Monday June 11, 2012

There has been discussion about homosexual marriage and childrearing in some recent letters. I am socially and politically quite liberal, but I too do not believe homosexuals should be marrying or raising children. It shows that we do not understand the true needs of children or the importance of the family.

There are only two fundamental views of life. Many people have adopted material reductionism as their view, where human beings are only what we can examine under a microscope or on the psychiatrist's couch: some chemical compounds, a few emotions and an occasional thought. The other view is that there is more to life and the human being than the current scientific model can account for today. The body, emotion and mind are simply the rind on the orange. This might be seen as a spiritual view of life. (I do not mean religiousness.)

Under the material model, life is about fulfilling desires with no thought about other people or the community. If people have unprotected sex and children are born to unprepared parents in unprepared situations, if children have to be raised in foster care or by grandparents, it is fine.

Alternately, the spiritual model suggests responsibility and needs that transcend the personal. It suggests that karma is involved in life, which is simply Eastern terminology for "cause and effect" -- there are reasons lying behind life and experiences. And that means that children and adults, including parents, have spiritual needs and karmic responsibilities and not just the physical, emotional and mental needs recognized under the material model.

Sex shouldn't be relegated to procreation alone; it is also two consenting (even unmarried) people uniting for bonding and pleasure. And two homosexuals have that option as well. Though, childbearing cannot be completely extricated from sex either.

The mother-father unit is the basis of the family. It needs to be supported, whether we understand the deeper spiritual (and karmic) reasons lying behind it or not. Childrearing should, therefore, be seen as a sacred service undertaken by a biological (or adoptive) mother and father.

No one should have to hide in the shadows or face intolerance due to difference, including sexual bias. However, children need a mother and father to come into life and they should have a mother and father throughout their development. If there is any doubt as to one's readiness and preparation for the responsibilities that come with a two-parent mother-father family, then perhaps a life of having protected (instead of careless) sex may be the wiser choice.

JASON FRANCIS

Clarksburg