Adoption of children by LGBT people – follow-up question
Further to the question asked on the matter:
In my opinion, what stands behind the opposition to the adoption of children by LGBT people are (the remnants of) traditional family values.
It is clear that the traditional institution of the family is in a process of constant erosion and this is an all-out battle. But it is not clear to me why it is a ‘moral and democratic scandal’ to oppose this process. Is morality that seeks to protect family values not ‘moral’? Is a decision on a matter that has public significance, such as adoption criteria, intended to protect such values (and reflects the will of a section of the people) not democratic?
why?
It is true that most opponents do not admit to the outside world, and perhaps even to themselves, that this is their motivation. Instead, they resort to the arguments of ‘the best interests of the child,’ but concealing the true motive is very common in value discussions. It seems to me that in order to reject the position, it is necessary to confront the true motives behind it, and not the lip service paid by its supporters.
I disagree. I deal with the claims that are made and not with what is hidden in the heart. Beyond that, the State of Israel does not in any way protect family values. For example, it does not prohibit adultery, which threatens family values even more, and the act is much more serious since it is a betrayal of trust and the contract to which they committed themselves (such as homosexuality). And in general, if a (very significant) part of the public thinks that such a family is also okay, there is no right to prevent it from them. After all, it is also a family, but in your opinion it is not normal. So what? This is illegal coercion.
Thank you for the answer,
If I may comment on your words.
A. Regarding the fact that the State of Israel does not in any way defend family values. This is not accurate. The insistence on their deportation according to the law that still exists despite the great suffering sometimes caused to both parties is nothing more than a defense of such values. (Officially, this is in the framework of defending the status quo, but again, in my opinion, it is impossible to deny that religious adherence to these laws from the start is also or primarily aimed at preserving family values.)
B. I am not sure that adultery is a more serious violation of family values. Adultery is mainly a lie and a breach of obligation. The adulterer does not offer an alternative to the institution of the family and, moreover, is usually condemned anyway. Homosexuals, on the other hand, promote a lifestyle that is an alternative to the traditional family lifestyle, and are even proud of it. This is a much greater threat.
C. If part of the public thinks it is normal, is there no right to prevent it? I am not sure here either. There are always parts of the public that think that certain things are normal, but public policy cannot take everything into account. Would we agree to educate orphans to use soft drugs because some of the population think it is normal? There is a question of balance here, of course. But I believe that the consequences of the new family institution on our values are worse than the consequences of using soft drugs.
I believe that your position stems from the fact that you believe in advance that there is no moral problem with such behavior, and therefore, in your opinion, there is nothing here but deprivation that stems from hatred of those who are different. What I am trying to point out is that there is a question of values here. And as such, the majority of the public has the right to determine a policy that reflects certain values. This is a completely justified coercion.
You burst into an open door. Indeed, marriage and divorce according to halakhah are also outrageous coercion in my opinion. The issue of drugs brings harm to society and it is the role of a state to prevent it. A democratic state is not supposed to impose lifestyles on its citizens.
I do not think that homosexuality is a moral problem, but I do see it as a halakhic-religious problem. My words do not stem from my attitude towards homosexuality but from my attitude towards the concept of a state and its functions.
This is not about hating those who are different but about surrendering to illegitimate pressure from religious people (perhaps for religious people it is hating those who are different, and so on).
Thanks again for your response,
The problem is that a position of the kind you defend here assumes that a concept like ‘harm’ is an objective concept, while in fact the decision of what constitutes harm, and in particular the decision of what harm it is the state's job to prevent its citizens from, are normatively charged decisions, and reflect values.
Utopianly, perhaps, one could speak of a state that does not impose any values on its citizens. In practice, the state – every state does this all the time. From your perspective, homosexuality and marriage according to halacha are a drop in the ocean of scandals of this kind and there is no point in dealing with them specifically.
I still think that it angers you precisely because you do not see homosexuality as a moral problem, and not because of your attitude to the concept of state. For people like me who see it as a moral problem, it is absolutely legitimate to demand that the state, which is constantly imposing values, impose the right values for a change.
In short, the real discussion here is about the morality/immorality of the phenomenon; everything else, including the state's roles, is irrelevant.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
