Early in my Journal, I wrote often about our adoption process. When I made my first post, we were a week away from submitting our application, and we're just now getting our seminar scheduled before we move on to our home study, so it's been on my mind often. We're in a little bit of a waiting phase, but something else has brought my attention strongly back to the subject.
While discussing Prop 8 and DOMA with friends, one of the age-old arguments against homosexuality was brought up. It centers around the idea of an "unproductive" relationship, one that doesn't procreate. Of course, the argument states that the reason for romantic relationships is procreation through sex, and a homosexual relationship has no chance of reaching this goal. There are plenty of rebuttals to this argument, some involving an "overpopulated" planet, or at least one where humans aren't struggling to survive as a species anymore. Others boil the issue down to biological processes, that while those processes evolved to meet the needs of a growing species, "survival of the fittest" is no longer a significant factor in human survival.
Either side may be logically correct here, but it's something else entirely that cuts to my core. If a homosexual marriage is wrong just because they procreate, then how can my marriage be right?
I've told the story before, but in short, I have a fertility issue. My wife would probably tell you that "we" have a fertility issue, but according to the medical tests it's all on me. Something went wrong to the point where I have little-to-no chance of becoming a biological father. Sure, we could spend tens of thousands of dollars to let the doctor try to help, but even that would put us against tough odds. When it comes down to it, I am the causing factor of an "unproductive" marriage.
In the older days (even currently, to an extent), there was an assumption that women were the cause of all fertility issues. It's unfortunate and unfair. In the early days of the bible, stories were told about the Father of Nations sleeping with his wife's maid (on his wife's suggestion), because he hadn't conceived a child with his wife. Even Hebrew kings often had multiple wives, and the ones who didn't bear children were usually disgraced. The more medicine has explored the world of infertility, the more we've understood that the issue isn't gender specific at all! In fact, the current estimates indicate that about 1/3 of infertility is caused by the male, 1/3 by the female, and 1/3 by a joint issue.
In my infertility journey, I've come to empathize with the women who have taken the short end of this stick over the ages. First of all, I don't agree with placing blame on people for their medical issues, but more importantly, I hate that women have taken near 100% of the "blame" when only 1/3 of the time it was actually their "fault!" I'm amazed at the character of women, who sat quietly submissive, showing themselves as the bigger person over and over again while the world put them down. It adds a new level of respect for the gender as a whole.
Now, I see my struggle with infertility projected on the gay community. People proclaiming that because they can't have a biological child with the love of their life, their relationship is unimportant. Irrelevant. Wrong.
During our pursuits of adoption, we've taken interest in the adoption stories of others. Some of these involve same-sex adoptive parents. We've learned that our adoption agency, and many other faith based agencies, do not accept same-sex couples into their program. Maybe they see this issue similar to adopting out to active alcoholics or drug users, or maybe something like adopting out to a couple in which one spouse is always in and out of prison. They view any of these as a lifestyle of sin, and they decide it isn't a healthy place to raise a child. But there's a problem with this perspective.
These other issues keep a parent from spending quality time with their child, or even put the child in harm's way. Abusive alcoholics may cause harm to their child. Drug addicts can lose their sobriety and become neglectful. An imprisoned parent won't have time to spend with their child. But being gay doesn't reduce the effectiveness of a parent, does it?
For the sake of argument, let's just assume that it is a sin (see previous posts for my opinion on this subject). Any parent is imperfect. I know I have my flaws, and I shudder to think that my flaws will somehow rub off on my children. But I know they will, because that's part of parenting. I can try to be perfect every day, but my bad habits, my screw ups, and my bad days will be noticed by my kids, and they will cause my children some amount of pain. Unfortunately, this is true for every parent in the world.
So how do you choose who is good enough? Do you draw a line in the sand and exclude anyone who crosses it? Or do you write in the sand as Jesus did, standing up for people like me, screw ups and all?
From my experiences, I believe that any couple who is willing to spend the time, money, and emotional energy to pursue adoption will be an amazing parent regardless of their flaws. We will remember the sacrifices we made to become a parent. We will remember the months, even years, of waiting for all the puzzle pieces to fall into place. We will remember the nights we cried, because that child was not yet in our arms. And more days than not, we will channel those memories into the well being of our children.
Yet the line in the sand causes so many same-sex couples pursue adoption with a lawyer instead of an agency. It's harder, the wait is longer, and the finances are much riskier, but it's the only way to reach their dreams. We push these people aside, making them fend for themselves as they pursue their dreams. And we do it all because of who they love.
As the causing member of an "unproductive" marriage, this hurts me. And I hope it changes soon.
Always moving forward,
Tyler
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
A Public Apology to Anyone
During the last few weeks, there's been a lot of talk around the country regarding the rights, status, and morality of a particular group of people. I wrote about this topic recently, and it spurred even more discussion.
Some of these discussions were very fruitful, involving 2 or more people who just wanted to understand each other. No arguing, no blaming, just talk. I was even pleasantly surprised that an old friend used the topic to ask for some personal advice about a difficult situation. I don't know how helpful I was in answering their questions, but I was glad to know that we shared a respect that led us toward mutual edification, even in light of our differing beliefs.
I love to be a part of discussions like this. It makes me feel like I'm part of something bigger than myself. Like I'm not just an individual living life for myself. It makes me feel like I'm part of a movement. And when those movements meet my ideology (whether biblical, ethical, or political), it feels like the most important movement in the world.
But I have a problem. In the same way an addict seeks the next thrill, I have a tendency to seek out the next big movement and make myself a part of it. While there's nothing wrong with being part of an important movement, pushing yourself into a movement before you fully understand its direction can be detrimental.
I've never been a part of a picketing or rioting event, but I tend to lobby through my words. That's quite obvious in this setting, but I also gravitate toward message boards or facebook discussions, and lately I've spent a lot of time in the latter.
In the past, I've been so drawn into discussions on a topic that I wrote solely out of emotion. That's not to say that emotion in writing is bad (quite the opposite!), but to exclude the logical or faithful side of your thoughts is to leave yourself with empty rhetoric or worse. In some cases I found myself wanting to push the envelope so badly that I found myself arguing points that even I didn't believe.
In the last couple of weeks, I think I made a similar mistake. To be clear, my post entitled Coming Out remains valid. I also defend the points I made in online discussions during the next few days. But the way I expressed them was wrong.
The more I wrote and read about whether the lifestyles of a particular group were right or wrong, the dirtier I felt for discussing this issue so publicly.
I believe that issues such as prejudice and equality should be brought to the public, but I think I crossed a line. I was spending less time defending the rights to equal treatment and more time debating the morality of their actions. I wanted to blame my opposition as being too judgmental, but I realized that I wasn't any better. Whether I thought they were right or wrong. I was still standing in judgment of their actions, as if I held any authority to judge.
So, I hope I didn't offend anyone in my public discussions about homosexuality. If I did, I am truly sorry. I want to love my neighbor, whether they be racially, financially, geographically, or sexually different than me, and especially if they're imperfect like me. And I want to give my neighbors the respect they deserve, and a part of that respect is to observe the boundaries of friendship. I'm sorry if I crossed those boundaries.
While my actions crossed lines, I have learned that my beliefs on this topic are important. I believe I have found the heart of Christ in this issue, and I need to follow His example of loving the marginalized in my community. I think my next step is to learn how to be an activist without becoming judgmental. As always, I invite any accountability my readers have to offer.
Always moving forward,
Tyler
Some of these discussions were very fruitful, involving 2 or more people who just wanted to understand each other. No arguing, no blaming, just talk. I was even pleasantly surprised that an old friend used the topic to ask for some personal advice about a difficult situation. I don't know how helpful I was in answering their questions, but I was glad to know that we shared a respect that led us toward mutual edification, even in light of our differing beliefs.
I love to be a part of discussions like this. It makes me feel like I'm part of something bigger than myself. Like I'm not just an individual living life for myself. It makes me feel like I'm part of a movement. And when those movements meet my ideology (whether biblical, ethical, or political), it feels like the most important movement in the world.
But I have a problem. In the same way an addict seeks the next thrill, I have a tendency to seek out the next big movement and make myself a part of it. While there's nothing wrong with being part of an important movement, pushing yourself into a movement before you fully understand its direction can be detrimental.
I've never been a part of a picketing or rioting event, but I tend to lobby through my words. That's quite obvious in this setting, but I also gravitate toward message boards or facebook discussions, and lately I've spent a lot of time in the latter.
In the past, I've been so drawn into discussions on a topic that I wrote solely out of emotion. That's not to say that emotion in writing is bad (quite the opposite!), but to exclude the logical or faithful side of your thoughts is to leave yourself with empty rhetoric or worse. In some cases I found myself wanting to push the envelope so badly that I found myself arguing points that even I didn't believe.
In the last couple of weeks, I think I made a similar mistake. To be clear, my post entitled Coming Out remains valid. I also defend the points I made in online discussions during the next few days. But the way I expressed them was wrong.
The more I wrote and read about whether the lifestyles of a particular group were right or wrong, the dirtier I felt for discussing this issue so publicly.
I believe that issues such as prejudice and equality should be brought to the public, but I think I crossed a line. I was spending less time defending the rights to equal treatment and more time debating the morality of their actions. I wanted to blame my opposition as being too judgmental, but I realized that I wasn't any better. Whether I thought they were right or wrong. I was still standing in judgment of their actions, as if I held any authority to judge.
So, I hope I didn't offend anyone in my public discussions about homosexuality. If I did, I am truly sorry. I want to love my neighbor, whether they be racially, financially, geographically, or sexually different than me, and especially if they're imperfect like me. And I want to give my neighbors the respect they deserve, and a part of that respect is to observe the boundaries of friendship. I'm sorry if I crossed those boundaries.
While my actions crossed lines, I have learned that my beliefs on this topic are important. I believe I have found the heart of Christ in this issue, and I need to follow His example of loving the marginalized in my community. I think my next step is to learn how to be an activist without becoming judgmental. As always, I invite any accountability my readers have to offer.
Always moving forward,
Tyler
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Coming Out
I've hesitated to go internet public with this topic for a while now, because I don't think the internet is the best venue to debate hot topics. However, the more I've prayed about and researched this topic, the more I've realized that it's important for me to express my thoughts publicly.
I'm in support of gay marriage.
Years ago, my position on this topic was much softer. I believed the "act" of homosexuality was a sin, but I didn't feel it was right for the government to put restrictions on those who called themselves homosexuals. And the only reason I believed homosexuality was wrong was because I had heard this in a general sense from the church. I hadn't researched the topic, and I hadn't gone out in search of opposing viewpoints to inform myself. I just took it with a grain of salt and let it be.
In college, some experiences broadened my horizons (cliche, right?). Specifically, I had a dorm roommate who was gay, closely followed by two friends who came out together with their gender identity. I was suddenly faced with a very real version of this hypothetical situation.
I started to have discussions about this with people I respected for their faith and morality. On the surface, I found there were people I believed to be good, faithful, well studied Christians who believed that homosexuality was perfectly acceptable. And, of course, I found plenty of the opposing viewpoint.
Recently, with the gender identity issue coming to the forefront of our politics, I've started to dig deeper. I haven't found a clear answer, but I've found the source of the controversy.
The problem lies in the assumptions of our translations. People who translate Hebrew or ancient Greek into modern languages rely heavily on context. The rest of us tend to take the words at face value, so it's easy for us to assume an English word read in Leviticus (Hebrew) has the exact same meaning as the same English word read in Corinthians (Greek).
One of the more common assumed meanings (and one that has even made it into pop culture comedy) is the phrase "lay with" or the word "know." We've all heard jokes that someone was "known in the Biblical sense," implying a sexual relationship. But think of all the different ways the word "know" could be used! It can imply a personal relationship, book knowledge, or a wise understanding. In the same way, "lay with" isn't directly equated with sex in every instance of the word.
The translators take context not only from the verse they are translating, but also from other uses of the same Hebrew or Greek word throughout scripture. They scour the Bible for every use of that word, and they try to find a common context between them. True, a word may be associated with sex, but the context may imply something more like rape. This is the case with Hebrew words used in scripture about homosexuality, specifically Leviticus 18:22.
Unfortunately, the context isn't as cut and dry as we would like it to be, so nobody can strictly argue one specific English translation of the verse without flaw. One detailed breakdown of this verse came up with 7 possible meanings of Leviticus 18:22 based on the original Hebrew, only one of which narrows the issue down to a man having sex with a man. Others include a man raping a man or a married man having sex with a man, which I would consider wrong regardless of gender.
The issue of rape is consistent with other scriptures involving homosexuality, specifically the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. This story is often referenced as an example of homosexuality being wicked. However, this ignores a major part in the story: that the men of the town wanted to rape the angels who were staying with Lot. Even worse, Lot offered up his daughters to be raped to protect the angels. While homosexuality is involved, the clear element of rape may have been enough to condemn the cities, and supports the translation of homosexual rape in Leviticus 18:22.
The breakdown of this verse also points out the severity of Leviticus 18:22. The word we tend to translate as "abomination" is now more commonly translated as "taboo," and is used similarly in laws about mixing fabrics, Jews associating too closely with non-Jews, and other "non-mixing" laws common to that day. These customs were introduced early in Jewish history to solidify their identity, but these customs were not required of non-Jews, as Paul discussed in his letters and even argued about with Peter.
When it comes down to it, I believe that Leviticus 18:22 and other verses discussing homosexuality were intended to communicate the wickedness of rape and extra-marital sex, and foster the unique identity of early Hebrew culture. I'll admit that the difficulty in translating scripture isn't an exact science, but that difficulty itself leads me to my final thought.
To assume that I know fully the meaning of writings in an ancient language that I do not speak, to assume that my understanding is the right understanding, to assume that the knowledge I've been given is the full authority of God is to overstep my boundaries. We will never fully know the heart of God while living on the Earth. The Pharisees thought they had all the answers, and Jesus called them guilty because of their assumption (John 9:41).
While the heart of God never changes, our understanding of it does. It's more than we could ever comprehend, so we always learn more and more about it. I believe we're in a generation to which God is revealing his love in acceptance.
We don't have to agree with each others' choices, and we don't have to become like others to understand them. Jesus commanded us to love each other. To refuse that love on the basis of an assumed translation of scripture crosses a line, and it's not a line I'm willing to cross.
I hope you'll stand with me today in loving an ostracized part of our community. I hope you'll support the expansion of rights to the gay community.
Always moving forward,
Tyler
I'm in support of gay marriage.
Years ago, my position on this topic was much softer. I believed the "act" of homosexuality was a sin, but I didn't feel it was right for the government to put restrictions on those who called themselves homosexuals. And the only reason I believed homosexuality was wrong was because I had heard this in a general sense from the church. I hadn't researched the topic, and I hadn't gone out in search of opposing viewpoints to inform myself. I just took it with a grain of salt and let it be.
In college, some experiences broadened my horizons (cliche, right?). Specifically, I had a dorm roommate who was gay, closely followed by two friends who came out together with their gender identity. I was suddenly faced with a very real version of this hypothetical situation.
I started to have discussions about this with people I respected for their faith and morality. On the surface, I found there were people I believed to be good, faithful, well studied Christians who believed that homosexuality was perfectly acceptable. And, of course, I found plenty of the opposing viewpoint.
Recently, with the gender identity issue coming to the forefront of our politics, I've started to dig deeper. I haven't found a clear answer, but I've found the source of the controversy.
The problem lies in the assumptions of our translations. People who translate Hebrew or ancient Greek into modern languages rely heavily on context. The rest of us tend to take the words at face value, so it's easy for us to assume an English word read in Leviticus (Hebrew) has the exact same meaning as the same English word read in Corinthians (Greek).
One of the more common assumed meanings (and one that has even made it into pop culture comedy) is the phrase "lay with" or the word "know." We've all heard jokes that someone was "known in the Biblical sense," implying a sexual relationship. But think of all the different ways the word "know" could be used! It can imply a personal relationship, book knowledge, or a wise understanding. In the same way, "lay with" isn't directly equated with sex in every instance of the word.
The translators take context not only from the verse they are translating, but also from other uses of the same Hebrew or Greek word throughout scripture. They scour the Bible for every use of that word, and they try to find a common context between them. True, a word may be associated with sex, but the context may imply something more like rape. This is the case with Hebrew words used in scripture about homosexuality, specifically Leviticus 18:22.
Unfortunately, the context isn't as cut and dry as we would like it to be, so nobody can strictly argue one specific English translation of the verse without flaw. One detailed breakdown of this verse came up with 7 possible meanings of Leviticus 18:22 based on the original Hebrew, only one of which narrows the issue down to a man having sex with a man. Others include a man raping a man or a married man having sex with a man, which I would consider wrong regardless of gender.
The issue of rape is consistent with other scriptures involving homosexuality, specifically the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. This story is often referenced as an example of homosexuality being wicked. However, this ignores a major part in the story: that the men of the town wanted to rape the angels who were staying with Lot. Even worse, Lot offered up his daughters to be raped to protect the angels. While homosexuality is involved, the clear element of rape may have been enough to condemn the cities, and supports the translation of homosexual rape in Leviticus 18:22.
The breakdown of this verse also points out the severity of Leviticus 18:22. The word we tend to translate as "abomination" is now more commonly translated as "taboo," and is used similarly in laws about mixing fabrics, Jews associating too closely with non-Jews, and other "non-mixing" laws common to that day. These customs were introduced early in Jewish history to solidify their identity, but these customs were not required of non-Jews, as Paul discussed in his letters and even argued about with Peter.
When it comes down to it, I believe that Leviticus 18:22 and other verses discussing homosexuality were intended to communicate the wickedness of rape and extra-marital sex, and foster the unique identity of early Hebrew culture. I'll admit that the difficulty in translating scripture isn't an exact science, but that difficulty itself leads me to my final thought.
To assume that I know fully the meaning of writings in an ancient language that I do not speak, to assume that my understanding is the right understanding, to assume that the knowledge I've been given is the full authority of God is to overstep my boundaries. We will never fully know the heart of God while living on the Earth. The Pharisees thought they had all the answers, and Jesus called them guilty because of their assumption (John 9:41).
While the heart of God never changes, our understanding of it does. It's more than we could ever comprehend, so we always learn more and more about it. I believe we're in a generation to which God is revealing his love in acceptance.
We don't have to agree with each others' choices, and we don't have to become like others to understand them. Jesus commanded us to love each other. To refuse that love on the basis of an assumed translation of scripture crosses a line, and it's not a line I'm willing to cross.
I hope you'll stand with me today in loving an ostracized part of our community. I hope you'll support the expansion of rights to the gay community.
Always moving forward,
Tyler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)