As one of the (many) reasons that gay marriage should not be sanctioned, I have heard the following argument. "There are many of our Heavenly Father's spirit children waiting to come down to this Earth to receive a body. I want to help them in this wonderful plan that God has made for us. I can do that by providing bodies for them (ie, having children of my own). Gay couples cannot reproduce, so they cannot contribute to this wonderful part of God's plan of bringing spirit children down here to Earth to get a physical body." This post is my reply to that argument.
First, I ask a question to one who would propose this argument. I ask, what is your motivation in providing physical bodies for these spirit children? Is it greed, because you expect to receive some reward from God for doing His will? As far as I can tell, the answer most would give to this question is "no". Then, is it out of a sense of duty? (You feel that you owe it to God to do what He says.) I would say that perhaps some would reply affirmatively here, but still most would say "no". Is it, then, a truly altruistic motive? Are you truly concerned with the welfare of the spirit children of your Heavenly Father? I will continue with my argument under the assumption that your answer to this question is "yes". I will assume that you truly just want to help His children along their path back to live with Him in the Celestial Kingdom.
Now, you have posed to me that one of the ways you can help these spirit children is by bringing them down to this Earth and giving them physical bodies (via copulation). I will not contend the point that, according to the Plan of Salvation as presented by the LDS church, each spirit child of God needs a physical body, nor will I contend the veracity of this doctrine. For the sake of the argument, I will assume that the Plan of Salvation is true and therefore each spirit does need a body (except the 1/3 who were cast out). But, the question I will now ask you is this: Why do you need to be the one who will provide a body for those spirits? That is, why does it have to be your own biological child? There are so many spirit children of your Heavenly Father who are here on this Earth who already have a physical body (so that part of their progression back to God is complete) but who do not have homes or parents. Our orphanages have so many children in them, children who need a loving mother and father. If you really, truly cared about all of Heavenly Father's spirit children, then why do you not care about these children? Will you turn your face away from them, pretending that they do not exist and that you have no place in helping them, in providing a loving, caring home for them? If you have your own biological children, then you need not concern yourself with the welfare of those who are parentless? These seems more stoic and unfeeling than altruistic, as you have presented yourself to be.
So, here, finally, is my rebuttal to your argument. You are straight. You can marry the person you love and copulate with them. You can have your own biological children. If that's really what you want, I honestly have no problem with that in the slightest. But, I am gay. If I marry a person with whom I can copulate, then it will be someone to whom I am not sexually attracted, and therefore I believe my marriage to that person (woman) will be less than what a marriage should be. Why not let me marry the man that I love and let the two of us (as husbands) adopt one or more of these children who are in an orphanage, children who already have a physical body but need a loving home in which to be nurtured, so they can have a bright future? If you really, truly cared about all of God's spirit children, would you not want to provide more ways of allowing loving parents to adopt, rather than trying to limit the possibilities? Do you really want to increase the number of children in orphanages? Or do you want to decrease that number? Do you disagree with me that allowing gay couples to adopt would help decrease this burden that our world has in orphanages? This is my rebuttal. And, I really do want honest answers to any and all of the questions I have asked in this post.
Hey Keith. I haven't been following your blog closely, but I've read your comments about false dichotomies in other posts and was surprised to see one here. That dichotomy, of course, is that one can either have their own children biologically, which will cause them to leave orphans to languish in despair or one can sanction gay marriage and adoption.
ReplyDeleteLet me start my response with this premise: the best environment for a child is in a home with his biological parents, who have committed before God and the community to provide a safe home and to be faithful to each other. If this was the norm in society, the large bulk of the problem you present is solved. Therefore, it follows that to undermine this principle is to increase the numbers of abandoned, fatherless, mistreated children.
So step one, restore the tradition of chastity before marriage and fidelity after.
Step two, we have a responsibility to care for each other. Having biological children does not preclude one from adopting other children. I know very many people who have done or are attempting to do this. Many friends have spent tens of thousands of dollars adopting orphans from all over the world and caring for them in the midst of their own children; indeed, they ARE their own children. In addition to those who are able to have children, many infertile couples fill this valuable need. Many families do not have the opportunity to adopt in spite of being fit or financially able; the waiting lists are long.
So it is not a requirement for me to sanction gay marriage in order to care for God's children. It is my obligation to do what I can to ensure my own family is cared for (step one) and to take care of others as much as possible (step two). This doesn't require me to endorse homosexual unions. In fact, to do so would violate the principle of mixed-gender marriage that tradition, biology, and teleology support. Greater good could be done by working to lower the costs, decrease onerous bureaucracy, and help couples bring these children home.
You ask why I need to be the one to provide a body for these spirits. I know you're estranged from LDS theology, but read Lectures on Faith or the Pearl of Great Price. Read about the Patriarchal Priesthood. Fatherhood and motherhood are part of the plan. It is what our bodies were designed to do. The unnatural, disordered thing to do is NOT have children of one's own. Complementary to this, it is unnatural and disordered to neglect any child who is not cared for or protected in a home.
It's immoral to propagate an error. I sincerely believe that endorsing homosexual behavior is harmful to society. (We obviously disagree on this point.) It would be wrong for me to sanction one wrong in an attempt to eliminate another wrong for which solutions already exist.
Seriously, Zach? You're putting words in my mouth. I never said "either sanction gay marriage or oppress children in orphanages". I said that using the argument of "creating children is part of God's plan of happiness" to oppose gay marriage is invalid because there are ways that gay couples can help fulfill God's plan of raising children in a loving home.
ReplyDeleteI do not contend your point that the optimal environment for a child is to be raised by his/her biological parents. I never claimed otherwise. Of course, I don't have any evidence to support that claim and so far, you haven't provided any. But I do not contend it. The point is: there are children in orphanages. Do you believe that it would be better for them to stay in those orphanages or to be adopted by a gay couple who is willing to adopt them and provide a loving environment for them to be raised in? Yes, there are other options. I'm not saying these are the only two available. I'm only saying that if gay couples are allowed to adopt, then they could help decrease the burden that is currently on orphanages.
Now, your final point "it is immoral to propagate an error", that's a completely different argument. I'm willing to argue with you about other points of why gay marriage should or shouldn't be allowed. But the point of this particular post was merely to refute the one argument given about how gay couples are infertile. Whether homosexuality is moral or immoral is a separate question. Yes, it's part of the gay marriage debate, but I'm not addressing the whole debate here, only this one particular point.
Also, I think you should be the one reading Lectures on Faith. Then you might wake up to the fact that Joseph Smith taught that God is a body of spirit alone and has no physical body. Go ahead and explain how the church gets around that one.