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.

Michael Licona took on the daunting task of approaching the resurrection of Jesus in a refreshing way. His book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, takes on the task that many scholars dream to tackle yet very often the task swallows the researcher up in a myriad of unanswered questions and dead ends. Here through a series of posts I am going to critically review his new work and determine whether he too became one of many swallowed up by this daunting task. Licona’s first chapter, rightly named, “Important Considerations on Historical Inquiry Pertaining to the Truth in Ancient Texts,” walks through the many considerations any historian must deal with in trying to come to a conclusion that can go beyond ones bias and rightly figure the correct determination of the fragmented data at hand.

Licona first enlightens readers into understanding the biases one must overcome in order to correctly determine historical outcome of data. All readers, writers, historians, listeners, speakers, and might I dare even say it, scientists come at their work biased. Whether or not that bias controls the outcome of the understanding, writing, historical theory, comprehension, and even scientific data is to be seen. Licona attempts to combat that bias by putting it through a series of checks and balances to identify if the bias has determined the outcome. Refreshingly Licona admits that no matter how hard one may try, the outcome will be slightly influenced. So Licona puts himself through six checks.

1) Simply, or not so simply depending on the grasp of which bias holds on to the ‘researcher,’ one should find themselves reviewing their method. One’s method should be used in the approach to find objectivity. If a method in any way could prove to have traces of subjectivity that method should be thrown out.

2) Both the method and the historian’s “horizon” (their ideological swing on the matter) should be public. When anyone begins to study a subject and write on that subject the matter of both their preconceived idea and how they tend to best it with their method should be pointed out in the writing.

3) Peer pressure as an attempt to hold the researcher to be honest in his approach, knowing that other researchers will peer review their work and judge it based on its objectivity. This can be both a great and horrible persuasion. Since peers of any particular research (especially when it comes to historical Jesus research) can be very broad, peer pressure can only hold to the peers of your particular persuasion. For as we see in debates , by not holding on to the same thoughts as another person, no matter how good the proofs may be, different views often bring people to butting heads on the objectivity of a notion.

4) Yet Licona seems to understand this past flaw by going through the next step on his guidelines to minimizing objectivity. Simply submitting the ideas data and research to those of opposing viewpoints the flaws of the researcher’s theory can be pointed out in which further research may help fill those wholes and bring the researches theory to a more solid case.

5) When coming up with a hypothesis one must view the solid facts already associated with the base of the theory. Licona calls this the historical bedrock of his approach to history. Despite the minority of what would be called ‘post – modern’ historians the majority in academia in history subscribe to the idea that facts can be known in history.

6) Lastly one must actively pursue to detach himself from his bias. This of course comes through practice in one’s own research and can hardly be put on a scale (of course other than through their writings). This may be the hardest of the six guidelines but can be seen as the most important of the six.

Now, of course, in any research but especially in this topic of history, the idea of the burden of proof comes about. Burden of proof has always been a subject in tension especially in historical research. In being open with his method, Licona explains his thought on the burden of proof. For most the idea of burden of proof is as if people are going in circles with who needs to prove what. Yet in historical methodologies one way is evident. When looking at a historical theory, according to Licona (and most of academia in history), the idea of methodical credulity should be how the burden of proof is approached. Simply stated this means that the theory which provides the best information with the least amount of ad hoc and takes best use of the historical understandings with the least amount of speculation. So in a theory, like the Resurrection of Jesus, we would take the theory which has the least amount of speculation and makes the best use of the information that is there. When this is done that theory which does that is the theory that should be taken as correct. From there the burden of proof is laid upon any other theory which would try to overthrow the reigning theory. This of course does cause complications between opposing world-views in the thought of a God who does have a personal interjection with his creation and the thought that he does not or there is no god.

This may throw this idea into quite a conundrum, but doesn’t have too. In any instance the theory that takes best use of the information is the one to be preferred and used. For those holding that God would have a personal hand in our human history the probability of that theory greatly increases. What this holds still has great weight and needs to be processed. Scientific method holds well over historical process yet still lacks some finesse on how this data should be handled.

Now not to cut this short (if you can call this short) but this will be expanded on in future articles. Overall so far this book is well worth the read. For anyone interested in the philosophy of history or the burden of proof this is a must read.