I have no children, but I would really like to find a nice girl with whom I mesh well intellectually, spiritually, and grammatically, with whom I could raise a family. That’s really the only complaint I have about my life thus far- that it doesn’t seem complete because I’m missing out on an opportunity I would really like and at which I estimate I would excel by comparison. My brother and his wife suffer from similar frustrations. Yet, I know people living together out of wedlock who are welcoming children into their homes under less than auspicious circumstances and worse still parents who tell their children that they were “mistakes” or who ignore their own offspring in favor of those belonging to others. Some people, I feel, don’t deserve to be parents. I don’t know why God sends spirits into their homes, and while I do not question his wisdom, years ago I wrote in my journal about bringing as many spirits into my home as possible to spare them from lesser opportunities elsewhere. Thus far, he has not seen fit to acquiesce to that attitude.
Obfuscated by the media in favor of the “change” mantra and how “historic” Obama’s election was, voters turned out en masse for a referendum on marriage and family. The much publicized Proposition 8 in California and similar movements in over a half dozen other states handily defeated same sex marriage laws in the states and, in Arkansas, the established right for gay couples to adopt. This begs the question in my mind about what’s best for the children. Are bad parents better than none at all?
Where homosexuality comes from is a broader topic than this post allows for, but consider a few things. Gay people are always born from people who at least act heterosexual. Gays claim that they cannot avoid it. Poppycock. You have power over the impulses and lusts of the flesh. Just because I am “subject to latent heterosexual tendencies” doesn’t mean that I go around sowing my wild oats in whatever womb I come across. If I can live a life of abstinence in a sex-crazy world, I know it’s possible for any person to resist any inclination/temptation/impulse with which they find themselves beset, be it genetic or not. Even if it is genetic, since both parents of a gay person were acting heterosexual at the time of conception, their parents demonstrated an ability to overcome same gender attraction, and Mendelian genetics relegates this tendency to that of autosomal recessive, meaning that it’s very rare and not necessarily advantageous.
People who conform completely to their homosexual urges cannot biologically have children. It is impossible for two men or two women to copulate and fertilize a zygote. Therefore, even if it is genetic, it should never be passed on if people live true to “what they were born to be”. Furthermore, men and women were made to fit together; their biology is compatible, their psychology coagulates to a fullness, and they come with advantages and disadvantages in dealing with the eventualities of life.
The best place for children is in the homes of the parents who sired them, parents who ostensibly and ideally love each other and dedicate their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the needs of their offspring. Any other place where children go sets them at a disadvantage. In single-parent households, children grow up without a keen and necessary contribution from the absent gender. They do not learn to understand, trust, and deal with people of that other gender, setting them at a perpetual disadvantage dealing with them in the future. In a gay home, while they have two parents, the parents come from the same cloth. If we allow gays to adopt, what message does that send? It tells them that it’s alright to not only live without one parent but that one can dispense with the other gender altogether, that gender is irrelevant and biology an imposition. Placing children into other homes puts them with people who cannot possibly care about them and care for them as well as their biological parents could, despite how well intentioned these surrogates may be. I knew a foster parent once at my last job who took the children not to raise them but as a way to bring in extra tax-free income. They were more tenants in his home than real children, as was evidenced by preferential treatment given to his own biological offspring, which sent another terrible message to those children.
I maintain that good things done for the wrong reasons remain wrong things. Placing children in bad homes does them unforeseen damage and disservice not encountered in circumstances void of poor parental examples. While they may not see how families work, they won’t see what doesn’t work, and since people imitate what they see, I do not feel that it’s in the best interest of society to place children with homes just because those people accept the children when those homes provide nothing more than basic sustenance and an illusion that their intellectual and moral needs are being met. You cannot teach wrong behavior and expect right behavior to result.
Nuclear families may not be a panacea. I know plenty of parents who fail in their covenants to each other and their offspring in favor of other pursuits. However, the family is ordained by our Creator to give children the best possible framework and foundation on which to build a future. I find it a true shame that so many children enter the world under inauspicious circumstances in homes ill equipped and ill suited for their needs and best interests, and even more disheartening that one such as I who cares about family and desires children remains bereft thereof. Not that I believe myself a perfect putative parent, but at least I want to be one. Many people can’t and won’t and don’t say the same thing.
I thank my Creator that I at least was born of goodly parents who taught me in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. They cared about me enough, not to give me everything I wanted but rather to make sure I had everything I need, even if it necessitated that they withhold some things from me for my benefit.
No comments:
Post a Comment