Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Est-ce que tu m'entends ?

Oops, in deleting some drafts, I deleted my last post. Good thing it wasn't a superb post.

I do want to repeat the ending sentiment, though.

If there is one thing I wish those opposed to gay marriage would sit down and sincerely and meekly consider, it would be this: Is it truly best that an orphan be denied opportunities of permanent, loving, caring, and safe homes just because these homes are created by homosexual couples? Is this truly the most merciful and compassionate option for the world's homeless children?

Imagine the good that could be done! Imagine what would happen if we started to encourage gay couples to get married and adopt children. (Note: I said encourage not shame or guilt... I don't think anyone who doesn't want to raise children should raise children--anyone.) Imagine how many homes would open up. Imagine how many children would finally have a family--which children may never have had the chance otherwise.

Unfortunately, what flashes through many people's minds is some depraved world where morals are passé and lust pours down the streets.

I really don't understand this. I mean, even if you believe that the ideal family is composed of a man, his wife, and their children, a man, his husband, and their children or a woman, her wife, and their children is better than no family at all... right?

Even if this means, "More people will live open homosexual lives," it would also, therefore, mean, "More homes would open up for children who need homes."

And, you know know what: sure, people will start to think that it's okay to get married to someone of the same sex and create a family with him/her... is that truly not okay? Me, I think it's not just okay, it's fabulous!

To Latter-day Saints, it does get a little trickier. According to their doctrine, these families couldn't be eternal. But, again, a temporal family is better than no family in this mortal life at all... right?

tangent thought
Now, of course, not all gay couples who will have children are going to adopt.

I'll be completely honest, I'm rather opposed to creating biological children when biological children cannot be created by the couple, itself.

Don't get me wrong, though; I'd never fight against people who do this. I'd never think less of anyone who uses surrogacy. I'd never try to stop anyone from doing this--
ever. And I would completely share the joy of my friends who create biological children via surrogation [sic].

tangent thought ii
Sure, there will be some people who marry those of the same sex, even though they aren't gay--for benefits or visas or what-not. It'll happen. I am sure of it--I have no doubt... because heterosexual marriage is used for such purposes all the time.

But to deny something that could be used for a great purpose--creating homes for the homeless--just because a small percentage will abuse it... well, it's ludicrous.

tangent thought iii
Some may say that adopting a child to a gay couple robs that child of the possibility to be adopted by a straight couple. Perhaps it does... but is this not a risk we should be willing to take (again, I'm working within the framework that an ideal family is man+woman+kids)? After all, it's not like that's the only child a straight couple could adopt (there are far too many children who need homes).

I would parallel such with a woman who vitally needs a kidney transplant. (I don't know if it's true or not, but let's at least pretend that an ideal kidney is a kidney from a close relative.) She has an identical twin sister... but they had a falling-out many years ago, and she doesn't know where her sister is or how to find out (or even if her sister would donate a kidney even if there was a reunion).

After a few weeks of searching with no luck, a possible kidney donor is found. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would probably be sufficient. Should this woman take the non-ideal possibility or should she deny it (the donation could go to another) until she finds her twin sister?


  1. Andrew, seriously, put those tangent thoughts in regular font size.

    They're fabulous.

    I, too, have argued the same: Even if you don't believe it's ideal, isn't it better than the alternative?

    People continue to fight. It's headache worthy.

    And we have other systems in use that are meant for the greater good but which are abused. Why do we have them?

    Because we want to give people the benefit of the doubt.

    Because the need is greater than the small number of idiots who will abuse it.

    I totally agree with you.

  2. Andrew, seriously, put those tangent thoughts in regular font size.

    They're fabulous.

    Being 5'5", I have a personal bias that fabulous things come in smaller fonts ;).

    People continue to fight. It's headache worthy.

    Oh, so headache worthy... I really don't get it. Well, I do. When God says, it must be for the best...

  3. You're 5'5"? Awesome. I'm 5'1"

    High five.

    Well, I do. When God says, it must be for the best...

    Yeah. I'm starting to think that's not what's happenin'