Nuance on gay parenting
CommentsPositions on same-sex parenting tend to be extreme. Either “children need parents who love them, no matter the number or gender” or “children must be raised by heterosexual married parents.” But I disagree with both those approaches and have a stance on gay parenting that is much more nuanced. I believe:
1. Whenever possible, a child should be raised with both a mother and a father. Sometimes that can’t happen, which is always a tragedy.
2. There is no evidence that a person’s sexual orientation is correlated with his or her parenting ability.
3. It is better for a child to have two parents of the same sex than no parents at all.
Those three principles lead me to the following conclusions:
A. Laws like Florida’s ban on lesbian and gay adoption are offensive. The fact the gay movement is putting so many more resources into retaining a semantic difference on marriage in California when Florida continues to irrationally stigmatize and reject would-be parents because of their sexual orientation befuddles me.
B. For a same-sex couple to engineer a baby instead of adopting is a selfish act of cruelty to their own offspring - prioritizing passing on their genes over allowing their own child to grow up with both a father’s guidance and a mother’s touch. It’s manufacturing a tragedy. It shouldn’t be illegal, but it makes me sick.
C. Adoption agencies should be allowed to give preference to families with both a mother and a father (of any sexual orientation) when all else is equal. If that means same-sex couples end up with more children of color and special-needs children, I know from experience that LGBT people have the love, the patience, and the perseverence to welcome all kinds of little ones into their homes. But laws like the one in Massachusetts that forbids adoption agencies from preferring families with both a mother and a father may help gay people but they hurt children and they should be repealed.
D. Creative same-sex family structures like that of the smart, affable Jewish lesbian academic Caryn Aviv are particularly admirable. Although I would never form a family like that, she actually has an argument that her daughter gets more love than if she were part of a traditional nuclear family - because she has both a Mom and two Dads to care for her. Caryn’s family is oriented around what’s best for her daughter, as opposed to proving to the world that gays are equal and a selfish notion like “a child doesn’t need a father to be happy.”
So am I homophobic or too accommodating of unfit parents? I’m sure some of you will have each opinion. I think I split this baby just right.
I have a question about item C. If it’s so preferable that children be raised by a mother and father that doing otherwise is always a tragedy, then why should it not be that the neediest children should be prioritized to get the most desirable homes? Given your views, would it not be appropriate to state that adoption agencies can give preference to families with a mother and father and should do so with even greater vigilance for needy kids? Otherwise, it seems like you’re saying that it’s ok if the kids with the greatest challenges are placed in homes that offer even more challenge. Wouldn’t it be better to put the less challenged kids with the gay families?
Isn’t the Massachusetts adoption agency issue complicated by the fact that Catholic Charities was using state money for adoptions?
Dan-
I think your point is excellent. I would love to see adoption agencies take precisely that atittude. I think other agencies also should be allowed to prioritize families based on their criteria, which may differ from ours.
Peter-
No, it’s not. Catholic Charities is forbidden to use Catholic values instead of LGBT values in deciding which children get which parents, whether they accept state money or not.
I always wondered if my view on gay marriage would be different, if third party procreation didn’t exist. I think biology is important, that a biological aunt or uncle should take priority over a non-biological heterosexual couple if a child lost his/her parents. It’s hard to get into the debates, because the issue is based on the person’s orientation not whether the person is indeed that actual parent of the child.
Renee from Opine
Attitude surveys indicate that there are more than enough married people interested in adoption than there are children in fostercare. There are obstacles that can be removed but agencies ought to redouble their efforts in matching children with prospective adoptors who are married.
I would challenge the blanket statement that “It is better for a child to have two parents of the same sex than no parents at all.”
Some children thrive best in group homes or in orphanages. I realize that of late orphanages have gotten a very bad rap, but alumni usually have very found memories and very good things to say about their experiences both as children raised in a compassionate institution and as adults having benefited from the guidance and the “extended family” they acquired.
I agree with David when he refers to the manufacturing a tragedy. I would go further, the use of 3rd party gametes has grown into an industry in which the process is virtually the manufacture of human beings. The prospective parents are consumers and the child the product. This demeans all concerned, including the people who work in the laboratories that make this practice possible.
It is also important to note that when advocates of SSM point to either adoption or to 3rd party procreation, they point outside of marriage. Adoption is a related institution but adoption does not bestow marital status; and indeed, as David says, it is legitimate to prioritize adoption based on marital status. Obviously 3rd party procreation is extramarital even when married people use it. So when SSM advocates point to these ways of attaining children, they remind us that the core of what they have in mind is almost the inverse of marriage.
In marriage, the husband is presumed the father of his wife’s children. This is based on marriage being a sexual union of man and woman. As a presumption it can be rebutted, however, it works very well for 98% of the married couples out there. The presumption protects both the social institution and the particular married pair — and their children.
But for adoption, or for 3rd party procreation, there are prerequisites requiring state intervention. First, there is parental relinquishment. Then, there is a decree of some sort providing a substitute parent or parents. Again, that is the virtual inverse of the marriage presumption of paternity.
That presumption does not apply to any one-sexed arrangement (homosexual or otherwise) because there is nothing to presume based on sexual behavior. In fact, there is nothing to rebut where there are two men or two women. An alternative presumption, of some kind, might be concocted but it would not be based on what the marriage presumption is based.
This is how marriage bonds a father to his children and to the mother of his children. It is not just post-childbirth that this applies. Responsible procreation is a set of principles that apply before the couple even engage in sexual relations and it applies long after they conceive and bring a child into this world. It entails the whole package — right through caring for the wellbeing of their children, educating them, socializing and culturizing them for full citizenship. And no small part of this is modelling the very same principles that the next generation of men and women will follow in a strong marriage culture.
There is insufficient study of same-sex parenting but we do know that how such parenting arrangements attain children is very different from the core of marriage which integrates fatherhood and motherhood and provides contingency for responsible procreation within the relationship.
“No, it’s not. Catholic Charities is forbidden to use Catholic values instead of LGBT values in deciding which children get which parents, whether they accept state money or not.”
This is a complete oversimplification. First of all, it’s not “LGBT values” that were at stake — it was human values. Those who lost most in the Catholic Charities decision were the kids (be they gay or straight) who were deprived of a potential home.
Also, the choice to deny gay couples was not an sweeping “Catholic value.” Prior to the decision to end adoption, the 42-member board of Catholic Charities had voted unanimously to keep considering gay couples. The bishops made the choice to end the adoptions –a choice that went against the wishes of the organization itself (with eight board members resigning because of it).
David,
You continue to amaze. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas, I appreciate and value the information.
I don’t see any reason why raising a child with a mother and father should be preferable? There are so many children who need homes we should not be in the business of wasting any more time letting kids sit in the foster care system as we determine people sexual orientation.
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
Count me among the ones who say you are homophobic. You provide no reason why parents of opposite sexes are preferable. Not all men can provide that “father’s guidance” and not all women have that “mother’s touch.” You’re taking a blanket sexist approach. You offer no evidence to back your assertion. I can only assume you get it from your Orthodox Jewish faith and accept it at face value.
Sometimes one side is just right, and the other side is just wrong. Splitting the baby is not always called for.
Chairm, you’re endorsement of orphanages seems to leave room for a polygamy argument. That provides that “group experience” and “extended family” as well. Do you endorse multiple adults in an intertwined sexual relationship raising children?
Is it a tragedy for an infertile straight married couple to use third-party gametes?
“It entails the whole package — right through caring for the wellbeing of their children, educating them, socializing and culturizing them for full citizenship.”
Why shouldn’t gay couples who are raising children have the backing of society and government through marriage to provide these same benefits to THEIR children? Aren’t gay couples responsible for caring for the wellbeing of their children, educating them, socializing and culturizing them for full citizenship? Yet, gay couples are not given the same tools to do that with.
By the way, every reputable study shows that children do just as well being raised by two parents of the same-sex as they do by two parents of opposite sex.
Chairm-
“Attitude surveys” are a poor way of measuring demand for real children. It’s one thing to tell a pollster you want to adopt, and quite another to go through the actual process. Everyone working with orphans wishes there were more loving families to adopt children, especially hard-to-place children.
G-A-Y - you say LGBT values about parenting are “human values,” I say many selfish same-sex parents who don’t care if their child has a father or not have “inhuman values.” We disagree. There is no oracle we can consult to find out who’s right. So why don’t we each arrange adoptions according to our own values? That way, everybody’s preferences are respected.
You obviously know very little about Catholicism, because that religion is quite hierarchical, and if the bishops overrule the board, that’s the Catholic way. And if the pope overrules the bishop, that’s also the Catholic way. In a free country they should be allowed to favor male-female parents, and a gay adoption agency should be allowed to favor lipstick lesbians if they want. Or show tune queens. Or whatever. Nobody should shove their values down anyone else’s throat.
Queerunity- I think you missed the part where I said people’s sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting ability. But we learn how to be a man and how to be a woman - and how to relate to men and relate to women - from our mothers and our fathers, in different ways. Whenever possible, children should be able to grow up with one of each.
But even if I had respect for your position, which I don’t, why do you have to force the Catholic Church to behave consistently with your values instead of their own? In a free country everyone should be able to conduct their lives consistently with their values.
There are different ways to relate to men and women? Are we supposed to hold the door around women but not men? Are we supposed to refrain from cursing around women but not men? Shouldn’t we be learning how to relate to other people without regard to their gender? Perhaps you don’t believe this, but this is where American law and values have been going for over the past hundred years.
David–I agree with your statement that, “In a free country everyone should be able to conduct their lives consistently with their values.” The issue, though, is whether they can do that while receiving public funds, which must be held to a different standard than private enterprise since they are collected from all people. I have absolutely no legal problem with private adoption agencies discriminating to their hearts content. I might not like how they choose to discriminate, but I’ll certainly defend their right to do so. But that defense ends if they accept public money. If they do so, they must abide by the laws of the state, including with regard to discrimination. If a state makes it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, then those who accept money from the state simply are not permitted to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If they wish to do so, then make their enterprise private. Essentially, that’s the price of doing business with the state. I also think its the price we pay to hold our pluralistic society together. In the case of Catholic Charities, the universal Church has ample resources to fund its own enterprises. There are lots of internal reasons why Catholic agencies do not have appropriate resources, but that’s an internal issue about distribution of the Church’s wealth. It’s not a problem of the state.
It’s a felony to run an adoption agency in Massachussetts without a state license. The state will not give you a license unless you agree to place children with same-sex couples in a nondiscriminatory manner. This may have been latent in the orientation discrimination law passed in 1990. But after SSM, it became clear to the Catholic Church that it would be faced with legally married same-sex couples seeking to adopt and it would either have to directly place children there or go out of business.
John K.-
Welcome to our blog. That other site isn’t letting me respond to your questions and comments to me, so feel free to post them here and I’ll respond. You say I take “a blanket sexist approach.” If by that you mean I believe that men and women are different and have different natures and roles (although I of course support legal equality), then I guess I am sexist. Again we come back to, don’t I have the right to support policies that match my preferences just as you do? If so, what are you concerned about?
By the way, your comment that “every reputable study shows that children do just as well being raised by two parents of the same-sex” is not really true. The vast majority of studies compare gay and lesbian parents to heterosexual parents. Many of the children in those studies are being raised by lesbian Moms - but they also have Dads. I was discussing this subject with Dr. Robert-Jay Green, executive director of the pro-gay Rockway Institute in San Francisco and an expert on studies relating to homosexuality. He admitted that there has never been a study on whether a lesbian Mom can effectively apart masculinity and male self-worth to her son as effectively as a Dad can. We both agreed we’d love to see the results of such research.
You write, “Shouldn’t we be learning how to relate to other people without regard to their gender? Perhaps you don’t believe this, but this is where American law and values have been going for over the past hundred years.” It’s fine that you feel that way. But I do avoid cursing in front of women. I like to help them with their bags and yes, I hold the door for them. Maybe you consider such behavior to be sexist, but I consider it basic decency and respect. But again, you can run adoption agencies using your ideas about family and gender, and I should be able to run adoption agencies according to my ideas about family and gender. You may wish there was a consensus that men and women are exactly the same, but there isn’t. In fact, there may be an opposite consensus.
Maggie. If the state has decided to license all adoption agencies and makes it a requirement that licensed agencies must comport with state laws, then I have no problem with that. Everyone wanting to run an adoption agency is held to the same standard. If Catholic Charities cannot in good faith abide by state laws, then they just get out of the adoption business. State law hardly infringes on core religious beliefs here and does not impinge on the ability of Catholics to live their faith. If the state ultimately sees this as a hardship, then in time, they’ll change the law. Be patient.
That’s pretty much the same logic that I’ve heard traditional marriage proponents using. We have a law that marriage is between a man and woman. Gay people are welcome to get married, as long as they comport with state law and marry people of a different sex. If they don’t like the rules, just don’t get married. It’s certainly possible to be gay and have gay relationships in the absence of marriage. If the state ultimately decides, in good time, that this creates an undo hardship, then they’ll figure out a remedy. Be patient.
Dan, you’ve done it again. How many times do I have to point out how you perfectly lay out the moral issues we face on a given topic? Well-done.
You think it’s reasonable for Catholics to have to wait for the law to change if they want to use Catholic values in helping orphans find famiies. You also think it’s unreasonable for gays to have to wait for the law to change if they want to have a same-sex marriage.
Well, I feel precisely the opposite. How will we determine who gets what they want and who is forced to wait?
Well, in America the answer is usually determined democratically. We should all push for what we believe in and let the system work.
I have the technical ability to block all your posts from the site. I could even edit them without your permission to make you look bad. But I would never do anything like that - even though you’re a smart guy who very well could be persuading some readers that same-sex marriage is good. I happen to believe that my arguments get better when I’m debating the very smartest, most persuasive adversaries - and that they don’t improve much when the other guy’s ideas are easy to beat. I’m also not so arrogant as to think that on some aspects of any issue, the truth might be somewhere in the middle. We’ll find the truth much faster when smart, serious, respectful, but vigorously engaged people explore the subjects they care about.
Finally, a comment about Maggie Gallagher. One of the frustrations for someone like me is that so few people know how to defend marriage while still respecting everyone’s freedoms and being able to influence undecided Americans, rather than just reinforcing the views of people who agree with you. Maggie is one of a very few exceptions.
David. Thanks. I completely agree that the solution lies in the democratic process. A frustration I have with traditional marriage proponents (and the right more generally) is their contempt for that process. In the United States, democracy is not simply a function of voting. It encompasses all three branches of government in a brilliant system of checks and balances. In our system, it’s entirely democratic for a court to overrule a vote of the people, if the court determines that such a vote violates the Constitution (as was the case in California). It’s not only democratic, it’s precisely what the court is designed to do. Gay advocates who seek rights via the courts are not using undemocratic means to get them. The courts are an equal branch in our government and an entirely appropriate place to seek remedies for inequality. An undemocratic method would be taking up an armed struggle, something disenfranchised minorities often decide is the only way to get rights. But gay people haven’t gone down that path. They’ve used entirely legal and democratic processes to assert their rights. And let’s be honest, the vast majority of times they’ve done so, they’ve lost. I’m fine with traditional marriage folks making their arguments about why they think marriage should remain the the exclusive property of male-female couples. But arguments focused on judicial activism and the undemocratic imposition of same-sex marriage on the public are hyperbole at best and contemptuous of our democracy at worst. We live in a delicately balanced pluralistic society. Our success as a nation is in large part due to the brilliance of our system that balances authority among the executive, judicial, and legislative processes. Court rulings are a vital part of that process and do not constitute undemocratic means for achieving social harmony.
As an aside, I also find it completely disengenuous when folks cite the fact that the CA decision was a 4-3 vote, somehow implying that a close vote undermines their authority in the matter and complaining that the vote of only one person changed marriage. If the referendum banning same-sex marriage were to pass by one vote, those same people would argue this is the “will of the people”. These are all parts of our democratic process–all valid ways to address these issues. Let’s debate the merits of the case and not the merits of our democratic processes.
Re Catholic adoption services — in addition to the issue of licensing, that Maggire rightly noted, there is the issue of the government imposing anti-Catholic policies on Catholic agencies. The oponents of the Catholic Church in Massachusetts went so far as to insist that the government instruct Catholics on Catholicism and make the Church lower its standards. There are agencies today in that state which focus on matching children to gay adoptors. There are agencies, such as Catholic Charities, which prioritize adoption by married couples. If these approaches cannot be accomodated in a government licensed adoption system, then, the issue is not one of tolerance of gay identity politics but intolerance based on gay identity politics.
John K, plural marriage is an inferior form of sex integration, responsible procreation, and thus of marriage. Orphanages are not the equivalent of polyagmous arrangements.
As for your question about the infertile “straight married couple” who’d use third-party gametes, well, you are pointing outside of marriage.
To be clear, there are no infertile “gay” couples. No one-sexed combination is fertile in the first place — without the other sex — and so cannot be infertile — without the other sex. Infertility, like fertility, is both-sexed. Sexual orientation is beside the point.
The marriage presumption of paternity is based on this fundamental that cannot apply to any one-sexed arrangement — whether that be a lone individual or twosome or a moresome. The lack of the other sex is not infertility.
John K asked: “Why shouldn’t gay couples who are raising children have the backing of society and government through marriage to provide these same benefits to THEIR children?”
Presumably you by “gay couples” you mean same-sex combinations. These are not marriageable because marriage is both-sexed. See the two-sexed nature of humankind and the both-sexed nature of human generativity.
I think you rely on a false equivalency when you drag marriage into your question. And that is objectionable.
Most of the children living in same-sex households, by far, arrived their via the previously procreative relationships of their parents (typically marriages). The children migrated from a both-sexed scenario to a one-sexed scenario. The children have both moms and dads, but one or the other is not resident. They have the protections that children of divorce or estranged parents have in other households.
Only a small portion of the very small portion of same-sex households with children attained those children via adoption or third party procreation. But neither of these practices are at the core of marriage. Neither bestow marital status. Both can legitimately be prioritized based on marital status.
The first part is objectively true where adoption has taken place. I think the second assertion is objectively false.
Responsible procreation is not adoption. It is a coherent set of principles and practices. The first principle is that each of us, as a member of a procreative duo, is directly responsible for the well-being, education, and socialization of the human beings we conceived and brought into this world, barring tragedy or dire circumstances. This is deeply embedded in our traditions, customs, and legal systems. It is the basis for the marriage presumption of paternity. That is where responsible procreation begins. Adoption is a different kettle of fish.
* * *
David, attitude surveys are excellent indicators of where to prospect for adoptors. As you say, however, follow through is where the rubber meets the road. And it is there that the interested married people run into roadbloacks and hindrances — especially from our fostercare systems — that, if removed or lowered would enable attitudes to match actions.
Unfortunately, the pro-gay-adoption movement, such as it is, presents adoption as some kind of adult right. There is no such right. Adoption is childcentric and, contrary to how SSMers in particular talk about adoption by gay people, no government licensed system ought to be perceived as an affirmative action program for this or that identity group.
Adoption ought to be prioritized with married people first (especially those with children already), individuals who are expressedly open to marriage, and on down the list to unmarried individuals. In some cases, many in fact, children in fostercare are not legally available for adoption but would benefit tremendously from official guardianship, orphanages, and group homes. These are the sort of options that get ignored when pro-gay-adoption advocates present their false dichotomy as justify an affirmative action program for the gay population.
You have not gone that far and I am not suggesting that your comments even imply it. I’m noting what I’ve witnessed and what comes from the mouths of the activists who talk about fostercare and gay adoption.
Dan-
By this point it should come as no suprise that I think you are, once again, right. Judicial review is an essential element of our democracy. I don’t think the process is wrong; I just think this specific decision is wrong on constitutional grounds. And the only recourse when a citizen thinks a decision is wrong constitutionally is to try to amend the constitution - which is precisely what I’m doing. I would much rather live in a country with same-sex marriage imposed by judicial review than a country with neither same-sex marriage nor judicial review. Ultimately someone like me is going to be victimized under the latter system. I will agree that the system was working when In Re Marriage Cases was passed as long as you will agree that the system is working when the California Marriage Protection Amendment becomes law this November.
It really is refreshing that as far as I can tell, Dan and I totally disagree on same-sex marriage but at least we both disagree with people on both sides who think the system is rigged. The system may not be perfect, but I’d rather live in America and be subject to our system’s flaws than that of virtually any other nation in the world.
David Benkof
Excellent post, it seems I agree with your foundational principles. Many of the arguments being presented tend to be overwrought. It is my understanding that most children being raised by gay parents originally come from opposite sex married couples now divorced. There are multiple rights between parent and child that are seemingly in contention, but need not be. The right of both a natural parent and their child to know & be known by one another is a fundamental tenet of human & natural rights.
Gay natural parents & their children have the same right to not be deprived of one another as any other natural parent. A distinction based on sexual orientation when determining child rights, custody rights, and parental and kinship rights is an affront to this foundational human right.
“1. Whenever possible, a child should be raised with both a mother and a father. Sometimes that can’t happen, which is always a tragedy.”
I can only assume you mean their actual biological parent (a well established and well founded right) You also seem to support the good of modeling male/female regardless of biological kinship. Both these point I agree with.
“2. There is no evidence that a person’s sexual orientation is correlated with his or her parenting ability.”
I agree. I have not read any evidence of this kind and my intuition tells me this is both morally sound and the best public policy. This should be the approach both in custody disputes and adoption policy. Florida’s law is overwrought. At the very least it should be altered to prefer married male/female couples and make allowances for second party adoptions.
“3. It is better for a child to have two parents of the same sex than no parents at all.”
This seems reasonable. One thinks of the myriad of cases throughout history when both death of the Mother at childbirth and job/war related death of the father caused so many children to be raised by pairs of aunts, grandmother and mother, and various forms.
Re: Mass. Catholic Adoption Agencies.
It is not the case (as many have contended) that the State of Massachusetts was in any way privileging Catholic Charities in its policies, or that the elimination of them from service has not and will continue to be a harm to children.
The State uses Catholic services to place children (often special needs children) because of the service it provides. I every states Catholic adoption services runs at a loss, any state money it receives supplemented by private donations. It is a service that Catholic Charities provides to the State that explains why they are so often chosen for specific State & Federal grants.
Catholic Charities, while providing this service to the taxpayers also has a religious liberty right to practice its traditional mission. The Church has been helping widows and orphans since its inception, and (obviously) has always supported intact mother father childbearing through marriage.
These good works are essential to Catholic participation in society; these missions have been a consistent exercise of religious obligations to help the poor and needy. (Adoption is also one of the few options we are able to offer woman as an alternative to abortion)
It is a tragedy that the Massachusetts legislature failed to make allowances for Catholic Charities to uphold its consistent practice. Hopefully this egregious instance of excess zeal will be corrected soon.
David–We certainly do disagree on the marriage question and we agree that opponents of the recent CA court ruling have every right to pursue a constitutional amendment. I actually have fairly strong views that voter initiatives are a horrible way to legislate and I would ban them if I could. But that’s a much longer conversation and, for this discussion, beside the point. They are the law in CA and have been judged to be appropriate within the Constitution. If the amendment passes, then it’s just up to my side to try to overturn it in a few years. While I think a popular majority is a ridiculously low standard for amending the Constitution, at least both sides are being held to the same low standard. Welcome to democracy, CA style.
Seems to me that constitutional rights must be ratified by The People. So when a few judges discover a new right — one that was never ratified, and likely could never be ratified — you know that something is amiss. That’s what happened in Roe, and it’s what we see in Goodridge and now in CA. Leaving the ratification of The People out of the job of constitutional interpretation is making a mockery of our entire democratic system, and causes the voters to retaliate in the harshest non-violent way possible: by explicit amendment.
David, I agree with everything you’ve written, save one. A few years back the supreme court ruled that affirmative actions policies in a Michigan university were constitutional, because the state has a legitimate interest in promoting diversity. For this same reason, i agree with Florida’s decision to only allow opposite sex couples to adopt children — because it promotes diversity.
And i think everyone here will agree, that all things being equal, diversity is preferable to sameness. Which is why i have to question the motivation of those who insist that there is no legitimate difference between “two moms”, “two dads” or “mom & dad”. It seems to be nothing more that an ridiculous attempt to justify their own gender bias by depriving a child of natures natural diversity. A very cruel and unusual thing to do to a kid.
“…a gay adoption agency should be allowed to favor lipstick lesbians if they want. Or show tune queens. Or whatever.”
Geez, David. I -really- want to believe that you’re not a closeted homophobe, but honestly, you’re making it very difficult.
If you could perhaps -leave out- the stereotypical, derogatory comments that one typically hears from homophobic individuals, it would be -much- more difficult for anyone to imagine you as a bigot.
I don’t think you’re a bigot; but for the people that do, I’m afraid you’re making it easy for them.
Such as this description of the “LGBT’s extreme argument”.
“children need parents who love them, no matter the number or gender”
I don’t know a single LGBT individual who believes in defending the ‘number’ bit.
While homophobic people often jump to conclusions regarding homosexuality leading directly into polygamy, you will simply -not- drop it; normally this wouldn’t irritate me so much, except that I’m certain that you’re smarter than that.
Believe it or not, in the marriage quality movement, there is -no- substantial force asking for marriage to be widened to more than two people. To enforce such a belief would be detrimental to the entire cause; when we’re fighting for something already controversial, we certainly do -not- need to be scaring people with polyamory.
So, in stereotyping the motives and behasviors of the LGBT population, you are making it -too- easy for anyone to label you as a homophobe.
Even if you don’t consider yourself one, I’m afraid your behavior beginning to look consistent.
Moving on, though, you mention this:
“…there has never been a study on whether a lesbian Mom can effectively apart masculinity and male self-worth to her son as effectively as a Dad can.”
And here’s where -I- become controversial amongst those who are typically my allies.
I do -not- think lesbians are cut out for raising boys.
I have no research to back me up on that; and, indeed, if research determines that there is no significant difference between children with heterosexual parents and homosexual parents, then I’m left with nothing but my own opinion.
My opinion being, as -females-, lesbians are not ideally suited to impart male values upon a male child, having little expertise in that field themselves. I know I’m never going to attempt to raise a boy.
There seems to be some differing opinions here on the nature of gender equality, as well. I’m completely for gender equality; I am -not- for gender indifference. While men and woman should be treated as equal beings, they are not identical, and attempts to categorize them in unfair to both parties.
That said, I do not believe a girl having two mothers instead of a mother and a father will impact her in any detrimental way.
And until you or someone else can prove beyond considerable doubt that a child raised by a same-sex couple is affected in -any- unfavorable way stemming from their parents’ sexual orientations, none of your opposite-sex-favoring policies will get very far.
In Florida’s case… well, each discriminatory law will be overturned in its own time, and Florida’s time will come. For now, I guess the solution is ‘adopt out of state’.
Andy
David:
Fair enough. I’m not saying you don’t have a right to your sexist approach. As far as lesbian mom’s imparting “male self-worth” to their sons, I guess it depends on what your definition of “male-self worth” is. Again, the non-sexist approach is to say that the mothers pass on HUMAN self-worth to their sons. Is there a different sense of self-worth that should be imparted to males and females? You seem to simply be advocated constructed gender roles.
That’s fine that you refrain from cursing around women and you hold the door for them. Do you hold the door for men? If not, why not? I hold the door for both without a second thought. I also refrain from cursing around both (unless of course I’m among friends who I know are not offended. I admit, I do have a fairly filthy mouth
). Do you assume men you don’t know are not offended by cursing, such that you are more likely to curse around them than women? I just don’t understand the double standard.
****
Chairm:
You think the assertion that gay couples are responsible for caring for the wellbeing of their children, educating them, socializing and culturizing them for full citizenship just the same as straight couples is objective false!? Then WHO is responsible for such caring, educating, socializing, and culturizing of the children of gay couples?
You’re deflecting my point that practically speaking, infertile straight couples and gay couples are no different when it comes to their ability to have children.
With regard to marriage, I believe you cited the government’s desire to provide benefits to children through the marriage of their parents. Thus, by answering:
“Presumably you by “gay couples” you mean same-sex combinations. These are not marriageable because marriage is both-sexed. See the two-sexed nature of humankind and the both-sexed nature of human generativity. I think you rely on a false equivalency when you drag marriage into your question. And that is objectionable.”
To my question:
“Why shouldn’t gay couples who are raising children have the backing of society and government through marriage to provide these same benefits to THEIR children?”
you don’t actually provide an answer based on my point. I’m assuming an equivalency of the children of gay couples and straight couples a children with the same needs. If the government has an interest in joining the parents of straight couples with children in marriage, it has an interest in joining the parents of gay couples in marriage. If the government has an interest in joining straight parents in marriage for the sake of their children, it has an interest in joining gay parents in marriage for the sake of their children for the same reasons
And again, marriage is bestowed upon infertile straight couples. Their methods of producing children are not “at the core of marriage” either, yet they are allowed to marry anyway.
By the way, you provide two conclusory statements to my point about polygamy versus orphanages:
“plural marriage is an inferior form of sex integration, responsible procreation, and thus of marriage. Orphanages are not the equivalent of polyagmous arrangements.”
There’s no substance in this response. Please tell us WHY, and upon what BASIS you distinguish the two.
Fitz-
I don’t mean biological parents. I do not like it when - as in the Baby Richard case - the government favors blood over love. I know too many happy adopted people to believe there is any inherent advantage to being raised by your birth parents.
Dan-
Though we disagree on the merits of the issue, I like that we have precisely the same attitude toward the arena in which we need to fight it out. I am sick of each side accusing the other side of cheating for simply doing what the system demands.
Marty-
I happen to have been unhappy with the Michigan decision, even though it was written by one of my then-favorite justices, Sandra Day O’Connor.
Andrea-
Thank you for pointing that out. The only time I have ever heard “lipstick lesbian” used as an epithet is from a more masculine lesbian. And I have often referred to myself as a show tune queen (if you knew me better you’d know why). But you’re right that people wouldn’t automatically know that. For the same reason, I no longer ever refer to myself as “queer,” even though I find the word a better descriptor for my sexuality than “gay” or “bisexual.”
You’ve also misunderstood “no matter the number or gender” - the numbers I had in mind were one vs. two. Please note that in the main post I praised a family with three LGBT parents for offering so much love. But I have run across LGBT people who have defended Murphy Brown-style single parenting as completely equivalent to two-parent homes, and I simply disagree.
As for your choice to never raise a boy, I think it’s completely legitimate. I do think there is something special a father can offer his daughter, but I could live with a compromise in which same-sex couples raise mostly children of their own sex.
Your mention of effects “stemming from their parents’ sexual orientations” suggests you haven’t fully digested the fact that I do not believe sexual orientation is a qualification or disqualification for parenting in any way. Unlike some of my allies, I do not want a heterosexual couple to receive automatic preference over a lesbian who wants to raise a child with a gay man. But I do favor helping children have both a mother and a father whenever possible.
John K said: “You’re deflecting my point that practically speaking, infertile straight couples and gay couples are no different when it comes to their ability to have children.”
Nope. In either scenario the use of third party gametes is extramarital procreation. Straight or gay, both point outside of marriage.
But the two scenarios are not the same. Infertility is both-sexed. The lack of the other sex is NOT infertility. Infertility is a disability; choosing to form a one-sexed arrangement is not a disability.
By “straight couples” you obviously did not mean two heterosexual men, right? You did not mean a mother-daughter combination in which neither woman is sexually attracted to other women, right?
As with fertility, infertility is variable. This is simply the nature of the thing. Not so with the lack of the other sex. The inability to be fertile is the nature of the combo that lacks one sex. It is neither a disability nor an impairment. It certainly is a constant that a reasonable person would expect rather than try to claw some sort of false equivalence with people who suffer infertility.
A human being is born nonfertile or pre-fertile; then matures to fertility with the other sex; a both-sexed couple are a procreative organism and, if there are fertility problems, the man and the woman share the infertility or subfertility. Male human beings tend to be fertile throughout their lives whereas female human beings tend to reach menopause by early forties. Some people become impaired due to life-saving surgery or drug treatments. Some people are born with reproductive impediments. While about 10% of married couples experience infertility, about half already have children together. Of those who experience infertility, most resolve it through changes in behavior — and do not resort to the more novel and more intrusive forms of medical intervention. Subfertility is far more common among these couples. The small portion who do use such medical interventions do not usually resort to 3rd party gametes — about 90% or so of this portion use their own sperm and ova. Another 3-4% will use a mix of the husband’s sperm and “donor” sperm. So we are talking about a tiny portion of the users of these medical interventions who’d use third party procreation. And they do so due to an actual disability that they suffer — the causes of such are seemingly infinitely variable.
But the inability to procreate is a constant when one of the sexes is lacking. This is far more significant to marriage, as per responsible procreation, than you seem ready to acknowledge.
In the one-sex scenario, motherhood and fatherhood are segregated, purposefully. You cannot say that this is done for the sake of the children since the children are not even conceived until the adults make the decision to use 3rd party gametes. So this scenario depends on the pre-requisites of parental relinquishment (in this case pre-emptively) and some government intervention to decree a substitute.
That is the inverse of marriage whereby motherhood and fatherhood are united based on the type of relationship — the conjugal — which is categorically a sexual union that entails the principles of responsible procreation.
So, can a lone individual do a heroic job of raising children? Sure. But that’s not a good reason to equate such a scenario with marriage as you did farther upthread.
John K said: “marriage is bestowed upon infertile straight couples”
There is no such category, “infertile straight couples”, that marriage is bestowed upon in the marriage laws.
The government does not undermine responsible procreation by requiring each and every couple engage in lots and lots of premarital sexual intercourse to prove their fertility (i.e. conceive and bear children) BEFORE “bestowing” marital status.
Under what conceivable scheme would you have the government impose such a system? I doubt you would tolerate it if it was imposed, so why are you even suggesting its lack is a good counterpoint in favor of the SSM-merger?
There is a legitimate issue of proportionality here. And then there is the fact that marriage is sex integration combined with the contingency for responsible procreation. It is a relatively non-coercive means by which society promotes both of these central features that contribute tremendously to the common good.
What you are focussed on is gay-centric, and perhaps for good reasons known to yourself and which you might share with the rest of us, but it is not marriage-centric.
There are many forms of nonmarital parenting in society. And there are supports in many forms — including governmental but not exclusively — for parenting that is outside of marriage. The tools are not denied, as you put it, based on gayness and bestowed based on non-gayness.
John K said: “There’s no substance in this response. Please tell us WHY, and upon what BASIS you distinguish the two.”
There is substance but you haven’t noticed it. That’s okay. I think I’ll reserve a fulsome response for a comment section that discusses plural marriage and orphanages as a topic.
For now I will merely point out the obvious: orphanages are not marriages.
John K — I thought I had corrected my comment with an immediate follow up in which I said that it was objectively true that a gay parent is responsible, as a parent, for his or her child, where adoption has taken place.
If there was no adoption, then, how did that person become a parent without the other sex?
You referred to a couple and “their” children.
Parental status is not something you just magically get by becoming a twosome.
It does not work that way with heterosexual twosomes unless the children are born to their marriage.
And it can’t work that way for a same-sex twosome — regardless of their sexual orientation or shared sexual behavior.
The means by which children areattained may seem like a superficial detail to you, I dunno, but for when it comes to the best outcomes for children, on average, the parenting standard by which all other scenarios are measured and have been judged inferior is the union of husband and wife.
Adoption is an attempt to makeup a shortfall experienced by a child. Marriage is society’s way of trying to avoid the shortfall in the first place.
Segregating motherhood from fatherhood seems to be at directly odds with this.
1. Whenever possible, a child should be raised with both a mother and a father. Sometimes that can’t happen, which is always a tragedy.
2. There is no evidence that a person’s sexual orientation is correlated with his or her parenting ability.
3. It is better for a child to have two parents of the same sex than no parents at all.
I agree, I think, with all these beliefs. Therefore, I find it interesting that I am not entirely on board with the adoption of children by gays. Now, I am wondering why. I will have a think. Thankyou.
This whole website is bullshit. It’s made by str8 people pretending to be gay.
Versus, I have had gay sex with more men than I care to admit. For about a decade, I was obsessed with pursuing and engaging in sex with other men. How much sodomy do I have to commit for you to stop accusing me of being straight? Do you want pictures? I think somewhere in storage I have some.