Moderrn technology is a wonderful thing: we can now fail to communicate instantly! There’s so many nuances which get lost in writing to each other, rather than speaking. However, the care in choosing words isn’t what it was in days of snail mail, when the passage of time between sending and receiving was a given. We’re more likely to write as we talk, but all sorts of things - tone of voice, body language, facial expressions - get lost. I do know that some discussions I and another fellow have had both personally and on the ‘nethave looked harsh and argumentative on message boards, where they were entirely agreeable in the flesh.

Maybe that applies here. I don’t know. I’m asking.

Kelsey did touch on a point I raised in my first comment. There is an important difference between plain dislike, amounting to hate, and a conscientious belief that somebody may be acting in ways which are not good. This, of clurse, is summarized by the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin.” It’s a pharse which I try to avoid, although it’s actually a very sound principle. I avoid it because it becomes a cant phrase we fall into the trap of using to describe what we ought to do, rather than what we do and live. People who are actually living that way rarely have to roclaim the fact: their lives and their way of treating others speak for them.

St. Francis of Assissi once said, “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words only if you really must.”

I share Kelsey’s views on, for example, abortion. A century hence, if humanity’s still around, I imagine people will look at us in the same way we look at Americans on the matter of slavery a century and a haldf ago. However, if I’m going to talk about it, I would start by saying a lady who is very near and very dear to me had one, and it’s something we talked about at great length, in terms of the real human feelings involved by people in that boat. Clearly, I think people make bad choices, but I still have to be aware that I have to respect themand accept them as they are, and not as I would wish them to be. I think it’s the only way that I could expect respect or acceptance from others. “Charity”, St. Paul once wrote, “is the bond of perfection.” St. Paul, of course, would admit to you that he could get pretty excited, and not always able to live up to that standard - I think it would be fair to think that he would have been one of the least favourite dinner guests in the Mediterranean (he did rather tend to go on, and on, and on - even more than me!). But he meant it.

In a more worldly context, I have found much political wisdom in one of President Lincoln’s speeches. I’ll quote a small part of it:

“…it is not much in the nature of man to be driven to anything; still less to be driven about that which is exclusively his own business….If you would win a man to your cause, FIRST convince him that you are his sincere friend….Assume to dictate to his judgemnt, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will rereat within himself…you shall no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw.” (Speech to the Washington Temperance Society, February 22, 1842).

Expressions of displeasure come more easily and naturally to all of us. It’s hard work to prevent a disagreement from becoming disagreeable, or to prevent it from declining into name-calling. But we can do better than that, and we all do ourselves a favour by so doing.

I don’t hate. I have concern for this country.

In addition, you said you have the right to protest loudly and that we should “deal with it”. You’re right, we should deal with it—and I choose to deal with it by exposing the opinions that are fueled by hate. That’s my way of dealing with a problem that I feel is present in our country: Not the threat of homosexual adoption, but the pandemic of hate that could be stopped.

I am truly bothered by people saying that I “hate” homosexuals. My best friend is gay, and I love all of God’s children. I only have disdain for the act of homosexuality, not for the homosexuals themselves.

I sincerely believe that homosexuality is bad for this country, but it’s not the ONLY bad influence on our society. People seem to think that I obsess over homosexuality, saying “there are bigger issues out there”. I acknowledge that, and I am an activist on many other issues as well. For example, I am actively opposed to abortion, divorce, adultery, pornography, abuse, drugs, and alcohol.

I have the right to vocally protest whatever I see fit to protest, and I do so — loudly. =) So deal with it, and don’t call me a bigot. Thank you!

Your writing skills have gotten extremely incredible! You were always an adept writer, but . . . WOW! Keep it up! You make many sound arguments against the bigotry and hatred that too many people show against gays and lesbians, and you present them very well. Your site is also very nice, too! GREAT job! :-)

(Note: The last name was taken out by the author out of privacy concerns)

JAT, your comment was initially marked as SPAM, which is why it wasn’t made available on the blog immediately. I really apologize for this, and I thank you so much for opening up to the readers of this blog on an issue that is personal and close to your heart. I hope that one day, our society can shift a little so that your father can come out with ease and be the person he has hidden all these years.

I haven’t been part of the other discussion, but as I understand it, the original issue is adoption of children. How does this come to happen?

Well, there’s many ways, aren’t there? To tkae one example, parents die. You may have a young, single mother whois well aware that she can’t possibly look after a child, but is alos opposed to abortion. There are the cases where the alleged “family” were extreme threats to the life and security of the child. Of these alternatives (there’s others), the third is the only one where, from Gregg’s point of view, governments are interfereing in others’ lies. When we’re speaking of adoptions, we are dealing with a situation where the family is not there. Something else has to take its place, and adoption is the closest replication to biological family there is.

The idea that “family” means the nuclear family, the mother, father and children, is really a post-World war 2 idea. In fact the proportion of “traditional” families in that sense of the word among society was pretty much what it was in 2000 as it was in 100. The circumstances have changed a great deal, and so have the causes, but the end rtesult is the same.

What we do NOT have are the extended family arrangements of old, or the intimate ciommunity arrangements which did apply circa 100. The more normal porcess of “adoption” would have bene the placing of children with other relatives, whether grandparents, uncles and aunts, or cousins. And you would not be surprised if the result was being placed with a couple of maiden sisters, or a couple of bachelor unlces. Sounds like a same-sex couple of some form, does it not?

Incidentally, that does raise an issue where the opponents of same-sex marriage do ahve a point, although once it’s recognized, it’s a fairly easy one to get around. It is entirely true that childtre do grow up best with both a male and fermale role model in their lives. The maiden or widowed aunts or uncles would have been well aware of it. So is any single parent. One does have to bring some role model who isn’t part of the family - usually a relative or neighbour or friend, but there is a real need for “Big Brothers and Sisters” or “Uncles-at-large”. Unfortunately, I’;ve had too much personal expereince of this reality not to be aware of it.

That excursion aside, in 1900, villages did raise children when knship couldn’t manage it. That was a standrd situation in the rural communities of old, and the kind of city neighbourhood Jane Jacobs described in her books in city life.

Both are community responses, and government’s role did not come imto play, unless there were good reasons why the “adoption” had to be legally recognized.

So, why has governent’s role changed? because society has changed. People are much better able to move around: you aren’t tied down to one place or community all your life. Extended family relatinships are difficult to maintain, and the sense of community can be very much lacking. In places where you see half the people move in a single year, any community relationship is going to be difficult to build or maintain. This does not mean that the communitites have lost their values: it does mean that public agencies have to assume much of the role which communities or extended families used to carry out.

Werepeople perfect, I suppose I’d be a “moral force” anarchist. if we were perfect, or at least in the primal innocence we were supposed to have in the Garden of Eden, there would be no need for government as we know it, since all would know exactly how to balance rights and responsibilities, how to live according to one’s lights without interfering in the way of others, and so on. But that’s not the human condition (I don’t subscribe to the view of human depravity, either - I think there’s a lot about us which makes us redeemable). We’re a long way short of perfection, and it shows.The most die-hard libertarian will admit the need for police and armies, if only to protect poroperty. To my observation, the sort of society they imagine, although admirable in many respects, would require very much larger numbers of police, and much larger armed forces than we have now to get the same result.

I should perhaps mention that in religious terms, I’m a catholic, and I do acvcept the teachings of my church, including those on homosexualioty. What I do know is that others have other beliefs, which they are living to the best they can do, that people do not choose their sexual orientation (by the way, I laregly agree with Gregg’s comments there, but not entriely) , and that the sexual drive is a very powerful factor in life - stronger for some than others. In these things

Homosexual people can have children of their own. So it completely confuses me when other people want to stop them from adopting unwanted children. I am sure that not all children up for adoption come from Heterosexual parents.

I don’t think that Gay people are doing enough to inform the public about homosexuality. Maybe there should be special centers where prominent Gay people can hold seminars and educate the public. There are many people who still think that pedophilia is a Homosexual thing. They could not be more wrong.

I’m going to share something with you Mathew that I have not done so with anyone else. Maybe one day I will do a post on it. I am adopted that you know by having read my blog. My Father that is the one who adopted me is Gay. He has been in the closet all his life. My mother totally dominates him and he is a very gentle man. I couldn’t love him more. When I was growing up he did everything a straight father does. He took me to ball games; he enrolled me in sports and so on. I don’t feel that I have suffered by having a Gay father on the contrary. I think I have benefited.

I am just sad that my father never found the courage to leave my mother and pursue what comes natural to him.

I don’t know how to do the link back to a post thing. But in my blog I wrote a post about crazy parents. I talk a little about them there, although I don’t reveal my father’s sexual preference. Read it if you find the time.