Why Not Gay Adoption?
Professor of Moral Theology
Redemptoris Mater Seminary
Yona, Guam USA
In its March 28th edition the PDN published an op-ed piece by Ellen Goodman on the banning of “gay” adoption. She began by observing that in her business it is only fair to acknowledge a bias. However, she failed to do that. A bias is a presupposition that one has formed that effects all subsequent judgments. Reading the article, a series of unacknowledged bias were apparent.
The first bias is her view of homosexuality. This is shaped by her view of sexuality in general. Ms. Goodman sees sexual relations as an expression of love something distinct from the act of procreation. In this she has lots of company. We live in a society that has bought into the contraception mentality. Our society sees not problem with breaking the link between love and life. When in sexual relations life-giving and love-giving are two separate activities, sex becomes simply a means for having pleasure, and since having pleasure cannot be shared, sex becomes a way to instrumentalize other people. Since only a heterosexual relationship is physical capable of combining both aspects of sex, once the link is broken, the objection to homosexual relations seems to be without rational grounds. This is Ms. Goodman’s first bias.
The second bias is her notion of discrimination. Discrimination is making distinctions between persons on non-rational grounds. Where there are rational grounds, there is no discrimination. Men are not the same as women. Children need the love of a father and a mother, as well as the love of the father for the mother and the mother for the father. Otherwise, the child is been raised in a battle zone. Only heterosexual couples are capable of supplying those three loves. The fact that not all heterosexual are perfect parents does not detract from the fact that allowing for the possibility for adopted children to have the experience of a father and mother by prohibiting adoption by homosexual couples does not constitute discrimination. There are rational grounds for the preference for heterosexual couples when it comes to the question of adoption. States which force “non-discriminatory” policies on agencies who handle adoptions are themselves discriminating. Ms. Goodman seems to think that there are no rational grounds for treating homosexual couples differently from heterosexual ones. This is her second bias.
The third bias is Ms. Goodman’s notion of “the best interests” of the child. She sees nothing harmful in an environment that is based on a homosexually biased view of sexuality. She sees nothing wrong in the use of fertility technologies to produce children so that children are no longer the embodiment of an act of love between two human beings, but rather are instrumentalized by being reduced to be the answer to the needs and wants of their guardians. This is her third bias.
What the Catholic Church is fighting for in Massachusetts is the right to offer adoption services through church related social service agencies that are free to determine their own policies regarding who is qualified to be adoptive parents. If homosexual couples want to adopt, they are free to go to other agencies. But that is not enough for Ms. Goodman. She wants to outlaw any agency that does not subscribe to her biases. She is opposing a bill to grant religious organizations in the state of Massachusetts an exemption from the state imposed obligation to facilitate adoptions. She is not simply arguing for “gay” adoptions; she wants to make them mandatory for every agency in the state, religious beliefs to the contrary notwithstanding. She is not against anyone banning “gay” adoptions; she wants to ban them! Her attempt to justify her position is nothing but a smear: “But if you give one church permission to discriminate against gays, what’s next? Permission to discriminate against blacks or Jews who want to adopt? Isn’t that where we came from?”
Ms. Goodman, whatever happened to tolerance? Your liberal credentials are in tatters.