Hello Bunglehorn,

I was so glad to hear of your patient’s awkward position with his friends. Clearly, all of them are supportive of the gay couple’s decision to adopt a child. I know your patient is wrestling over this issue, so do your best to convince him it is a good idea.

You can start by showing him the strikes against Catholic Charities, and by proxy, the out-of-touch Catholic Church. The leaders in Massachusetts effectively put Catholic Charities out of the adoption business, despite a century of adoption services in that state. John Garvey, dean of the Boston College Law School, eloquently explains how our fight for equality is railroading religious liberty:

The issue is not whether the Church or the state has the better of the debate over gay families. When freedom is at stake, the issue is never whether the claimant is right. Freedom of the press protects publication of pornography, blasphemy, and personal attacks. Freedom of religion is above all else a protection for ways of life that society views with skepticism or distaste.

Respect for religious liberty is a good thing. We should not lose sight of it in an effort to achieve other social goals. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of equality can be a vice.
John Garvey

Fear not, these voices are drowned out amid emotional pleas for equality! We are winning, the trend is continuing. The British Parliament is forcing the same issue on UK Catholic Charities because they will not assist same sex couple with adoption. Your patient may find these developments surprising. After all, forcing the religious to do something they find morally objectionable does grate against the sensibilities of reasonable people. Ahh, the fools. Don’t they know our beloved “Separation of Church and State” is a one-way street? We want religion out of the public square, but we won’t hesitate to legislate religion when we get the chance!

Our opponents consider this an unnecessary law and I suppose they’re right. Legislative bodies generally obstruct behavior by forcing behavior (or they’ll force one behavior by obstructing another). Besides, if there is a market for gay adoption services, it would thrive. Unfortunately, it’s a relatively rare scenario, even as gay adoptions are on the rise. No, it is best we dress the issue as a civil rights matter, sidestep the overwhelming public opposition and pick our battles in court.

You see, our agenda isn’t about helping a few same sex couples deal with their special challenges in raising a child, it is about changing the norm in order legitimize the gay lifestyle. To this end, we’re mounting a three stage attack against the family:

Step 1. Legitimize Same Sex Parenting

This first step is the easiest. Most people never consider the value of gender and the unique contribution of a mother and a father to the development of a child. They do see children abused, molested and discarded in the media, so they’re very open to ANYONE who would actually care for a child. After all, so many people are touched by divorce, remarriage, single parenthood and being raised by someone other than a biological parent, it’s easy for people to conclude there is no need for a traditional family where the biological mother and biological father are married.

It is true that same sex couples are capable of being good parents. Studies show same sex parents tend to be well educated and have higher income. Of course, critics of same sex parenting are not saying that gay couple cannot be good parents, nor are they dismantling the healthy relationships children have with their gay parents. Their argument is simply that traditional parenting is ideal for child rearing. That is all fine and well, just repeat the strawman and insist that gay couples can be good parents.

Also, play the homophobe angle. It doesn’t matter that children of homosexual parents are more likely to be supportive of same sex issues. Even as science continually finds that same sex attraction is impacted by environment, don’t be thwarted by evidence that children of same sex parents have a higher proclivity to being gay. Rather than acknowledge this point straightaway, remind your patient another fact: homosexuals are largely the byproduct of a heterosexual marriage. This tactic renders the point moot, upon which the critic will either conceed in ambivalence (“homosexuality is natural and normal”) or abandon the point in frustration.

You can also appeal to your patient’s sense of care for children. Suggest extreme “either/or” scenarios such as: “Would an abandoned child be best served by a foreign orphanage or a broken foster care system? Or in the arms of a loving lesbian couple?” When faced with extreme choices, and oblivious to the false dichotomy, he’ll almost certainly conclude there is nothing wrong with same sex parenting.

Step 2: Legitimize Same Sex Marriage

As people come to accept gay parenthood, not as the rarity it truly is, but as commonplace, they’ll logically accept gay marriage as a legitimate form of child rearing. As a family friendly gay marriage schema seeps into the public consciousness, the notion of a promiscuous gay lifestyle will recede back into the shadows.

Step 3: Legitimize Gay Lifestyle

There is a distinction between same sex attraction and gay lifestyle. The irony in blasting Catholic Charities is that the Enemy’s Church distinguishes between the person and their behavior. You’ve heard the phrase “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” Same sex attraction per-say is not sinful, rather the decision to actively respond to the attraction is a sin. The Enemy calls on man to be chaste and seek self-mastery of sexual desires. Easier said than done, but it’s obviously possible.

One last thing. when arguing same sex issues, launching an ad hominem attack is perfectly permissible. When one questions the gay lifestyle, even with compassion and reason, it is quite fashionable to outflank the critic and label him a bigot or a homophobe or my personal favorite, a closet homosexual. If that is too obvious a diversion, it is common to resort to the “fascist” or “Nazi” label and accuse the critic of suppressing individual rights. The point being, lest your patient wishes to invite unjust reactive personal attacks, remind him to hold his tongue. It’s just not worth it.

Sincerely Yours,
Wigglebrick

The Vault

Browse this site by Topic, by Title or by Date.