A Civil Discussion: Should SSM Opponents Lose Their Children?

I think that as our understanding of what it means to be a parent evolves and our understanding of how damaging homophobia is evolves, we must consider the possibility that opponents of Same Sex Marriage are, by teaching their children homophobia, abusing them, and ought to have their children taken from them.

I’m going to lay out some of the best arguments for taking the children of SSM opponents from them and placing them in foster homes, or, preferably, with SSM proponents. I understand that this conversation may be painful for opponents of Same Sex Marriage to participate in, but I’d like to encourage them to participate civilly, while encouraging SSM proponents to recognize that this argument (that SSM opponents are engaging in constant child abuse),while true, is likely to be painful for them. One thing I do want to be really clear on is that any conversation must be civil, and anyone engaging in uncivil behavior will be banned. This isn’t going to be about name calling. This is going to be about what horrible parents SSM opponents are, and how they deserve to lose their children.

The Purpose of Parenting

I think we must begin by examining the purpose of parenting. SSM opponents like to talk a lot about instilling ‘values’ in their kids, and though they’d like us to think that values have something to do with the purpose of parenting, historically that’s simply not true. Many creatures parent their young, not just humans, and yet we cannot speak meaningfully to a chipmunk, cat, tarantula, or seagull instilling ‘values’ in their young. In fact, the entire language of values is a modern-day attempt to redefine parenting away from what it’s meant for literally millions of years.

So if parenting isn’t about values what is it about? Quite simply, parenting is about preparing children for the future and preparing children to join the world. This is true no matter the era, culture, or even species of the parent. So if parenting is about preparing children for the future, does teaching your children homophobia do that? It’s clear that the answer is no.

Acceptance of SSM is on the rise. Acceptance of GLBT Americans is on the rise. If only people under the age of 30 voted, Same Sex Marriage would be legal in all but 12 states. Check it out:

Additionally, earlier this year marks the first time that a majority of Americans favor legal Same Sex Marriage:

Thus, if parenting consists of preparing your children for the world to come, it is not clear that Same Sex Marriage opponents are actually parenting. By teaching intolerance, they’re preparing their children for a world that simply has either has stopped existing or is soon going to. Thus, the entire concept of opponents of Same Sex Marriage parenting children is logically impossible. They may ape some of the forms, and I have no doubt that they believe that they love their ‘children,’ but whatever they think they’re doing, they’re not parenting.

Loving Your Children

One thing that almost everyone can agree is a component of parenting is treating your children with love. Across most animals, and certainly across mammals, there is an emotional aspect to parenting, a part that’s about the affection and love for your children.

And yet, by opposing Same Sex Marriage, the opponents are standing up to block a loving relationship. If they don’t believe that love is necessary in a healthy marriage (and indeed, many of them believe that GLBT individuals ought to enter sham, loveless straight-seeming-marriages just to preserve the form), I don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider whether or not these people are truly able to love at all. And if, in fact, they’re unable to love, isn’t it better for everyone if their children are taken from them and placed with people who are at least capable of giving them the love they need?

Opposing SSM is Sexually Creepy

Something that’s struck me for years about Same Sex Marriage Opponents is that they don’t particularly seem to grasp the concept of consent. Over and over again I see arguments about how same-sex marriage is inherently damaging, and about how it stunts the full emotional growth of the participants … without acknowledgment that nobody is in a same sex marriage nonconsensually.

You see the same thing when it comes to their attitude about non-heterosexual sexual activity. Many opponents of SSM have historically favored the criminalization of sodomy or voted for those who did, like former President George W. Bush, who campaigned on it. Once again, we see a lack of understanding of the importance of consent as a moral calculus.

Furthermore, opposition to Same Sex Marriage seems to illustrate an unhealthy obsession with- and desire to control the- sexual activity of strangers. Considering this, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider whether Same Sex Marriage opponents can be trusted around children. Now, I’m not saying that we can assume that all opponents of SSM molest their children. Of course, that’s not true. I don’t think we can ignore the question, though … I mean, here’s a group of people who seem to want to control the sexuality of strangers and don’t have any understanding of consent. It’s not unreasonable to ask how they might conduct themselves sexually towards those who are unable of consent.

And it’s not unreasonable to make sure that we play it safe by removing their children from a potentially abusive situation.

 

Now, I respect that this conversation could be painful for opponents of Same Sex Marriage to participate in. After all, we’re talking about taking their children from them because they’re unfit to care for them. Still, like I said, I think it’s important to have the conversation, and I think we can have it civilly.

 

And yes. Of course this is satire.

(Post edited thanks to Gin-and-Whiskey’s feedback)

This entry posted in George: What is Marriage, Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues. Bookmark the permalink. 

34 Responses to A Civil Discussion: Should SSM Opponents Lose Their Children?

  1. 1
    fannie says:

    Brilliant.

    I think it really illustrates the burden many anti-SSM folks put on LGB people when they demand that we can participate in conversations about our rights only if we’re sufficiently nice about it.

  2. 2
    G says:

    It’s interesting how much of this article I actually agree with, no satire…

  3. 3
    Simple Truth says:

    Well-written! I will bet you an imaginary beverage of choice that this gets picked up and hand-wrung over by an SSM-opponent without realizing the satire.

  4. 4
    Jake Squid says:

    A post to be proud of, I think. I prefer to imagine that the last line isn’t in there.

  5. 5
    Megalodon says:

    And yes. Of course this is satire.

    For now.

  6. 6
    CaitieCat says:

    Well-played! Well played indeed. As an atheist, I’ve been saying something similar about people indoctrinating their children nonconsensually with their own religion for many years.

    Satire? What satire?

  7. 7
    Ampersand says:

    I know this is a satire of something I wrote, but I really like this post.

  8. 8
    Myca says:

    Well, it certainly wasn’t intended as a mean spirited satire. :) I’m glad you like it.

    —Myca

  9. 9
    RonF says:

    Oh, yeah, I’ll be highly surprised if this doesn’t get picked up by someone who doesn’t realize it was satire.

  10. 10
    Myca says:

    Oh, yeah, I’ll be highly surprised if this doesn’t get picked up by someone who doesn’t realize it was satire.

    Christ, I hope.

  11. 11
    resident_alien says:

    Magnificent! A 1.5 on the Swift scale.Well played indeed!

  12. 12
    Eytan Zweig says:

    Very well done, and point well taken, though I don’t think it’s a counter-argument to anything I said in the other thread.

  13. 13
    Myca says:

    Very well done, and point well taken, though I don’t think it’s a counter-argument to anything I said in the other thread.

    No, no, not at all. It wasn’t intended to be, either. It’s just an illustration of how ludicrous it is to frame a ‘civil discussion’ around one-sided cruelty, and how, in a situation like that, civility rules can serve to further oppress.

    I mean, it’s obvious in my piece, right? Well … I think it’s obvious generally, it’s just that we’re so used to GLBT folks facing that kind of cruelty that it doesn’t have much shock value left.

    —Myca

  14. 14
    Grace Annam says:

    A thing of beauty. Swift would be proud.

    Grace

  15. 15
    Megalodon says:

    I will bet you an imaginary beverage of choice that this gets picked up and hand-wrung over by an SSM-opponent without realizing the satire.

    How off base would they be? It seems more than a few readers want this to not be satire.

  16. 16
    jules says:

    love the post. satire is clear. but! one concern: we opposably-thumbed mammals DO indeed teach right, wrong, good/bad, kindess, honesty– this is part of every child’s k-12 education, all schools teach values. and i sure HOPE parents teach these things to their kids. how to be a compassionate being is about preparation for the future, imo. so- when you wrote a parent’s role doesnt include teaching values to our kids- …i almost stopped reading. if that part was satirical- it sure isnt clear (and i clearly understand the rest of the satire. and, i taught English- including the literary masters of satire- so, i am pretty sure i’m good at recognizing it.
    just b/c ‘family values’ has been hijacked as a neocon phrase, doesnt mean values are wrong or shouldnt be taught. eek. dude.

  17. 17
    Myca says:

    Megalodon:

    How off base would they be? It seems more than a few readers want this to not be satire.

    Leaving aside whether readers seriously embrace the message or not,
    1) it’s clearly satirical, and
    2) to be concerned about this actually happening is to be even more self-centered and disconnected from reality than Same Sex Marriage opponents usually are.

    Jules:

    DO indeed teach right, wrong, good/bad, kindess, honesty– this is part of every child’s k-12 education, all schools teach values. and i sure HOPE parents teach these things to their kids.

    Sure, sure, my point isn’t that that cannot be a part of parenting … it clearly can. My point was that it’s not a universal part of parenting across species, and thus cannot be considered the historical ‘essence’ of what is is to parent a child.

    Also, of course, I was just spinning out some plausible sounding pseudo-philosophical/pseudo-scientific horseshit that shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone with a 5th grade education or even a cursory knowledge of history. Hey! Wow! Just like SSM opponents do with their ‘redefining marriage’/’reproduction is the essence of marriage’ lies! What a weird fuckin’ coincidence that is.

    No need to worry. No serious argument against teaching your kids values intended. It’s just that if you’re not a child-abusing fuck you won’t teach them the values of prejudice and hate.

    —Myca

  18. 18
    Madame Suggia says:

    Thank goodness I read right to the end because I was frothing at the mouth, saying, WTF, this can’t be serious, this is abominable, outrageous, inhuman, to myself over & over again.

    Sadly, just switch it around so this was a post reading anti-SSM, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

  19. 20
    MisterMephisto says:

    Well played, sir. Well played, indeed.

  20. 21
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    I think it’s funny and well written, except for one issue:

    You write

    Now, I’m not saying that we can assume that all opponents of SSM molest their children. Of course, that’s not true. I don’t think we can ignore the question, though … I mean, here’s a group of people who seem to want to control the sexuality of strangers and don’t have any understanding of consent. It’s not unreasonable to ask how they might conduct themselves sexually towards those who are unable of consent.

    And that is pretty brilliant, really. But the last sentence kills the satire thing: “

    We just need to avoid name-calling while we discuss the inevitable child-molestation that same-sex opponents are going to commit.

    I think it’d be much stronger if you took the last sentence out. Your call, of course.

    I also think that you should submit it as an op-ed somewhere.

  21. 22
    Myca says:

    gin-and-whiskey says:

    the last sentence kills the satire thing

    Yeah, I can see that. Sure, unless other commenters think it’s a particularly wonderful line, I’ll remove it. (Line now removed, and thanks for the feedback!)

    MisterMephisto says:

    Well played, sir. Well played, indeed.

    Richard Jeffrey Newman says:

    Bravo!

    Aw, thanks, guys.

    —Myca

  22. 23
    Mandolin says:

    You need the equivalent of pop-up text on a comic to say “and yes, of course this is satire.”

  23. 24
    Myca says:

    You need the equivalent of pop-up text on a comic to say “and yes, of course this is satire.”

    Oh man, Mandolin. Don’t say that. Now I’ll spend the next 4 hours trying to figure out how to make that work.

    —Myca

  24. 25
    Robert says:

    It’s easy. Just embed an image and make the alt text be the “Of course this is satire” bit. When the reader mouses over the image, the alt text will pop up.

    As your web consultant, you owe me half of whatever time was saved. Just figure out your hourly rate and send me a check.

  25. 26
    Myca says:

    Sure, sure, it was figuring out whether or not there was a way to do this sans embedded image that I was having the difficulty with.

  26. 27
    Robert says:

    Don’t hand me excuses. I want my money.

  27. 28
    Myca says:

    Maybe we could work out a deal where I take those teenagers off your hands. You’ll still have to pay me to take them, but at a significant discount.

  28. 29
    tinyorc says:

    I’m so glad you stressed the fact that there’s no reason for SSM Opponents to be offended by your argument. After all, all your points are based in hard scientific fact. It’s a difficult thing to hear, but it doesn’t mean they’re bad people. It just means they shouldn’t be allowed have children. I also think it would be a good idea to remove SSM Opponents from teaching positions around the country, in case they use algebra or geography to subliminally spread their message to impressionable young minds.

    WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

    =)

  29. 30
    Robert says:

    Myca, maybe we can work out some kind of labor swap. You can use them as slaves, within reason, and I’ll answer your complex technical questions about the computer whatsises and the electronic thingamabobs.

  30. 31
    paul says:

    I think you left out the part about how allowing anti-SSM types (is it a choice or is it inborn) to raise children devalues the parent-child bond throughout society, since by allowing such abusive behavior we’re sending a signal to everyone that it’s OK.

  31. Pingback: Civility and Shared Realities « Family Scholars

  32. 32
    StraightGrandmother says:

    I just found this article it is brilliant!!! I will bookmark this.

  33. 33
    Myca says:

    Why, thank you very much. I’m so glad you enjoyed it.

    —Myca