I read an article about same sex adoption in Louisiana, and how the state was being essentially forced into recognizing adoptions by homosexual couples. Since reading that article I have thought about the differences between men and women. How have the genders been designed differently from each other, and why?
God created men and women to be different specifically for the parenting roles. Women tend to be nurturers. Men tend to be disciplinarians. Now, that is not to say a man cannot nurture at all, or is always a good disciplinarian, or that all women are good nurturers, or cannot be an efficient and effective disciplinarian. But, the tendency to nurture, or to be a disciplinarian, is for the most part, gender specific.
I used to tell my wife regarding our son, when she'd be upset over my disciplining him, that our son didn't need two mothers. I needed to be his father. It takes a man to teach a boy to become a man. After all, it is a man that has gone through the process before, not a woman. In the male world, for example, there is a pecking order that women will never understand, just like there are things about being a woman that men cannot understand. There is a striving by sons to gain the pride of their father, a hope to earn his respect. There are a number of tendencies in men that are very different from tendencies in women.
On the same token, a girl needs her mother to become a woman, and it takes a mother to undertand the emotional difficulties the girl may encounter.
Now this is not to say that girls don't need their father, or sons don't need their mothers. Each parent has a very specific and important role in the raising of children, and in the environment that is presented to them that will help shape their understanding of their roles in society, and in their own families that they have when they become older.
Imagine a child raised by two parents of the same sex. Is it possible that the child will come out of that situation well rounded and able to function in society? Absolutely. But the liklihood of that child to have problems rises. Studies have shown, despite the findings of some liberal studies, that a child is more likely to become gay if raised by homosexuals.
That would make sense when applied with psychology, wouldn't it liberals? I don't agree with all aspects of psychology, but one that I do agree with is that environments play a significant role in the shaping of a person's tendencies. It also lends more evidence to the idea that in the end, homosexuality is really just a behavioral choice.
If someone has an inclination to be gay, the choice to stay away fom such a dangerous lifestyle becomes more difficult. I understand that. But because that behavioral inclination is present, it doesn't make the behavior a good one. If someone is born a cleptomaniac, it doesn't mean the person should hang around with a bunch of crooks, or that stealing is acceptable because they were born that way. We wouldn't want a person like that, in fact, hanging out with a bunch of thieves, because the environment will bring out that behavior even more. Likewise, children do not need to be in the environment of the gay lifestyle. It creates confusion, and encourages immoral behavior.
When these children are being raised in these same sex environements the child becomes confused regarding what their roles in society should be, or how to become what they should naturally become. Naturally, men tend to be a little more aggressive. Little boys tend to play with cars running them rough along the floor as girls nurture their dolls. But in an environment where both parents are of the same sex, the child will only get one perspective. Girls will not receive the nurturing they need from a mother that they will emulate later as a mother. They will not be understood by two male parents when their hormones begin to get out of whack as the age of menstruation approaches. And she will not receive the image of a father figure, or receive the discipline a father has to offer, to shape her values and sense of responsibility should both of her parents be female.
A boy raised by two women would be disastrous because there will be nobody there to teach him the importance of the role of a man. Boys raised by two men, of course, would not receive the nurturing of a mother, or ever understand the importance of certain sensitivities they would receive from their mom.
There are certain communities where the fatherless rate is very high, and a mother alone raises the children. I applaud these mothers for their determination to do what they can to ensure their children are still raised properly. These single parents, be they mothers or fathers, are courageous, and deserve every ounce of our respect. But out of these single parent environments we see a lower number of well rounded citizens being produced. Statistics show that more often than not a fatherless family will produce children who have criminal tendencies, or are unable to adjust to the rigors of life. The same goes for families where there is a motherless environment. So, wouldn't the same be true in a same sex family where a child is either fatherless, or motherless - but in this case gets a double dose of the other?
Same sex adoption is not only wrong for the reasons outlined from a moral standpoint, but bringing children into society raised in an environment where they do not receive all of the tools from parents of each gender can create a dangerous combination for our society. Children raised in such an environment may be one of the many detrimental causes, and symptoms, of a decaying, and eventually destroyed, society.
I can hear the liberal left now, proclaiming that based on what I have written I must believe that all women should be barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen, and of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. My wife, for example, has worked for a couple companies a number of years during our marriage, and she has five college degrees. But on the same token, understanding the importance of parental roles, she ensured she worked when the children were in school, or early on in our marriage the childcare provided was by family. As the children got older, she decided to become a stay-at-home-mom because her children were more important to her than her career, at that point. Now that the kids are grown, she is toying with the idea of returning to the workforce, though she thoroughly enjoys watching our grandson twice per week, and is not sure if she is ready to give that up just yet.
She is a modern woman that chose to be their for her children. That is what she felt was the right thing to do.
Perhaps that is where we are in the most danger as a society. When right and wrong has no meaning, and principles and standards are relativistic or pluralistic, society crumbles in upon itself because it is unable to determine the right thing to do when crisis arrives.
Sometimes, doing the right thing can be very difficult. But for the sake of our society, doing the right thing is necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment