The Catholic Church has approved a position that adoption of children by gays does violence to those children. Blogger Joel Fuhrmann said he agrees that it does. I asked Joel if he were claiming that gays were violent toward children they would adopt. He said he wasn’t, that he and the Church were using the term “violent” in terms of harm in their development and growth rather than physical or emotional abuse. I nevertheless protested that he and the Catholic Church are using the term “violence” in a way that is not the ordinary meaning of the word. I then suggested that if he considers gays adopting children as doing violence to them, that it would be fair for me to suggest that those who oppose gays in the military, as Joel does, are doing violence to gays. He deleted my comment as “slander” (sic) against him.
These are contentious times. Without a doubt, the fact that I’ve never been on friendly terms with Joel factors into the equation and my own rhetoric can be too intense on this particular issue. As well, both my strong defensiveness toward my gay brother and the insults he has endured come into play. My intent, however, was to demonstrate to Joel how extremely hurtful much of the rhetoric aimed against gays has been. I am not offended by his belief that homosexuality is a sin. However, I believe that the way he expressed his disdain for homosexuality precludes many opportunities for reconciliation and marginalizes gays from both church and society. For that I make no apology.
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Wood 04.28.05 at 12:57 pm
I think that when one denies the humanity or essential morality of the people you’re criticising or slandering, it doesn’t in your book count to slander them; when something quite considerably milder is levelled back at you, you don’t recognise it as the same thing.
Having had a similar run-in with this guy some time ago, I think that he’s very much guilty of this fundamental double-standard. There is no point being thin-skinned if you want to dish it out.
DH 04.28.05 at 7:44 pm
While I agree that homosexuals shouldn’t adopt. I’m not going to say they shouldn’t be in the military under the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. Joel went overboard on not supporting gays in the military at all and in using the term “violence”. In my opinion it is a “form” of violence, I still wouldn’t choose those particular words and Joel needed to tone it down a bit on his post. I think that is the main point you are trying to state. If so, I agree with you. Have a wonderful day in the Lord, Richard.
Joel Fuhrmann 04.28.05 at 8:25 pm
My original post didn’t mention either the word “violence” or the issue of gays in the military. It was post complimentary of the Catholic church’s election of Pope Benedict XVI. The issue of “violence” and the military were brought up by Joel Thomas in his disagreement with my point of view. I also did not use the word “violence” in my first response, but rather included a link to the Vatican statement which uses the word, and clarifies its meaning within the same sentence. The only way a person could misinterpret the statement to imply an endorsement of “gay-bashing” would be to stop reading at the comma, or not read the statement at all.
Joel, it would have been very helpful to trackback to my post.
Joel Fuhrmann 04.28.05 at 8:32 pm
I stand corrected. I did literally use the word “violence” in my first response, but again, it was in reference to its use in the Vatican paper where the Church’s position is clarified in the very same sentence where it is used. To claim misunderstanding based on it being a non-standard meaning is disingenuous.
And to address the issue of gays in the military, there are arguments against that which are in no way based on hatred of gays, the simplest which I can think of right now is simply: it just won’t work. (and actually, wouldn’t it be less violent to stay out of the military - or is it actually safer to be a civilian nowadays?)
DH 04.29.05 at 4:45 pm
Joel, thanks for your clarification. I agree with you. You explained your use of the definition. This totally puts me on your side. This was all semantics. I understand how the “other side” gets so bent out of shape. It seems multiple definitions of a word is not understood by them. Especially in light of our apparent agreements.
Keep going on for Christ. Your fellow brother, DH 
P.S. I still think the “don’t ask don’t tell policy” is a great balance on the issue of gays in the military. BTW, Your last parenthetical sentence was funny.
You win!!!!!
larry p 04.29.05 at 5:22 pm
So let me get this straight. The two middle-aged lesbians in my congregation who adopted two third-world orphans have done more damage to their children’s lives than would have been done had the children remained homeless street urchins? Is that what the Catholic church is saying?
If so, I guess they have a much different interpretation of “Feed my sheep” than I do.
Joel Thomas 04.30.05 at 3:39 am
Joel,
I haven’t figured out how Richard’s trackback system works. The couple of times I thought I followed the instructions it totally didn’t work. Guess I’ll have to get a tutoring from Richard.
Joel Thomas 04.30.05 at 6:36 am
DH,
The only thing about the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is that it didn’t work. Discharges for homosexuality actually increased significantly in the years after the policy was adopted.
Richard 04.30.05 at 8:05 am
I’m afraid to say that I haven’t been able to get trackback to work reliably Joel. When I want to be certain of sending a trackback, I use Simpletrack (listed on the sidebar under Useful Blog tools)
DH 05.05.05 at 8:16 pm
The term “feed my sheep” is more than the physical. To Joel, It may not have worked but we need to ask why? We also need to understand what “worked” means. Weren’t they the ones that violated the military law that was inacted for them so they can stay in the military? To me the policy is fair and allows for gays to be in the military without stepping on anyones toes. If people choose to “speak up” that is a whole nother issue besides the point.
Caley 11.14.05 at 10:00 pm
HOw could a gay couple wanted to love an dnurture a child who desperatley wants a home posibly inflict violence towards them? I think that is a propostrous idea. What a suggestion!! I may only be 15 but I think very highly and speak out for gay rights. Basically, i believe the way people talk about gay people make them sound liek aliens. ’same rights as any human being’ why not ‘the same rights as everyone else on this planet, let them fit in, dont discourage the poor different people. Its ridiculous. Gay men are our fathers, our brothers, uncles, grandads…. if you cant accept someone you love, or someone who is the same as everyother person. I have so many gay friends, i dont treat them differently, unless they ask me too. Its simple, let them get married, let them adopt, let them LIVE.
Jennifer 08.01.06 at 7:48 am
Brothers and uncles, maybe, but do you know anyone with a gay grandad?
Every child adopted by homosexuals either a) doesn’t have a mother, or else, b) doesn’t have a father. In any other context, we’d find that deeply sad.
Beth 08.01.06 at 12:12 pm
Oh, hell, I really don’t want to have this conversation again…
Jennifer:
a) they have two parents, which is the important thing
b) why is it sad? I come from a single parent family, and I can tell you I’m far better off than if my parents had stayed together.
Yes, if a child has no mother or father because that parent has died, that is terribly sad. But a child growing up with two loving parents is a lucky child. Studies do not show that a child of two fathers or mothers is at any disadvantage. Your attitude is homophobia hiding behind concern for child welfare, which is frankly just cheap.
DH 08.01.06 at 2:54 pm
I just don’t think any child should live in an environment where the promotion of sin is going on.
Katie 02.13.07 at 7:09 pm
Firstly, let me address the promotion of sin ……… I am not a religious person and I am a lesbian however I do respect the rights of others to hold beliefs which are true to them, what I struggle with is the blatent picking and chosing of sections of the bible (or any other religious text for that matter) in order to perpetuate the persecution of sections of society which hold different views. I accept that the bible states that it is an abomination for man to lie with man, it however also hands down that it is a sin to wear cloth woven from two diffferent fibres, or to grow different crops in the same field. My point is that the world changes over time and, on religious grounds at least, we should no sooner discriminate against gay men, lesbians and bisexual people than those wearing sweatshirt made of cotton polyester blend.
On the subject of adoption, I have spent a portion of my proffessional life working with teenagers who identify as lesbian, gay and bisexual. I have witness first hand children as young as 14 living in tents on waste land because they have been cast out of their family home, 16 year olds having fire bombs posted through their letter boxes and hospitalised by gay-bashers (who on occassion have been their own fathers and brothers), I have spent hours in the middle of the night talking a 17 year old girl out of taking her own life, all of these things are due entirely to ignorance and homophobia and everyone of the children mentioned above had married, heterosexual parents, they were from ‘good’ families (whatever that means).
These are real children. These are children who have not been given the chance to discover who they are for themselves. This is the real face of prejudice. My point is that homophobia does much more damage than adoption by gay couples in stable loving relationships ever could, and by perpetuating homophobia the Catholic Church is perpetuating this kind of physical and emotional abuse of children.
I do have an opinion on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ in the milatary but i will keep it short as this post is quite long already. The impact on a persons mental health of being forced to hide an important part of their identity for fear of physical violence or dissmissal is significant. This policy is fueled by prejudice and to severly damage the health of one group of individuals in order to prevent another group from feeling ‘uneasy’ is a disgrace and clearly shows up the extent of mindless inequality within our society.
DH 02.14.07 at 3:27 pm
Katie it isn’t a “picking and choosing of Scripture” in the NT not just the OT it addresses these issues Romans 1, 1 Cor 6, etc. This isn’t prejudice or anything like that and it isn’t “picking and choosing Scripture when it is under the NT the NEW COVENANT that Scripture says these things. It is therefore NOT homophobia or anything like it. As I have stated, I love all people including homosexuals in the Lord. I even have the same for you Katie but love and condoning of behavior are two different things. Love doesn’t necessarily require people to condone ALL behavior of people. I also not like some who single out just one behavior. I say the same for all behaviors that go against Scripture and I love them just like Christ loves them.
I also agree with you just as strongly that these things you mention ” have witness first hand children as young as 14 living in tents on waste land because they have been cast out of their family home, 16 year olds having fire bombs posted through their letter boxes and hospitalised by gay-bashers (who on occassion have been their own fathers and brothers), I have spent hours in the middle of the night talking a 17 year old girl out of taking her own life.” the people who do these things terrible acts against gays should be prosecuted under the full course of the law. However, this type of persecution is different than adoption. I believe adoption is a previledge and I just don’t think gays should be allowed to adopt in that it promotes immoral behavior. That isn’t to say that they people themselves are immoral but the actions commited are. There is a difference.
As you can see I’m not homophobic. Your fight against people who ” have witness first hand children as young as 14 living in tents on waste land because they have been cast out of their family home, 16 year olds having fire bombs posted through their letter boxes and hospitalised by gay-bashers (who on occassion have been their own fathers and brothers), I have spent hours in the middle of the night talking a 17 year old girl out of taking her own life” I support and stand by you in that. However, other things like adoption, marriage and the like are seperate from the above physical and emotional violence against gays and lesbians.
I hope you can at least see the balance I have and not go “over-the-top” against me on this subject. Please don’t make this a “zero-sum-game”. I have had friends who are homosexual, who knew that I didn’t approve of their behavior but yet they knew I cared about them as well as they for me. We are all created in God’s image but we all make mistakes and those mistakes are wrong. However, those mistakes commited doesn’t change that we are created in His image. Our sin seperates us from God even though we are created in His image.
Change for change sake is not always for the good and one must look at both OT AND NT to show the consistency against sin that is apparent in both. Your examples of “cloth and farming” don’t fall into that category and so is fallacious. My example are shown in not just OT but also NT.
Hazel 10.16.07 at 9:54 am
Although i am only 14 i have strong views about this subject, i am against homosexual adoption but, i believe we have no place to say what homosexuals can or cannot do, they still have rights all the same.
dh 10.16.07 at 4:10 pm
Hazel, I don’t want to give you the impression that I don’t believe homosexuals have rights for I believe they do. I just don’t believe they should have the right to get married and should not have the right to adopt. Being against these particular rights doesn’t mean I’m “homophobic” or that I don’t believe homosexuals should have rights because that is not this case from my end. Support or lack of support for these issues are not mutually-exclusive.
My point was to address Katie’s blatant overgeneralization implied that being against adoption means that I’m for fire bombing, etc. It is this type of stereotypical/overgenerlization that overpolarizes people unecessarily. I believe people need to reread my previous posting to get a true understanding of what I believe with regard to these issues.
dh 10.16.07 at 4:12 pm
Violence against homosexuals is never right. However, being against homosexual behavior, against homosexual adoption and homosexual marriage is seperate from that.