As I pointed out in my earlier response to Mr. Tolley, the same-sex marriage (SSM) debate is not about “should same-sexers have the right to reproduce.” Same-sexers do; that right is not, thank goodness, in much doubt in the USA. The SSM debate is about fairness and equality; but since they’re unable to make credible arguments against fairness and equality, SSM opponents resort to discussing children instead.
All right then. Let’s discuss children.
Characterizing the view he opposes, Mr. Tolley writes:
Here, Mr. Tolley is accurate. It is indeed my view – and, I think, the view of virtually all pro-SSM folks – that there is no “right” to be raised by a mother and father.
But I wonder if Mr. Tolley is using the word “right” in a way I’d recognize.
Children have a right to not be cruelly neglected, nor cruelly beaten. Children have a right to be fed and cared for. Children have a right to an education.
One way I can tell that children have these rights is, in our society, parents who lock their children in the basement or beat them or won’t feed them or care for them – are subject to having their children taken away by the government, by force if necessary. In other words, we can tell that children have these rights because we enforce those rights.
In contrast, I’m not – and I hope Mr. Tolley is not – prepared to endorse having children taken away from loving same-sex parents by force in order to have the children raised by heterosexual strangers. I’m not going to throw a lesbian in a committed relationship in jail for illegal use of a turkey baster. I’m not prepared to make single parents marry people of the opposite sex whether they want to or not.
That is what having a “right” to being raised by a mother and a father would entail. It’s self-evident, I hope, that children do not – and should not – have any such right.
Mr. Tolley also writes:
(Aside: I love the way Mr. Tolley defines what a “lesbian couple” is. Who is he writing for, that he imagines they’ve never heard the word “lesbian” before? Gosh, I guess red America really is different.)
Mr. Tolley is mistaken. A lesbian couple is not saying that “a father is not a critically vital and necessary part of any child’s development.” They’re saying that a father is not a critical part of their own child’s life. For a different child – one being raised by a heterosexual couple, or by two gay men – the child’s father (or fathers) is essential.
This may seem like minor quibbling over words, but it’s not; it brings to light an essential difference in the world-views of those opposed to and in favor of same-sex marriage. To pro-SSM folks, people are individuals; what matters is if Suzy and Jenny are loving, kind, capable parents.
To anti-SSM folks, people are judged not by their traits as individuals but by their sex. Suzy and Jenny have matching genitals, therefore they are BAD parents. Mary and Bob have non-matching genitals, therefore they are GOOD parents.
The question is, should the law treat Suzy and Jenny as individuals, or should it ignore everything about them but their sex?
* * *
Legal questions aside, are opposite-sex parents “essential”? I’d have to say not.
Think of it this way: suppose you had a child that could be placed in one of two adoptive families. Family A is a loving, economically stable gay male couple. Family B is a heterosexual couple in which the man brutally beats his wife every night, and plans to do the same to any children he’s put charge of. For the sake of this example, suppose no other couples are available.
Which family should be allowed to adopt the child?
Okay, now imagine the same situation, only this time family A is a loving, economically stable lesbian couple, and family B is a heterosexual couple who live in a large cardboard box, survives by eating scraps out of garbage bins, and has no prospects for economic improvement. For the sake of this example, suppose no other couples are available. Which couple should be allowed to adopt the child?
Would any sane person give the child to family B, in either of these situations?
I assume not. That’s because we can recognize the difference between what’s essential and what’s not. It’s essential that a child not be abused; it’s essential that a child be housed and fed. Compared to these things – things that are genuinely essential – it becomes clear that being raised by opposite sex parents isn’t.
It’s about treating people as individuals versus treating people as their sex. Someone who is pro-SSM looks at a family and says “Doug and Joe seem to be doing a swell job raising little William. Will is happy and well-fed and loved and cared for, and that’s what matters. Maybe Will doesn’t have absolutely everything he’d have in an ideal life, but he has everything he needs.” Someone who is anti-SSM looks at that same family and says “Will is being raised by two men, therefore he is being deprived of something essential, and I don’t need to know anything more. Asking if Will is happy and well-cared for would be irrelevant.”
Which view is more child-centered? Heck, which view is more human?.
There is a third possibility (C) in the two scenarios: no parents, i.e., orphanhood. I happen to think that A winsin both scenarios, but I wonder what Mr. Tolly’s view would be.
Aside: I love the way Mr. Tolley defines what a “lesbian couple” is. Who is he writing for, that he imagines they’ve never heard the word “lesbian” before? Gosh, I guess red America really is different.)
He could be writing for an audience of Greeks, you know, who might react to the word “lesbian” by thinking “What do couples from Lesbos have to do with the issue of Same Sex Marriage”, but then thanks to the paranthetical definition, are informed that in this case lesbian is an idiom of homosexual women. To that end, I’m glad we use “same sex marriage” instead of “gay marriage,” lest anyone be confused and assume that SSM opponents merely believe that marriage should be a somber occasion.
I’m glad that you are attacking their arguments logically, because when I see a conservative man going off on paranoid arguments about how lesbians are trying to reduce men to sperm donors, all I see are a bunch of men throwing a temper tantrum because they don’t get to have women fawning all over them and declaring that they are the center of the universe.
In one-on-one discussions of SSM, my wife extols the humanity of homosexuals, and asks for empathy and compassion. In contrast, I talk policy. What concerns do you have about SSM, and what policies would address those concerns?
Some people express concern for children, and argue that a biological heterosexual married couple represent the optimal circumstances for raising kids. Great, I say; so what policies would promote this end? Specifically, would banning SSM encourage gay people to become straight? Or discourage them from having kids? Or encourage them to give their kids up for adoption? Oddly, simple questions about cause and effect seem to have eluded many people. By accepting the concerns of SSM opponents on their own terms, I sense that I am able to make some headway in the discussion.
If a ban on SSM won’t have any affect on the number of children of SS couples, I ask, how would the ban affect the welfare of those children? And I note problems that arise for unmarried couples that can harm their unadopted children (e.g., lack of inheritance rights and child custody upon death, etc.)
Does this discussion change minds? Well, I kinda doubt that my wife persuades many SSM opponents of the need to be charitable to homosexuals. I like to think that I make some progress by focusing on being charitable to their kids. After all, if you think that a child is being harmed by being raised by a SS couple, why add to the kid’s burdens by keeping his parents from marrying? Build compassion for the children of SS couples, and you build tolerance (if not actual support) for SSM.
So let’s celebrate the fact that SSM opponents focus on the welfare of children. To the extent that they are sincere, this concern provides the leverage for moving them into the SSM camp.
because when I see a conservative man going off on paranoid arguments about how lesbians are trying to reduce men to sperm donors
“But they already have. Don’t you know what a sperm bank is?”
Then watch the fur fly ;)
Mr. Tolley is mistaken. A lesbian couple is not saying that “a father is not a critically vital and necessary part of any child’s development.” They’re saying that a father is not a critical part of their own child’s life.
And that’s not even a given.
I have two friends who are lesbians in a long-term relationship. They decided to have a child. And the one of them who decided she was going to bear the child asked her best friend, a gay man, to donate the sperm.
The child, who’s five or six now, lives with the two women. But the father is an active part of the child’s life. He’s still best friends with the two women, is over there all the time, takes the kid overnight and all. She lives with Mom and Mommy but *has* a Daddy. And since the friendship between these two women–especially the one that had the child–and the father is deep and long-lasting, the relationships are more cordial and productive than most divorced couples. There’s even a guest room he can crash in.
Now, I know that not all–probably not many–same-sex couples choose to organize things this way. But it’s possible. It’s done. And think of this–this kid has *three* parents, two of which she lives with, one who is an active part of her life, all three of whom love her. Any way you slice it, that’s a lucky kid.
The debate goes further than this. We need to address the whole matter of ‘traditional’ family structures in raising kids. Having a parent or two that is able to care for them for them is a good starting point, but if we really want to raise happy kids we all need to share the responsibility for their wellbeing.
I’ve posted a bit more on this more here –
http://www.commonman.org.uk/blogmt/archives/000226.html
the above circumstances described by church of bruce. Im all about letting men marry men and women marry women and having kids and whatever. why not, doesnt affect my life at all, except in making people around me un-miserable.
my only concern is that a boy really needs a male father figure in his life, preferably his actual father, and a girl needs a mom. I realize that isnt always possible if we are using the turkey baster senario.
No matter how good a job two women might do rasing a boy, there are just certain points of view and experiances that they can never adequately help him with. Same thing with girls i would imagine.
Long as thats being taken care of, let people do what they want.
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: the common man