Reengineering the Family (What are the consequences of our severing biology from parenthood?)

National Review ^ | 02/01/2010 | Heather Macdonald

[brytlea]

The self-interested assumption behind that havoc has been that what’s good for adults must be good for children:

In a nutshell. Good line.

[brytlea]

Can you elaborate?

[a fool in paradise]

The church that is officiating the baptism would be ok with same sex couples as members of that church. That is a celebration of the sin.

Go forth and sin no more. These so called churches deny it is a sin to begin with. Thus apostasy.

[windcliff]

Ping

[achilles2000]

The ad is just part of the sodomite war on what is left of our Christian culture. Male sodomites don’t want children any more than they care much about “gay” marriage as an institution for themselves. The ones who want these things are primarily lesbians. The males have generally gone along, without much enthusiasm, as culture warriors.

McDonald is an atheist/agnostic (made clear in other writings), and her argument rests on claims about evolution and what is best for the child. As she should know, you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is” (David Hume). Consequently, her argument can always be dismissed by the great liberal “So what?” if they tire of trying to convince people of the lie that the sodomite burlesque of marriage is “just as good for children” as the “repressive, patriarchal, heterosexist, blah, blah” model that they seek to eliminate.

But the central point is that in a postmodern worldview, liberals have no reason to “privilege” the interests of children above their own - even if they were to concede that in some sense traditional marriage is better for children. Even if a metaphysical naturalist like McDonald were to effectively refute postmodernism (not all that hard to do), she still faces the the Humean dilemma, for there is no solution to the is/ought problem within metaphysical naturalism (which may have inadvertently been Hume’s deeper point). Consequently, for a metaphysical naturalist moral discussions are ultimately just chit-chat about personal preferences, and any conventional morality is just an artifact of a successful sales job.

It is this moral hollowness of metaphysical naturalism - which is associated with “modernism” - that the left has so effectively exploited to destroy our culture. A Christian culture cannot be defended within the context of a materialistic metaphysics.

[silverleaf]

So your church would withhold baptism from the child of a sinner. Do you think Christ would turn the child away?

[a fool in paradise]

You think that that church even considers homosexuality sinful? You’re dreaming.

[a fool in paradise]

I guess that the religious gay couples want to see same sex marriage legalized, otherwise God will see them “living together in sin”.

[Cheetahcat]

This is beyond comprehension are there no Normal couples left to adopt and provide a healthy upbringing???

[silverleaf]

I think YOU do and that is why you think the church should not baptize their adopted baby

Aside from the baptism of a child being for the child, regardless of the sins of his parents...

In Christ’s time it was lepers and prostitutes that his followers sought to turn away from His touch- and we know how he reacted

[a fool in paradise]

So you say that homosexuality is not a sin.

Tell me, do churches baptize children when the parents do not have a membership there?

Do churches typically look past ongoing transgressions like open swingers (who hold a monthly wife swapping party) to extend membership?

Hey, live and let live.

[silverleaf]

I never said homsexuality was not “a sin”

I said Christ would reach through that to baptize a child presented to him by two homosexuals

Your church must have a pretty stiff litmus test for infant baptism, if you must prove the parents were sinless

[DuncanWaring]

Mike Adams:

Little Boy Blue Devil.

[achilles2000]

What religion and what god? ;-)

[ReformedBeckite]

baptism is for the child, no matter whose arms it rests in during the service

True but to ask God to protect the child with common grace above and beyond those parents that don't have their kids baptized is a mockery of the whole thing. I really doubt if the homosexual couples that might try to claim Christianity and have their kids baptized really give a rats ass about the Law, and about asking God to protect their kids, my gut feeling is that they are going through the motion of the Christian Cultural trying to act like Christians but not yielding their heart to God, because if they really yield their hearts to God they won't be Homosexuals. A generation that does keep God's law will be bless and those that don't keep God's law will be cursed. Being Homosexual is not in the spirit of keeping God's law, so right off you can say figuratively speaking that you are going to be cursed through life and your generation that Ok's the act will also be cursed too. To ask God to bless your kid through Baptism, is like asking a judge and jury to reverse their decision of guilty to not guilty and to declare the law invalid. My gut feeling is that homosexuals that try to claim Christianity are messed up people that can't rationalize things to well they make most of their decision by emotion. And the people that go to the Churches that ok homosexual I would say are also in the same boat. I don't think going to a Church that Ok's homosexuality is a good thing to do in regards to God's law, and his blessing and curses of in associated with it. I'd be always be worried about the roof caving in on me as a form of a curse.

[a fool in paradise]

How many faiths besides Christianity have a baptism ritual?

[CharlesWayneCT]

The negative consequences of this family breakdown for children include higher rates of school failure and lack of socialization. Moreover, in a culture where men are not expected to raise their children, boys fail to learn the most basic lesson of personal responsibility and self-discipline.

Barack Obama is a living example of that.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

“Tell me, do churches baptize children when the parents do not have a membership there?

Do churches typically look past ongoing transgressions..”

Most churches I’m aware of will not. The baptism ceremony involves the sponsors (usually the parents) of the candidate. They are required to affirm under oath that they will help guide the baptized to follow Christ and his teachings; pretty hard to do when they are openly UNREPTENTANT of their own sins!!

[Mrs. Don-o]

It depends on how the church in question understands Baptism. In the case of infant baptism, in the Catholic Church, there must be a safeguard and a solemn pledge that the child will be raised a Christian. That's why the baptismal vows are taken by the parents, and that's why the child has godparents, who are supposed to help ensure that the child will receive a Christian upbringing.

The idea is not that his family is "sinless," but that his family understand their Christian obligation.

Absent such an understanding by the parents and godparents, no: the infant would not baptized in the Catholic Church.

A comparable situation; as far as I know, if living-together-unmarried parents want their child to be baptized, they would ordinarily be expected to marry before the child's Baptism.

This is not a rejection of the child, nor of his parents, but an attempt to encourage both the child and his parents in a Christian way of life.

[a fool in paradise]

The couple must be members. And to obtain church membership, the church would have to practice apostasy to say that same sex couples are in good standing.

We are all sinners. Some seek to claim that their sins are not sinful.

Gay pride parades celebrate sin (even if there is no debauchery on parade).

It is about norming the abnormal. As is the tv campaign showing two men in suits getting “their” child baptised. The article comments how some would ask “where’s the mother”, I also am asking “just what kind of a church is this”?