In a brazen attempt to alienate and divide, I offer todays rant. Last week, I had the displeasure of watching Rosie O'Donnell hijack a major network and give an hour long infomercial in favor of gay adoptions. Sickening. Why? Because I think it's selfish and self-serving to use children to legitamize a lifestyle. True, there are major problems with the adoption process in this country. So much so that many people simply go to China or Russia for their babies. But, opening the adoption procees to same-sex partners is not the answer. History, social-science research and all three major religions tend to agree that a loving union between man and woman provides the bedrock for a child's emotional health. I say this not out of fear or loathing of the homosexual lifestyle, but merely to point out that raising a child requires more than love or money. A child requires emotional consistency, gender stability and self-esteem. (The jails and nut-houses are crammed full with emotionally confused kids who came from seemingly well-off suburban neighborhoods.)
For an adoptive child, establishing an identity that meshes with social convention is essential to constructing a healthy sense of self. To abruptly break with social convention by placing the child in a homosexual household can create the sort of gender confusion and social scrutiny that ignites a lifetime of emotional confusion and damage. Consider: Studies indicate that children in homosexual households are four times more likely to test the extremes of their own sexuality by experimenting with homosexual behavior. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Now consider that the highest suicide rate in this country is amongst homosexual teen-agers. Plainly, the social pressures associated with this sort of gender confusion are tremendous - that is the reality that confronts us. To subject adoptive children to this sort of emotional trauma by design is worse than misguided, it amounts to martyring a large segment of adoptive children, just to make a cultural statement about homosexual rights.
Nonetheless, advocates for homosexual rights continue to place themselves at the center of adoption law in this country. Their justification: that the eroding nuclear family - through divorce and the general liberalization of the culture - has precipitated a change in traditional social structures. They have a point, they simply miss it. The crucial issue is not whether traditional social structures are changing, but whether embracing these changes is in the best interest of adoptive children. Get it? Adoption law ought not to be about cultural statements in general or gay rights in the specific; it ought to be about the best interest of the children. While debate regarding homosexual rights has its place in the national dialogue, such issues are not
central to the issue of adoption. What is central to the debate is a proper understanding of cultural norms and how they influence our sense of self. Or, more to the point, how common law, common sense, history and science all tell us that the very nature of a homosexual relationship deprives a child of the emotionally stable environment that he or she requires. While I am deeply sensible about the need to place adoptive children with families, this need does not justify placing adoptive children in ANY home. Nor, for that matter, does it justify risking the emotional well-being of adoptive children, just to make a political statement about homosexual rights.
For an adoptive child, establishing an identity that meshes with social convention is essential to constructing a healthy sense of self. To abruptly break with social convention by placing the child in a homosexual household can create the sort of gender confusion and social scrutiny that ignites a lifetime of emotional confusion and damage. Consider: Studies indicate that children in homosexual households are four times more likely to test the extremes of their own sexuality by experimenting with homosexual behavior. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Now consider that the highest suicide rate in this country is amongst homosexual teen-agers. Plainly, the social pressures associated with this sort of gender confusion are tremendous - that is the reality that confronts us. To subject adoptive children to this sort of emotional trauma by design is worse than misguided, it amounts to martyring a large segment of adoptive children, just to make a cultural statement about homosexual rights.
Nonetheless, advocates for homosexual rights continue to place themselves at the center of adoption law in this country. Their justification: that the eroding nuclear family - through divorce and the general liberalization of the culture - has precipitated a change in traditional social structures. They have a point, they simply miss it. The crucial issue is not whether traditional social structures are changing, but whether embracing these changes is in the best interest of adoptive children. Get it? Adoption law ought not to be about cultural statements in general or gay rights in the specific; it ought to be about the best interest of the children. While debate regarding homosexual rights has its place in the national dialogue, such issues are not
central to the issue of adoption. What is central to the debate is a proper understanding of cultural norms and how they influence our sense of self. Or, more to the point, how common law, common sense, history and science all tell us that the very nature of a homosexual relationship deprives a child of the emotionally stable environment that he or she requires. While I am deeply sensible about the need to place adoptive children with families, this need does not justify placing adoptive children in ANY home. Nor, for that matter, does it justify risking the emotional well-being of adoptive children, just to make a political statement about homosexual rights.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home