Why the Left is Wrong About Homosexuality
Why the Left is Wrong About Homosexuality
by John Spritzler [www.spritzlerj.blogspot.com]
by John Spritzler [www.spritzlerj.blogspot.com]
The Left denounces people who are opposed to same-sex marriage as bigots. The Left says that people who want society to promote heterosexual marriage and not endorse homosexual marriage are infringing on human rights, just as did racists who backed laws against inter-racial marriage. The Left fully endorses the "Gay Pride" events that proclaim that homosexuality merits praise and enthusiasm. This is why the Left has a reputation among most Americans as being crazy.
I am against the so-called "war on terror," against Zionism, against capitalism, for revolution, for working class solidarity and equality and real democracy--AND AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. So are millions of other Americans whom the Left denounces as bigots. These people have reasons for their views which have nothing to do with bigotry.
I wrote the following letter to Macy's explaining why I oppose their promotion of "Gay Pride." It was part of a recent campaign of irate phone calls and emails across Massachusetts that forced the Boston store to withdraw the most flagrant parts of a "Gay Pride" window display. By the way, the man who organized the campaign is adamantly opposed to the Iraq war, he focuses much of his attacks on the big corporations and their undemocratic rule over us, and he criticizes Republicans as sharply as Democrats. But according to the Left, he's just a bigot. Driving people like him out of the anti-war movment by making people pass a same-sex marriage support litmus test to be welcomed into it is indeed crazy.
I am against the so-called "war on terror," against Zionism, against capitalism, for revolution, for working class solidarity and equality and real democracy--AND AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. So are millions of other Americans whom the Left denounces as bigots. These people have reasons for their views which have nothing to do with bigotry.
I wrote the following letter to Macy's explaining why I oppose their promotion of "Gay Pride." It was part of a recent campaign of irate phone calls and emails across Massachusetts that forced the Boston store to withdraw the most flagrant parts of a "Gay Pride" window display. By the way, the man who organized the campaign is adamantly opposed to the Iraq war, he focuses much of his attacks on the big corporations and their undemocratic rule over us, and he criticizes Republicans as sharply as Democrats. But according to the Left, he's just a bigot. Driving people like him out of the anti-war movment by making people pass a same-sex marriage support litmus test to be welcomed into it is indeed crazy.
Dear Macy's,
The Boston Macy's store has a window display supporting a "Gay Pride" theme. Macy's says this is just like supporting civil rights for blacks against racist discrimination. But it is not at all the same. "Gay Pride" is about getting society to accept as normal a practice that harms children--the practice of bringing children into the world in a manner that necessarily means breaking the bond between the child and its natural mother or father, which is what happens when a same-sex couple "has a child of their own" by purchasing anonymous sperm or renting a woman's womb. Children conceived this way cannot enjoy the benefits of being raised by both of their natural parents. They necessarily grow up lacking the full knowledge of exactly where they came from [1] and wondering why one of their true parents did not love them enough to raise them. These issues are important to children and the adults they become. These issues relate to the self-image and sense of belonging and security that children have, or do not have.
Adopted children experience a sense of loss because of the broken bond between them and their natural parent or parents. Often, as adults, they go to great lengths to find their true parent or parents, to regain some of what they have lost as children. Adoption is a good thing, but only because it is an act by adults who seek to minimize the harm ALREADY DONE to a child by something we all acknowledge to be a bad thing--the death or incapacity of one or both of the child's natural parents. A homosexual couple who "have a child of their own," however, are not seeking to minimize harm that has already happened to a child; on the contrary they are INITIATING the bad thing that CAUSES the bond between the child and its natural parent to be broken.
If Macy's thinks that the bond between a child and its mother and father (its true mother and father) is without value, something of no concern, so worthless that Macy's would tell parents with a newborn child that they should have no hesitation in giving that child up for adoption even if they were perfectly capable of being good parents and just found it more convenient to not be parents, if Macy's feels this way, then why doesn't Macy's come right out and say so with a public statement to that effect? Why express this strange view only indirectly with support for "Gay Pride?" Or is it that Macy's hasn't thought about the actual implications of the "Gay Pride" agenda? If so, please give it some more serious thought. "Gay Pride" isn't about equal rights. It's about denying children the right to have their real mother and father raise them.
Thank you.
John Spritzler, Sc.D.
[1] The ACLU is promoting the use, in birth certificates, of the terms "parent 1" and "parent 2" instead of "mother" and "father" so that same-sex couples can list themselves as the child's parents when in fact, of course, one of them is not the parent. This ensures that the child grows up with a birth certificate that lies about his or her actual origin. A birth certificate has no meaning except to certify the birth and parents of a child. An honest certificate for a child conceived by anonymous sperm would list the father as "unknown" but at least acknowledge the simple fact that the child had a father, not two mothers known as "parent 1" and "parent 2."
[1] The ACLU is promoting the use, in birth certificates, of the terms "parent 1" and "parent 2" instead of "mother" and "father" so that same-sex couples can list themselves as the child's parents when in fact, of course, one of them is not the parent. This ensures that the child grows up with a birth certificate that lies about his or her actual origin. A birth certificate has no meaning except to certify the birth and parents of a child. An honest certificate for a child conceived by anonymous sperm would list the father as "unknown" but at least acknowledge the simple fact that the child had a father, not two mothers known as "parent 1" and "parent 2."
posted by John Spritzler @ 6:35 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, however, I find that yours against same-sex marriage and adoption by gay parents is without factual evidence. The Sc.D. following your name doesn't give value to your rantings. The American Medical Association has stated that there is no difference between children of homosexual couples and those of heterosexual ones.
http://www.narth.com/docs/adoptions.html
This is just an article stating that it does not necessarily need to be a mother and father, but two loving, nurturing adults.
It is of my opinion that two gay men wanting to be fathers, would try to overcome the stigma of being gay fathers, therefore giving 110% effort to make up for that alleged inadequacy. And also in addition to that, the child in question, would be in an environment where he or she is brought up in an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance of others. That is clearly what a lot of people in our country lack today, whether it deals with obese people, less attractive people, handicapped, minorities, illegals, etc.
Furthermore, there are already 4 countries in the world that do allow same-sex marriage: Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. On top of that there is a whole plethora of forward thinking countries and states that already allow same-sex unions. Clearly millions of Europeans must be brainwashed, or have not seen the light given by Jesus Christ.
http://marriage.about.com/cs/samesexmarriage/a/samesex.htm
Show me the study or report from those countries that indicates that their societies are falling apart because of same-sex marriage, or the study showing that there is a percentage of children who are deviant, unloved, and have psychological problems due to their parents orientation?
If we're going to deny two gay parents the right to have children in an alternative way, that would "hinder" per se their lives, then perhaps we should create more far-reaching laws that prohibit other kinds of conceptions. Single women should not be allowed to go to a sperm bank and raise a child by herself, single men and women should not adopt whatsoever, all couples having children should be married, they should be at least 22 years old with at least a bachelor's degree, have a house with a big back yard, they must have well paying jobs, live in safe neighbourhoods, they must feed their children nutritious meals and never go to fast food restaurants. Realistically, there are millions of unfit heterosexual parents who bring children into this world and they cause more psychological damage than having two loving gay parents.
I think you need to meet a homosexual couple who has children and evaluate the situation first hand. You will see that we are not abnormal people, and will love that child just like anyone else.
The so-called bond you talk about between natural parents and the child...My brother is adopted. My cousin is adopted. They both are upstanding human beings who do not have problems. My brother did in fact search out his birth mother but he never regretting having a better life with my family. He is my brother completely and without constraints.
With your views, I wonder how your offspring will come out. Loving and tolerant of others or block-GOP voters?
Dear Troy,
If the bond between a child and his natural parents is so unimportant, how come your brother searched out his birth mother?
Your point that he never regretted having a better life with your family implies that there was something worse about the family he didn't grow up in (ie his natural mother.) That may very well be the case. I suppose there was something unfortunate about his natural mother or her circumstances. For some unfortunate reason she either couldn't or didn't want to raise her son. (Was she mentally incapacitated, an alcoholic, only 14 years old, living in extreme poverty? I don't know, but whatever it was, it was something unfortunate, not something to "celebrate," right?) Your brother was lucky to be adopted, no doubt. But let's look at this logically. The bond between him and his natural mother was broken by something that we would agree was unfortunate, ie bad. That which breaks the bond between a child and his birth mother is a bad thing, not a good thing. If you agree with this so far, then I think you will agree that if a method of conception guarantees that the bond between the child and its natural mother will be broken then that method of conception is a bad thing, not a good thing to be celebrated. Same sex marriage partners use a method of "having a child of their own" that guarantees breaking the bond between the child and its natural parent. How is that a good thing? Why should society endorse such a practice?
--John
Dear Mr. Spritzler,
Do you really think it would be better for a child to be raised by a 14 year old, drug-addicted teenager than by mature, loving parents no matter which sexuality they are? And do you really think a child automatically becomes a bad person because for some unfortunate reason (death, disease, too much work...) the bond between natural mother and child is not that strong or not existing at all? I think nearly everyone would agree with me, that there are definitely other factors too.
You mention that a method of conception can guarantee a broken bond between mother and child. I disagree. The act of conception is nothing more than a lottery, a chance. What breaks the bond between mother and child is how she sees this child in relation to her surroundings. A mother can be an alcoholic or live in extreme poverty and still be able to instill strong values in her child. It is how the parent copes with life that becomes ingrained in the child.
I say parent rather than mother. Who is to say that there can't be just as strong a bond (if not stronger) between child and father? Just because he did not carry the baby in his womb for nine months does not mean that the bond is not as strong. And, in this case, who is to say that two fathers or two mothers or two surrogate parents can't love a child more?
Stress and upheaval are elements that create problems in the raising of a child. If two people truly love and respect each other, they will be able to raise a child who has known nothing but love and respect. These are not values to be taken lightly. A child raised under such circumstances is more likely to be more well-rounded than one raised in an atmosphere of uncertainty, bias and tension. So why, then, does it matter what gender the parents are? If they can provide such an environment, who can argue that the nature of their relationship is detrimental to the development of the child?
Dear floh,
No, I do not think it would be better for a child to be raised by a 14 yeaar old drug addicted teenager.
No, I do not think a child automatically becomes a bad person because for some unfortunate reason (death, disease, too much work...) the bond between natural mother and child is not that strong or not existing at all.
Yes, there are lots of factors.
None of these points has any logical relation to what I said: bringing a child into the world in a manner that guarantees breaking the bond between the child and its natural parent is a bad idea. If you think it is a GOOD idea, then say so. So far you haven't even come close to dealing with the question.
First off, I do not know what this monolithic proper noun "Left" is. Are you saying that you can quantify all possible beliefs into some kind of abstract line, or a mere two sides?
Now I am confused and if I am interpreting you correctly I believe you are contradicting your other writings that are incredible scathing critiques of inhumanity.
Why are you just addressing non-heterosexual couples who would like to have children? Certainly not all non-heterosexuals can be characterized this way. Please correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be excluding all other non-heterosexuals who do not want children because you are saying that since sperm is required to fertilize an egg in order to conceive a child, that there is a "natural bond" that develops between the children and the male and female parents. Because this bond is natural, other different bonds are unnatural and therefore undeserving of recognition as legitimate.
I believe that this conflates what is "natural" with what is social. If there is anything "natural" about humans, it is that we have the ability to recognize our "natural" limitations and thus surpass them. As you point, humans have invented the means to negate this "natural" limitation of conception with IVF and other technologies, allowing anyone to have children, including those who are naturally infertile. The only limitations are social, i.e. what is allowed and tolerated by societies.
One of Marx's greatest contribution in my opinion was pointing out that capitalists who monopolize the means of production (including that of knowledge) use this same conflating logic to say that the existing hierarchy is natural too, that domination and competition are natural conditions of humankind. They do this by purporting that political economy is merely a matter of describing objective and universal economic laws. This ignores the history and social contexts that surround what is claimed to be natural, i.e. separate from possible human intervention. As I have pointed out above even childbirthing is a social process; certainly then childrearing is no exception.
Now, if you believe that children would be better off with certain types of parents that is a totally different position than maintaining certain norms are "natural" and everything else that differs is not.
Lastly, to your main point that the issue of non-heterosexual rights are preventing a radical social movement from developing, you must also recognize that the same goes for your position. Just as the "Left" (however defined) is occluding people who hold your position, you are also excluding those who do not want to fit into the dominant heterosexual norms.
Hi Rob,
I'll try to respond to your several points/questions.
1. The "Left" may not be monolithic, but a lot of people think of themselves as being on or of the "Left" and the vast majority of them, today in the United States (although not in the past and perhaps not elsewhere today) accept the idea that opposition to same-sex marriage is a kind of bigotry. From Ted Kennedy to ANSWER to The Nation magazine to most Socialist parties this view is dominant. So I think it is fair to refer to the Left, in general, as having this view, even if there may be some individuals who consider themselves of the Left who don't hold this view.
2. You ask, "Why are you just addressing non-heterosexual couples who would like to have children?" Because they are the main force in society trying to get society to endorse bringing children into the world by a method (purchased anonymous sperm or rented womb) that guarantees that the child will have the bond between itself and one of its natural parents broken.
3. You ask, "Please correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be excluding all other non-heterosexuals who do not want children." I am indeed excluding from criticism couples (gay or straight)who do not have children or who adopt children. But I also accept the fact that the forces pushing for same-sex marriage and the "Gay Pride" agenda insist on defining "same-sex marriage" to mean social approval for the anonymous sperm/rented womb method of "having children of their own." That definition is actually a reasonable one, because "marriage" is obviously viewed as a social institution within which a couple has "children of their own." Given this definition of "same-sex marriage" I oppose it. If same-sex marriage meant that the couple would either not have children or only adopt children who were already born, then my objections to it would not apply. But that is not how "same-sex marriage" is defined by anybody, pro or con.
4. You say, "Because this bond [between child and biological parent] is natural, other different bonds are unnatural and therefore undeserving of recognition as legitimate." Well, the biological facts of reproduction are indeed natural; that's why same-sex couples cannot produce a child by themselves but opposite sex couples can. Surely we agree on this! However, I never said that all other bonds are "un-natural" in the sense of "undeserving of recognition as legitimate." Didn't you read where I said that adoption was a GOOD thing? The bonds between a child and its adopted parents are of course a good thing. But, and this is where you seem not to be paying close enough attention, there is indeed something special about the bond between a child and its biological parent; this is precisely the reason that many children who are adopted and who have wonderful loving adopted parents and who are raised to be great children and adults STILL go to great lengths to find their biological parents. There is a reason for that. I alluded to those reasons in my original post. You can talk to other people, go to web sites that help adopted children find their natural parents, and so forth and (if you are fortunate enough to know your own biological parents) self-reflect about the meaning of your knowing those people to your sense of who you are and where you came from and confidence that you are loved by the people from whom you came. If you do not think this bond has a special value, then it means you would feel no problem in telling a perfectly healthy couple capable of being good parents, who had a baby but who weren't keen on being parents, to just go ahead and put the baby up for adoption. Is that your view?
5. You write, "I believe that this conflates what is 'natural' with what is social." As I said before, if you ponder why adopted children seek their biological parents you will see that no matter how loving and caring and wonderful a child's stepfather is, he's not the same as the child's biological father (ditto for mothers) in some important respects. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
6. Your reference to Marx presents a false analogy. Saying that two things are analogous does not make it so. Just because some people wrongly say that capitalism is inherent in human nature doesn't mean that people are wrong when they say that the importance of the bond between a child and its biological parents is inherent in human nature. According to your reasoning in the "Marxism" paragraph of yours, one could argue that humans don't really have to eat or breathe, and those who say they do are using a false "conflating logic" to insist that eating and breathing are natural.
7. You write, "Just as the 'Left' (however defined) is excluding people who hold your position, you are also excluding those who do not want to fit into the dominant heterosexual norms." No I'm not. What I am saying is that the anti-war movement should welcome people regardless of their views on same-sex marriage. Welcoming doesn't mean that everybody who disagrees pretends to agree. It means that one discusses the disagreements in a respectful manner, without resorting to ad-hominem attacks (for example calling the other person a bigot) and certainly without screaming and yelling insults at them in a manner calculated to cause fear (which is what the Boston anti-war demonstration did last year to people at a church near the demo who happened to be listening to a talk about helping gays become straight on the same day as the anti-war demo.) The anti-war movement should embrace the kind of discussion we are having right now.
Do you think I am a bigot for having the views on this subject that I do? If not, then please tell your friends in the anti-war movement not to call call people opposed to same-sex marriage bigots, because when they do so they are underminging the anti-war movement by keeping it small and isolated from millions of good people.
Thanks.
Hi Troy,
I went to the url you quoted, http://www.narth.com/docs/adoptions.html, which you say shows that "The American Medical Association has stated that there is no difference between children of homosexual couples and those of heterosexual ones." But what it actually says is that the AMA endorsed same-sex adoptions (which I have not criticized.) The AMA study found no difference between children adopted by same-sex versus opposite couples; it did not compare children raised by their biological parents to children not so raised.
There is, however, researh that addresses this very different second question, which is the question relevant to my original post. In "Fatherless America," David Blankenhorn writes (pg. 190-1): "[T]he social science data regarding outcomes for children in stepfamilies are remarkably consistent and almost uniformly bleak. In 1992, James H. Bray and colleagues presented findings [James H. Bray et al, "Longitudinal Changes in Stepfamilies: Impact on Children's Adjustment" (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, August 15, 1992),7-8] from a seven-year study of approximately two hundred married-couple families, half of which contained a stepfather. The researchers found that the stepfamilies 'reported and were observed to have more negative family relationships and more problematic family processes than nuclear families.' ... Children in these stepfather families had 'more behavioral problems, less prosocial behavior, and more life stress.' Moreover, stepfather-stepchild relationships 'continued to be less positive and more negative and became more negative over time than did father-child relationships.'"
The reason many people, myself included, think that heterosexual marriage is better than homosexual marriage is that the latter necessarily means replacing a father with a stepfather (or mother with a step-mother) whereas the former, uniquely, makes it possible for children to be raised by their biological mother and father. The research data says it makes a difference.
A study on step-parents would appear to me to be mostly measuring disruption -- divorce or death, remarriage, and the accompanying emotional and even financial strains on a family -- and not your supposed link between a natural parent (or sperm donor) and a child.
Your opposition to homosexual marriage appears to hinge entirely on the breaking of this link between natural parent and child caused by sperm donation or surrogate mothering. Yet both these practices can be used by heterosexual couples (or single peeople) as well (or unmarried homosexual couples for that matter).
If that is what you care about, that would seem to be the target, not legal marriage for any two adults or a parade sponsored by a corporation.
Otherwise, a post on "Why the Left is Wrong About Homosexuality" simply serves to divide us, the working class, by another over-emphasized difference.
Good point. In my recent post here [http://spritzlerj.blogspot.com/2009/10/liberalisms-contempt-for-children.html ] I oppose any couple (heterosexual or homosexual) using sperm or egg donation to conceive.
Post a Comment
<< Home