I don’t get why people get such a major hang-up about homosexuality. I can understand people believing that there is a God who outlaws non-procreative sex. But I don’t understand why denouncing homosexuality seems to be such a high priority for many Christians. You don’t see Bishop Pell rushing out to say what a blight adultery is on our society. Nor do you see blokes who go out gay-bashing also going out adulterer-bashing. Yet no matter what religion you are, adultery’s a bad thing. The abhorrence or otherwise of homosexuality on the other hand is simply a matter of opinion. And in the West we like our freedom of choice right? If you want to be a Muslim, you can. If you want to be a Christian, you can. If you want to be a homosexual (a fantastic religion), you can.
It’s strange that the 10 Commandments seem to be lower priorities for Fred Nile and Family First than their anti-homosexuality stance. If Christians believe that homosexual parenting is wrong in God’s eyes, they are free to do so. They are equally free to believe that Muslim parenting is equally wrong in God’s eyes. But this does not mean that their religious persuasions should become law. We live in a society that believes in freedom of religion. Let’s maintain that.
So why then don’t we allow gay marriage or adoption? Quite frankly it seems to me like blatant discrimination and a restriction on freedom of religion. Mr Howard’s explanation was that marriage has always been about the continuation of the species. But plenty of people get married and don’t have children, whether that be through choice or inability. If Mr Howard could, would he make marriage rights dependent on procreation rather than marital commitment?
Some people (like the aforementioned Fred Nile) have tried to suggest a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. Apart from the fact that there is absolutely nothing to suggest any such link exists, we also know that a lot of paedophiles are heterosexual Christians. Perhaps there should be a party set up calling for the end of the priesthood. The other important difference being that homosexuality is a consensual act (except in the case of rape). Paedophilia is not. That is why we object to paedophilia.
Which brings me to homosexual adoption. FishHead will be pleased to know I read Andrew Bolt’s dissertation on the subject. He’ll also be unsurprised to read that I thought it was a load of poppycock. Bolt argued that there was not enough evidence available on homosexual parenting to know whether it has negative effects on the child. I am curious to know what exactly Mr Bolt expects to be the possible negative effects. Let’s have a think about it shall we? Thinking logically, what is it that homosexual parenting is supposed to cause?
About all Mr Bolt could come up with was suggesting that the children of homosexual parents are more promiscuous than children of heterosexual parents. This is an unsurprising stat. Stats about the children of heterosexual parents would include a lot of children from backgrounds that do not believe in premarital sex. So that would lower the average amount of promiscuity amongst children of hetties. Whereas I can’t imagine too many homosexual parents being of that persuasion. But anyway, won’t promiscuity help with the aforementioned continuation of the species (among hetties)?
On JU I have seen it argued that homosexual parents cannot possibly teach their children what it means to ‘be a man’ or to ‘be a woman’. Unfortunately that Texan blogger never elaborated on exactly what they meant by that. What exactly is it that children are supposed to learn from their parents about their gender conformity? And in what way do we currently test potential adoptive parents for their ability to teach it? When a married heterosexual couple front up to the adoption agency, do they ask the Dad to grunt and name the front row of the local football team, followed by a conversation about revving the engine? Is the mother taken to another room where she is asked to paint a room in as many shades of pink as she can find, rustle up a five course meal and balance a book on her head while she walks? Is there in fact any test of potential adoptive parents’ ability to teach their children what it means to ‘be a man’ or to ‘be a woman’? (Let’s just for the moment ignore the fact that these people usually argue that gender conformity is ‘natural’, which I would have thought meant that they are things that do not need to be taught). Are there any follow up tests to ensure that adopted boys are not becoming mummy’s boys? Are teachers required to report the parents to the relevant authorities if they notice that an adopted daughter is being allowed to play soccer and wear boyish clothes?
Or do we simply test potential adoptive parents for their ability to love and provide nutrition? If this is the case, then these are the standards that should be applied to all potential adoptive parents, be they hetero or homosexual or whatever other label you want to put on them.