Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by steve7150 » Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:18 am

It is not my point here to judge the motivations of people who do this, but only to suggest that, as this practice increases and becomes better accepted, our notion of the origin and worth of children will be altered. I am not at all convinced it will be for the better.

Tychicus

Posts: 70
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am





If the parents can't have kids and they employ a surrogate , you believe that over time this would decrease the worth of children? It seems these parents are going to a huge amount of trouble to have a child. Many married people have kids without a lot of thought or difficulty yet using a surrogate seems incredibly difficult to me.
It is true the surrogate person is herself having the child outside of marriage and that is an ethical issue. Back in the day many men like David and Solomon and others had many children with many different wives, yet if a biblical marriage is between one and and women are not the children they had after the first wife with a surrogate, in effect? Were the kids valued less? Any thoughts?

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by Tychicus » Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:15 am

steve7150 wrote:It is not my point here to judge the motivations of people who do this, but only to suggest that, as this practice increases and becomes better accepted, our notion of the origin and worth of children will be altered. I am not at all convinced it will be for the better.

Tychicus

If the parents can't have kids and they employ a surrogate , you believe that over time this would decrease the worth of children? It seems these parents are going to a huge amount of trouble to have a child. Many married people have kids without a lot of thought or difficulty yet using a surrogate seems incredibly difficult to me.
Excellent point! The use of a surrogate takes time, a good lawyer, and usually lots of money. I guess you could say that makes the child worth a lot more.

Another advantage, as well, is that you get to pick the genetic stock of the surrogate. Perhaps someone very intelligent and beautiful; certainly at least you'll avoid someone with any known genetic defects in their immediate family. So you could say the child's value is increased even further.

Notice I said, "our notion of the origin and worth of children will be altered". I did not say those children are worth less.

The more fundamental question (and I mean this in a secular sense) is, "Who is the creator (originator) of life?"; and also, "Who determines the worth of a life?"
steve7150 wrote:It is true the surrogate person is herself having the child outside of marriage and that is an ethical issue. Back in the day many men like David and Solomon and others had many children with many different wives, yet if a biblical marriage is between one and and women are not the children they had after the first wife with a surrogate, in effect? Were the kids valued less? Any thoughts?
The second wives are not exactly surrogates, since they were married to the man. And, technically speaking, this second marriage was between only the man and the second wife; there was not a single "marriage" of three people. But to me these are just technical points; I don't think it was a good idea these men married multiple wives, and the Bible often brings up sad consequences of these multiple marriages

I don't think the kids should be valued any less; they had no responsibility for what their parents did.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by steve7150 » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:06 am

Excellent point! The use of a surrogate takes time, a good lawyer, and usually lots of money. I guess you could say that makes the child worth a lot more.

Another advantage, as well, is that you get to pick the genetic stock of the surrogate. Perhaps someone very intelligent and beautiful; certainly at least you'll avoid someone with any known genetic defects in their immediate family. So you could say the child's value is increased even further.

Notice I said, "our notion of the origin and worth of children will be altered". I did not say those children are worth less.

The more fundamental question (and I mean this in a secular sense) is, "Who is the creator (originator) of life?"; and also, "Who determines the worth of a life?"










The first comment re a good lawyer i'll take as sarcastic so my point was not about the good lawyer or the money , it was about how difficult it is for the prospective parents to get through this process. The good lawyer and the money are the easiest things, the uncertainty, the emotional strain, the possibility of losing the child at the last moment,knowing you must tell the child about it's biological mother at some point and the fallout from this are other factors in the mix.

You said the worth of children will be altered, but from your comments it sounds like you meant less.

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by Tychicus » Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:45 am

steve7150 wrote:
Tychicus wrote:Excellent point! The use of a surrogate takes time, a good lawyer, and usually lots of money. I guess you could say that makes the child worth a lot more.
Another advantage, as well, is that you get to pick the genetic stock of the surrogate. Perhaps someone very intelligent and beautiful; certainly at least you'll avoid someone with any known genetic defects in their immediate family. So you could say the child's value is increased even further.

Notice I said, "our notion of the origin and worth of children will be altered". I did not say those children are worth less.

The more fundamental question (and I mean this in a secular sense) is, "Who is the creator (originator) of life?"; and also, "Who determines the worth of a life?"
The first comment re a good lawyer i'll take as sarcastic so my point was not about the good lawyer or the money , it was about how difficult it is for the prospective parents to get through this process. The good lawyer and the money are the easiest things, the uncertainty, the emotional strain, the possibility of losing the child at the last moment, knowing you must tell the child about it's biological mother at some point and the fallout from this are other factors in the mix.

You said the worth of children will be altered, but from your comments it sounds like you meant less.
I should make it clear that I have the utmost respect for adoptive parents, although in most cases they also need a lawyer, have heavy expenses, and will face the other difficulties you mention here. But an adoption is a noble act, an act of compassion for a child that needs a home. What I question is the use of a surrogate to purposefully create a child that is not intended to be raised by its biological parents.

A traditional marriage and family is an equal opportunity system. Anyone can participate, health allowing; it doesn't depend on money, social standing, or legal wherewithal. The couple procreates the child; and the expectation is that they will raise the child. This is the historical basis for marriage as it has been understood all over the world. The future of the society will depend, in large part, on how well these parents raise their children.

You need adoptions to take care of the exceptions, when parents cannot raise the children due to illness, death or other reasons. You would hope that a society, and its legal system, would do its best to keep these exceptions to a minimum. Along with this you would hope that, when an adoption is truly necessary, the society would honor those couples who would step in and agree to raise these children who are without a home.

The use of surrogates involves extra expenses beyond an adoption, and has different legal issues. It is never necessary. It gives wealthy people, lawyers, and the government power to design and create children, and to assign to whom they will be given.

So I'll ask the two questions again (and I mean them in a secular sense) :

1) Who is the creator (originator) of life?
2) Who determines the worth of a life?

As our notion of marriage and family change we may find that the answers to these questions will change as well.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by steve7150 » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:18 am

The use of surrogates involves extra expenses beyond an adoption, and has different legal issues. It is never necessary. It gives wealthy people, lawyers, and the government power to design and create children, and to assign to whom they will be given.

So I'll ask the two questions again (and I mean them in a secular sense) :

1) Who is the creator (originator) of life?
2) Who determines the worth of a life?

As our notion of marriage and family change we may find that the answers to these questions will change as well.

Tychicus

Posts: 72
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am







In a certain way wasn't Mary like a surrogate mother except she ended up raising Jesus? Mary was married to Joseph but someone else was the father but Joseph legally adopted Jesus in a way.

In a secular sense the biological parents would be considered the creators of life. The value would be determined by the parents and by society. Haven't you heard of "it takes a village"?
In a biblical sense God would be the answer to both questions.

Tychicus
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 2:55 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by Tychicus » Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:50 am

steve7150 wrote:In a certain way wasn't Mary like a surrogate mother except she ended up raising Jesus? Mary was married to Joseph but someone else was the father but Joseph legally adopted Jesus in a way.
Mary was like a surrogate in that her child was not by her husband; I'm not sure how else.

God was Jesus's father, and stayed his father throughout life. He was not just a "sperm donor". Mary was Jesus's mother throughout his life, not just a "surrogate".

Are you saying that the man who provides the sperm and hires the surrogate is acting like God? Or is it better to say that he is playing God?
steve7150 wrote:
Tychicus wrote:So I'll ask the two questions again (and I mean them in a secular sense) :
-- 1) Who is the creator (originator) of life?
-- 2) Who determines the worth of a life?
In a secular sense the biological parents would be considered the creators of life.
How about the person(s) who hired the surrogate (this might not be the sperm donor)? Or the medical expert who selected the surrogate (and/or perhaps the sperm donor) based on the best genetic stock for the traits desired? Couldn't they also be considered the "creators" of this life?

The surrogate herself (and more so in the case of the sperm donor) isn't exactly a creator of the child's life; she is providing her body for hire for the purpose of getting the child born. She need have no interest in the child's life, as a real mother would. I'm not trying to be crass here, but I hope you can see that this is not so simple as in the case where the biological parents are married.
steve7150 wrote:The value would be determined by the parents and by society. Haven't you heard of "it takes a village"?
With surrogates, of course, the definition of "parents" is ambiguous.

As for the "value" of a child, we traditionally had the notion of the "sacredness" of life; you could say that it is a "gift from God", or if you were not religious you might say it was a natural outgrowth of our humanity, a "sacred" event on which the preservation of the human race depends. As such, all life has equal value, since it is all "created" the same way. As the Declaration of Independence says, "all men are created equal".

With these new methods of creating life it is not true that all life is created the same way, and the assignment of children is done in as many ways as lawyers can draw up contracts. Is it possible that, over time, "Life" and "Family" will be thought of more as a creation of medical science and laws than as a creation of the "creator"?

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by thrombomodulin » Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:12 pm

Brenden,

Sorry for my late reply. I hope you have recovered from your illness.

I do not find anything unethical in impulse buying, or more particularly in selling towards impulse buying (e.g. placing candy bars at just the right spot in the grocery store). The way I look at is that the buyer already has a desire for the product whether it is advertised or not. The adveriser is simply remininding him of a pleasure he could attain through purchasing the product. I might indeed not be thinking at all about candy bars when I visit the grocery store, but if one is there then I am reminded of how much pleasure there is in eating it and buy it. The fact remains that at the time of purchase I valued the money expended to buy the candy bar less than the pleasure obtained in consuming the item. I reckon that my own choice to buy demonstrates that I have attained a greater satisfaction than otherwise would have been, and no wrongdoing has occurred on the part of the grocer who made my visit better than it otherwise would have been I not been able to enjoy the candy bar at all because it was a forgotten pleasure.
TheEditor wrote:Hi Peter,
And, while there are SOME men who will seek prostitutes regardless of their illegality, and there are SOME men that would never do so, legal or not, there are a vast number of inbetweeners that will engage in an activity simply becuse it is legal, and will avoid it simply because it is illegal This is a fact that needs consideration.
I don't disagree that the some men will refrain from prostitution because it is illegal, that would not otherwise. I do not, however, follow this to the conclusion that prostitution ought to be illegal. The reason is that I don't believe that a man who refrains from sin because of State compulsion has a heart that is any more pleasing to God than with the State than he does in its absence. Either way, his heart holds the same values and the retains the same desire to disobey God. Perhaps he is somewhat in a worse position because his sinful heart is less evident to himself when he subjected to the demands of the State and does the right thing whilst retaining an evil heart. Further, God seems to have placed man in the world with a great deal of freedom to engage in wrongdoing. God could have elected to give man less liberty by changing his nature to have fewer choices to avail himself of, or by creating him in such a way as to have fewer sinful desires. I do not suppose that is the role of mankind to remove the liberties God has given, for I believe that He has a purpose for arranging things the way He has. Besides all this, where does it stop? Should Christians make it standard practice to use the State to forbid all manner of sins (e.g. adultery, fornication, failure to pray, or failure to attend church)?

Regards, Peter

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by TheEditor » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:34 pm

Hi Peter,

Better, but not great. Thanks for asking.

I trust you realize that candy is a metaphor for prostitution. I wasn't implying that impulse buying is wrong per-se. As for your last point; This is the "slippery slope" argument. I don't want to live in Calvin's Geneva. But there is a difference between regulating certain public activities and displays, and regulating private bedroom behavior. Like I said before, we have the luxuary of talking in abstracts because we know full well that this world will likely never adopt a model such as you are suggesting. And, just like we can come up with all kinds of wild scenarios involving excessive govermental control (say, 1984) we can come up with an equal number of dystopian worlds in an anarchistic model. I prefer a middle ground, that way I can throw rocks at both sides. :lol:

Regards, Brednen.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by thrombomodulin » Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:46 pm

TheEditor wrote: I trust you realize that candy is a metaphor for prostitution.
I have to admit I read that part literally and missed the metaphor.
TheEditor wrote: As for your last point; This is the "slippery slope" argument. I don't want to live in Calvin's Geneva. But there is a difference between regulating certain public activities and displays, and regulating private bedroom behavior.
Yes, it is a slippery slope argument. I expect that in assessing situations somewhere near the bottom of the slope, that we would agree that it would be sinful for Christians to compel non-believers into certain Godly behaviors. Although I see a place for enforcing restitution to the victim of some wrongdoing, or for parents to discipline their children in certain ways, I don't otherwise see the means of compelling obedience to God as an appropriate tool for the church to use - even if the State is the intermediate agent that carries out the dirty work. I think I'm happy to stay on one edge of the political spectrum, even if such ideas will never be adopted, it is nonetheless helpful to have an ideal towards which one may make incremental changes.

Peter

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

Post by TheEditor » Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:34 pm

Hi Peter,

I suppose where we differ is twofold. For one, I don't believe that we as believers should use the State or it's agencies as a proxy for whatever our political idealogy is, including a step toward what you feel is better (anrchistic or otherwise). And secondly, if the State feels the need to compel or encourage certain standards (such as say, prostitution laws) I won't lobby for or against, but I can't see the harm in those laws. Bottom line is I cannot feel passionate about defending the rights of someone to violate moral precepts in a secular society. It just doesn't stir my ire.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Post Reply

Return to “Teachers, Authors, and Movements”