Comments on What He Said

I see his point, but it’s pretty much of a non sequitur. Fact is, both hetero and homo couples are increasingly not putting kids first these days, by putting their love lives and jobs ahead of them and the poor tots end up end day care and get shuffled between various ex spousal configurations.

I need to get this off my chest:

I'm one of those homos who doesn't have nor want kids--and when the whole gay marriage debate turned into a referendum on supporting/ acknowledging/ protecting gay couples with children, I completely tuned out. And I wasn't the only one.

Gay marriage means a lot more than protecting child-bearing/ having rights--but you'd hardly know it from listening to the proponents. Sorry gay and lesbian paretns, but I don't much feel like fighting for your right to raise a kid. And one more thing to chew on: if gay guys like me think gay and lesbian parents are a bunch of patronizing, self-aggrandizing twatwaffles--and you've lost touch completely if this comes as news--just imagine what the straight folks think.

Actually, you don't need to imagine. Just watch how they vote.

Proud Gay Republican: That's a pretty broad statement that needs to be qualified -- e.g., are you talking about *any* day care (like when Mom needs a few hours off), or just large amounts of day care? If so, the how much is too much? And it definitely seems to be a non-sequitor to Andrew's point.

Childless Wonder: I (a childless gay man) agree with you ... but at the same time, I think that by getting children involved in the argument, we make a very powerful argument in favor or gay marriage. While opponents of gay marriage can go on and on about how awful gay people are, these arguments stop dead when discussing the children of gay couples (who, whether or not they are gay, are just children -- and who can argue against protecting children?). Sure, they hate it that gays have children at all, but it's something that they can't stop (hello, Mary Cheney!) and which is already happening all over the country (hey Dan!). So we're left with all these kids of gay couples with a lot less protection than those of married (straight) couples, which could be fixed (in terms of the law) if gays were allowed to marry. By bringing the kids to the forefront, immediately the gay marriage opponents who are supposedly for families look blatantly against stable families.

To put it another way: By changing the focus from gays (whom the red staters all hate) to children (whom the red staters all love), we cut down a lot of our opposition. This strategy worked in the early 70s for abortion rights -- the focus was moved from abortion (which most people personally hate) to choice (which most people want).

So I say, bring them children into the argument! And if it helps the cause for gay marriage, it will do so even for those gays like yourself who don't want children.

Proud Gay Republican: That's a pretty broad statement that needs to be qualified -- e.g., are you talking about *any* day care (like when Mom needs a few hours off), or just large amounts of day care? If so, the how much is too much? And it definitely seems to be a non-sequitor to Andrew's point.

Childless Wonder: I (a childless gay man) agree with you ... but at the same time, I think that by getting children involved in the argument, we make a very powerful argument in favor or gay marriage. While opponents of gay marriage can go on and on about how awful gay people are, these arguments stop dead when discussing the children of gay couples (who, whether or not they are gay, are just children -- and who can argue against protecting children?). Sure, they hate it that gays have children at all, but it's something that they can't stop (hello, Mary Cheney!) and which is already happening all over the country (hey Dan!). So we're left with all these kids of gay couples with a lot less protection than those of married (straight) couples, which could be fixed (in terms of the law) if gays were allowed to marry. By bringing the kids to the forefront, immediately the gay marriage opponents who are supposedly for families look blatantly against stable families.

To put it another way: By changing the focus from gays (whom the red staters all hate) to children (whom the red staters all love), we cut down a lot of our opposition. This strategy worked in the early 70s for abortion rights -- the focus was moved from abortion (which most people personally hate) to choice (which most people want).

So I say, bring them children into the argument! And if it helps the cause for gay marriage, it will do so even for those gays like yourself who don't want children.

Proud Gay Republican: That's a pretty broad statement that needs to be qualified -- e.g., are you talking about *any* day care (like when Mom needs a few hours off), or just large amounts of day care? If so, the how much is too much? And it definitely seems to be a non-sequitor to Andrew's point.

Childless Wonder: I (a childless gay man) agree with you ... but at the same time, I think that by getting children involved in the argument, we make a very powerful argument in favor or gay marriage. While opponents of gay marriage can go on and on about how awful gay people are, these arguments stop dead when discussing the children of gay couples (who, whether or not they are gay, are just children -- and who can argue against protecting children?). Sure, they hate it that gays have children at all, but it's something that they can't stop (hello, Mary Cheney!) and which is already happening all over the country (hey Dan!). So we're left with all these kids of gay couples with a lot less protection than those of married (straight) couples, which could be fixed (in terms of the law) if gays were allowed to marry. By bringing the kids to the forefront, immediately the gay marriage opponents who are supposedly for families look blatantly against stable families.

To put it another way: By changing the focus from gays (whom the red staters all hate) to children (whom the red staters all love), we cut down a lot of our opposition. This strategy worked in the early 70s for abortion rights -- the focus was moved from abortion (which most people personally hate) to choice (which most people want).

So I say, bring them children into the argument! And if it helps the cause for gay marriage, it will do so even for those gays like yourself who don't want children.

Nandor: Day Care is an extremely valuable resource when parent(s) get in a bind. It was never meant to outsource parenting. Use your brain. I'm talking about the selfish idiots who drop off their toddlers and infants on a daily basis, and often weekends also – when they really don’t have to or are too unwilling to downsize their lifestyle (sell that boat!) to stay home with the kids.

Andrew Sullivan's point is unsurprising. Don't political activists often initially take aim at the most extreme expressions of their target? Everything we tend to think of as a right is actually a interwoven matrix of rights, or of different expressions of one right. The rights at the "edges" of the matrix have the fewest advocates, and are thus more vulnerable. But if they fall, they expose a new edge. What was intially fairly widespread and, therefore, normalized, may start to look more extreme. Prime example: the anti-abortion movement, for instance, is now attacking the least common procedures ("partial birth" abortion) and the rights of constituencies that can't vote (minors), rather than staging the full frontal assaults of years past. What straight parents need to remember is that there is a larger agenda behind the attack on gay parents -- the enforcement upon everyone of a traditionalist Christian family structure. Once they've taken away gay parents' rights, my right (as a straight woman) to conceive as a single mother will be next in line.

This is a fine-tuning of the age-old tactic of divide and conquer. It works because people are narcissistic dolts unable to see past their most immediate self-interest. Or rather, unable to see how their self-interests are integrally connected to others'.

I mean, when you really get to thinking about it, isn't it rather amazing that we (usually) bother to stop at red lights?

A in NC,

Very well said, thank you.

PGR, I have to ask this. Are you an actual person, or are you just a Right-Wing Talking Point Generator Bot? I've never heard you say anything that didn't sound like you were just parroting whoever the currently fashionable right-wing blowhard gasbag may be.

PGR,

"Use your brain" -- hey, let's not get nasty here. I'm just pointing out that we can't have a debate with sweeping generalizations. Rather, we need to qualify these things somewhat, as you did in your second comment -- thanks.

That being said (and this is well beside the point of the original post), there's still a lot of room for clarification here. Sure, there are the rich parents who use a nanny to pretty much outsource parenting, but there are also parents who can't get by with only one job, who need the day care. Furthermore, most people -- many who can't afford a boat -- can't just put their careers/jobs on hold for the 5 or so years before their kids are all in school. Indeed, that would be completely unrealistic. Are you speaking out against ALL sets of double-income parents? Certainly I could infer that you aren't, but what you're writing certainly implies that you are.

Lastly, I don't think I've heard of anyone using day care over the weekend. Is this widespread? Or are you counting divorced parents keeping time share on the kids? If you are, it implies that you think parents should always stay together for the kids -- which is also unrealistic in many situations.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong -- I also have very low opinions of parents who don't try to have enough quality time for their kids. I'm just saying that we can't make these blanket generalizations.

C'mon, Dan, we need to start encouraging them to push these positions. Then they'll be recognized for the nutbags they are and be banished (again) to the outer periphery of American politics, where they belong.

I bet there are many parents who don't "abuse" day care who use the television as a babysitter or who watch TV themselves while paying little attention to their kids. There is some evidence that poor children in day care don't bond with their parents as well as poor kids who stay at home. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot most poor families can do about that. They have no boat to sell.

Nevertheless, children who experience day care are more assertive and have better immune systems. I definitely prefer children who learned how to interact/share with others in day care than home care brats whose mommies have always let them have their way.

NANDOR: Sorry, I was a little testy. Yes, there are parents who drop off their kids on the weekends and then go to the casinos. Obviously both parents can’t stay home, but if one of them can than at least that parent will experience the joy, awe, and wonder of the delight of her or his child exploring life on a daily basis – not just in the early morning rush or at night when there are too many chores to do. Why is this such a difficult concept? Yes, day care is frequently necessary. I’m not talking about those parents.

KESHMESHI: I’m sure you can find several talking point about the virtues of day care. But when a child has to compete with a dozen or so kids for attention, day care workers are trained not to bond, parents read about how to handle “separation anxiety”, how is that so beneficial, huh?

Don’t take my word for it. Talk to some veteran day care providers.