless of a person’s beliefs, finding stable homes for disenfranchised children is more important than propagating ideologies, and there are many homosexual individuals who are willing to adopt children—if the United States will let them.

1. Randall Sell, “Inside-OUT: A Report on the Experiences of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals in America and the Public’s Views on Issues and Policies Related to Sexual Orientation,” The Kaiser Family Foundation, 3193, (November 2001): URL: http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/New-Surveys-on-Experiences-of-Lesbians-Gays-and-Bisexuals-and-the-Public-s-Views-Related-to-Sexual-Orientation-Chart-Pack.pdf.
2. Ibid.
3. Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson, “Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents,” Child Development, 75, no. 6 (November/December 2004): 1886-1898, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3696683.
4. Judith Stacey, and Timothy J. Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review, 66, no. 2 (April 2001): 159-183, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657413.
5. Anna Paula Uziel, “Homosexuality and Adoption in Brazil,” Reproductive Health Matters, 9, no. 18, (November 2001): 34-42, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3776147.
6. Charlotte J. Patterson, “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents,” Child Development, 63, no. 5 (October 1992): 1025-1042, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131517.
7. Ibid.
Image: “Co-Parent Adoption: A Guide for Same-Sex Couples in Massachusetts,” GLBT Law Blog, April 15, 2011 (4:45 p.m.), http://glbtlaw.wordpress.com.

One of Jesus’ apostles once said something to the effect of, “Without love, your Christian witness is meaningless. It is an abomination.” In the Western world, be we Jew, Christian, or Muslim, we have lost the path of Love and ventured too far down the road seeking Truth.

In the West, the primary concern of the Church is not how to solve the problem of Suffering inherent in all men, but, Truth. In the East, suffering is very much an accepted part of life and the focus is placed on Love. For example, if you go to India and share with a Hindu follower a “truth,” he’ll most likely accept what you say with a casual shrug and a nod. In the West, if you go to someone and do the same, you’ll most likely start a nasty argument. The social rule about never talking politics or religion in a bar comes to mind.

In most denominations of Christianity, in particular, Truth leads to personal holiness. A strong “We’re right and you’re wrong,” followed up with an unholy condemnation is common. One quick looks at the attitudes of one denomination towards another, Protestantism versus Catholicism, in general, or the more relevant problem of Protestant Christianity versus the Islamic world as a whole shed more than enough light on the subject.

These “truth claims” have caused endless problems throughout history. You have the Jewish subjugation of the peoples of Palestine in the Torah, the Christian Crusades, the beheadings that were rampant throughout Post-reformation Europe, the Spanish Inquisition, the Islamic Jihads versus America and Europe or the Hindu peoples leading to bloody conflict, death, and suffering throughout the Western World.

In the West, we get so caught up in the intellectualism of our faith and the pride involved therein, that we forget Jesus’ message. Our contemporaries in the East, from which a lot of his lessons seem to be inspired, don’t have such a problem. My World Religions professor, Dr. Alexander joked in class one evening, “Burn a (Bhagavad) Gita and big deal, you have a barbecue. Burn a Koran and you have a war.” This joke seems like current event satire on the surface (see current issue of “Koran Burning and Ground Zero Islamic Center”), but, speaks of a bigger issue plaguing our theology.

In the 2000 years since Jesus’ ministry shook the very foundations of the most powerful Empire in the world, reformed a faith set down by God’s Chosen People, and altered the course of the world for 1000s of years… we forgot one simple truth, in itself…

Love is more important than Truth. Love IS Truth.

Jesus sought to balance the two. He asks of us to love our enemies. Bless those that harm us. Do not judge them.

We’re called to hold hands with the Muslims and the Jews, our conquerors and oppressors, our homeless and destitute, our widows, orphans, and those aliens in our lands, for they are our brothers under the same God. We’re called not to hate those that do not believe, those that do, but, think differently, and everything in between. Jesus calls us to lead by example and that example is Love.

Allow me to illustrate my point with something from current events.

Murfreesboro, Tennessee, population 100,000 – 30 miles south of Nashville, a large Baptist Christian center in America, a “gateway city” for refugee’s from the Persian Gulf War, a place with a booming Muslim population and anti-Muslim sentiment alike. Here, of all places, an ecumenical fairy tale is being realized. The Grace Baptist Church is helping the Murfreesboro Islamic Center by assisting them in building their new mosque on the property adjacent to their new facilities. Not only this, but, they’re currently sharing their space with the Islamic congregation.

The Center’s new construction has received harsh treatment from local Tea Party activists and many others caught up in renewed anti-Islamic sentiment stirred up by the anniversary of 9/11 and the publicity stunt of Gainesville, FL Pastor Rev. Jones’ threat to burn Korans in response to the mosque building near Ground Zero. Various other mosque building attempts have been blocked in nearby towns across Nashville’s suburbs. To go one further, Tenn. Lt. Gov. Rob Ramsey is quoted making this ridiculous statement, “You could even argue whether being Muslim is actually a religion or is it a nationality, a way of life or cult? Whatever you call it…” and Republican Congressional Candidate Lou Ann Zelcnik said the Center “is part of a movement designed to fracture the moral and political foundations of middle Tennessee.” Needless to say, both lost their bids. It’s a wonder such things are in the state they are with such ignorance fueling our politics, but, I digress.

To this writer, the Christians at Grace Baptist Church have the message right. They act out of love to their neighbor Muslims, respecting them as people and loving them as children of God despite their beliefs, the actions of other extremist Muslims, or the actions and bias of fellow Christians.

We are after all, only human… though, I feel that if Jesus could see us now, he’d look at the world, hold out his hands and with a shake of the head and deep sigh say, “Dudes… it all went way over your heads.”

(Photos courtesy of Time Magazine and View Askew Productions)