Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Homo Emerging Controversy
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Neil Steinberg in today's Chicago Sun-Times:
The more I reflect upon the practice of society allowing gay "civil unions" but not "marriages"—the latter term being reserved for heterosexual couples who wed, the argument goes, as God intended—the more I wonder why those who insist upon the distinction stop there.What about the children of gay couples? (And yes, they have children, sometimes, just like heterosexual people do.) I'm surprised we don't hear the argument that saying these children are "born" somehow undermines the value of heterosexual couples giving birth to their children. Does it not cast a pall over their joyous event, touched as it is with religious significance? How much longer will they allow gays to press their agenda by claiming their children are "born" when of course, by entering the world as part of these lesser civil unions, they could easily be relegated to a similarly lesser state?
Perhaps mainstream America would be happier if couples that can form unions but not marry would have children that are "birthed," or "whelped" or "emerge." Instead of a "birth certificate" the couples could be issued a "document of existence."
Sure, we naysayers might point out that doing so would cause discomfort for the affected children, who, when asked where they were born, would have to answer, "Well, I wasn't technically 'born,' but I 'came into existence' in Evanston.'' But since opposition to gay marriage considers neither the feelings of children nor the concerns of their gay parents, it's a little late to start caring about them now.
Share via
1
could we then refer to "whelpers" and "breeders" instead of straight and gay? i don't know whether to laugh or cry. probably cry. still, i take heart reading kuhn's Structure of a Scientific Revolution. change comes when old people die, and the average age of limbaugh's fans is 67.
2
" (And yes, they have children, sometimes, just like heterosexual people do.) "
Doesn't that require cheating?
Isn't the definition of 'homosexual' that you don't have sex "just like heterosexual people do"?
Does anyone really know what 'homosexual' is?
Doesn't that require cheating?
Isn't the definition of 'homosexual' that you don't have sex "just like heterosexual people do"?
Does anyone really know what 'homosexual' is?
3
Daaan! Stop posting! You're way too much fun, and I have to get outside. Seriously, I could be here all day.
4
@2 - heterosexual parents sometimes use artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, or even (gasp) adoption if they can't have children the "normal" way.
Now that you mention it, maybe those marriages should be called "civil unions" because they didn't produce children the "normal" way. Or is the point that they have heterosexual, normally-would-produce-children sex, so it's OK? Please clarify.
Now that you mention it, maybe those marriages should be called "civil unions" because they didn't produce children the "normal" way. Or is the point that they have heterosexual, normally-would-produce-children sex, so it's OK? Please clarify.
5
@2: No. Thousands and thousands of gay couples have kids without cheating. I can think of 3 or 4 ways this happens now, and 1 or 2 more that may become possible in the near future.
Plus, most of the sex we have is just like the sex that heterosexual people have.
Plus, most of the sex we have is just like the sex that heterosexual people have.
6
Good Morning Dan,
I am for gay marriage but Steinberg is wrong. Homosexual people do not have children just like heterosexual people do. I have no quibble with a loving homosexual couple adopting a child (children) but I am against surrogate parenthood. That is the especial creation of a child for that gay couple. I am also against it for straights. I don't believe women are baby factories.
I am for gay marriage but Steinberg is wrong. Homosexual people do not have children just like heterosexual people do. I have no quibble with a loving homosexual couple adopting a child (children) but I am against surrogate parenthood. That is the especial creation of a child for that gay couple. I am also against it for straights. I don't believe women are baby factories.
8
Quick! Alert Bill Sali*!
I'm so surprised he hasn't thought of this yet!
*Idaho's own private Rick Santorum (yeah I live in Idaho)
I'm so surprised he hasn't thought of this yet!
*Idaho's own private Rick Santorum (yeah I live in Idaho)
9
@6 - "homosexual people do not have children just like heterosexual people do". Ooookay. So many things wrong with that, but, for one, what about lesbians? Do they not have babies "just like heterosexual people"? You know, with sperm (through artificial insemination, or regular old insemination) and an egg and being pregnant for nine months and giving birth?
10
However we get 'em, once we've got 'em we're parents just like heterosexuals. And not all heterosexuals have children the "normal" way. In addition to fuck-and-make-babies, straight people adopt, do surrogacy, remarry and acquire step-children, foster, etc. So gay people have children just like lots and lots of heterosexual people do. We don't have the kind of magic sex that makes babies—nor do heterosexuals, most of the time—but parents are parents, and kids are kids.
11
@10. That was well said. There are all kinds of ways to have a child, and both heterosexual and homosexual couples (and single folks) utilize them in the same way.
12
Someday a person will run for president who was raised by a gay couple and I fully expect some right wing turd to question whether they were "born" in the U.S.A.
13
"but parents are parents, and kids are kids"
Very well put, Dan.
That simple, but true statement is often lost amid all the discussions.
At the end of the day, what really matters is that children are raised in loving, supportive homes; and that parents do the best that they can for their children.
Children 'get' the concept of their parents being "married" or "partnered" and derive security from that. To deny the children of same-sex couples that same security is criminal.
Two dads raising kids = Two dads who love their kids and each other.
Two moms raising kids = Two moms who love their kids and each other.
It's not a hard concept.
If these so-called "pro-family" people were really serious about supporting what is best for families - all families, not just their chosen flavor - then they wouldn't block efforts to make sure that families headed by same-sex couples had the same rights, securities, and protections as those headed by opposite-sex couples.
Very well put, Dan.
That simple, but true statement is often lost amid all the discussions.
At the end of the day, what really matters is that children are raised in loving, supportive homes; and that parents do the best that they can for their children.
Children 'get' the concept of their parents being "married" or "partnered" and derive security from that. To deny the children of same-sex couples that same security is criminal.
Two dads raising kids = Two dads who love their kids and each other.
Two moms raising kids = Two moms who love their kids and each other.
It's not a hard concept.
If these so-called "pro-family" people were really serious about supporting what is best for families - all families, not just their chosen flavor - then they wouldn't block efforts to make sure that families headed by same-sex couples had the same rights, securities, and protections as those headed by opposite-sex couples.
15
@14) He's extrapolating the Gay Marriage argument to include gay parenthood. It's genius, and and by doing so, shows how ludicrous the entire argument is.
Sometimes the mere fact that the current gay marriage argument is said so often makes people start to accept it as if it made sense. Switch it up, intelligent people start seeing it's just crazy.
Unfortunately, not everyone who votes is intelligent.
Sometimes the mere fact that the current gay marriage argument is said so often makes people start to accept it as if it made sense. Switch it up, intelligent people start seeing it's just crazy.
Unfortunately, not everyone who votes is intelligent.
16
Wait guys, I'm confused! How can homosexuals have kids? I thought that enjoying sex with other men (or other women) made it absolutely impossible for your gametes to mix with other gametes, ever. Doesn't a lesbian woman's vagina shrivel up whenever any sperm enters the room? Don't adoption papers burst into flames when they're touched by a gay man? I thought that preferring sex with a same-sex partner meant that it's physically impossible to have sex with, or donate sperm to (etc), someone of the opposite sex.
But then again, it was only last week that I found out that babies aren't delivered by storks. Maybe that's why I can't wrap my head around such complicated concepts as "adoption" and "artificial insemination."
But then again, it was only last week that I found out that babies aren't delivered by storks. Maybe that's why I can't wrap my head around such complicated concepts as "adoption" and "artificial insemination."
17
"Civil union" should really be seen as better than "marriage" anyway. It's more... well... civil. Give it a few years and everyone will want one. So much more equitable than that ball-and-chain marriage pablum.
Civil unions are the indoor outhouse of our relationship sanitation.
Civil unions are the indoor outhouse of our relationship sanitation.
18
@9 & 10 Julie & Dan respectively,
I stand by what I said. Humans are conceived via a sperm and an egg. That conception is planned or unplanned. My understanding is that a gay couple can’t have an unplanned pregnancy (unless the gay woman is raped or has a heterosexual affair that results in a pregnancy). That isn’t insulting to homosexuals. It is nature’s or biology’s way of propagating the species. I am seeing an attempt at an individual right (the right to bear a child naturally) and science (surrogacy) to trump nature. Not all hetro- or homosexual couples want children. Many do and clearly, hets have a much easier route to have children. I’m for gay couples adopting kids but made-to-order children (for gays or straights) greatly concerns me.
Look, I can’t prevent surrogacy and remain for gay marriage. I don’t like it (surrogacy) but there’s not much I can do about. In a better world, I would prefer unwanted children placed in homes where adults (gay or straight) want them. This directly relates to fatherless households which directly relates to crime and illegitimacy. I believe nature prefers that child’s mother and father raising him or her. Yours truly, prefers ANY parent gay or straight, single or married provided she, he or they have the resources and the strength to raise a human being. I see surrogate parenthood as luxuriant.
I stand by what I said. Humans are conceived via a sperm and an egg. That conception is planned or unplanned. My understanding is that a gay couple can’t have an unplanned pregnancy (unless the gay woman is raped or has a heterosexual affair that results in a pregnancy). That isn’t insulting to homosexuals. It is nature’s or biology’s way of propagating the species. I am seeing an attempt at an individual right (the right to bear a child naturally) and science (surrogacy) to trump nature. Not all hetro- or homosexual couples want children. Many do and clearly, hets have a much easier route to have children. I’m for gay couples adopting kids but made-to-order children (for gays or straights) greatly concerns me.
Look, I can’t prevent surrogacy and remain for gay marriage. I don’t like it (surrogacy) but there’s not much I can do about. In a better world, I would prefer unwanted children placed in homes where adults (gay or straight) want them. This directly relates to fatherless households which directly relates to crime and illegitimacy. I believe nature prefers that child’s mother and father raising him or her. Yours truly, prefers ANY parent gay or straight, single or married provided she, he or they have the resources and the strength to raise a human being. I see surrogate parenthood as luxuriant.
19
If there were a condition called 'homosexual' (as opposed to 'heterosexual') the defining characteristic would be 'not having heterosexual sex'. Because otherwise you would be a 'heterosexual'.
Since humans reproduce by heterosexual means, if there were people who 'were' 'homosexual' they would/could not 'have' babies.
Of course, this is silly.
People are not 'homosexual'.
They just engage in homosexual behavior. When they choose to.
They can engage in heterosexual behavior as well.
And have babies.
Because they 'are' just like the rest of us.
Since humans reproduce by heterosexual means, if there were people who 'were' 'homosexual' they would/could not 'have' babies.
Of course, this is silly.
People are not 'homosexual'.
They just engage in homosexual behavior. When they choose to.
They can engage in heterosexual behavior as well.
And have babies.
Because they 'are' just like the rest of us.
20
A homosexual couple who decides to have a child, adopt a child, surrogate, whatever has a distint difference from many, many straight couples. They have to PLAN it. They have to WANT it. Wouldn't the world be a better place if all the parents actually WANTED to be parents?
21
@20: Totally agree. My heterosexual parents were unable to have children biologically (maybe their marriage doesn't count either) and went through quite a bit to adopt me and my brother. Seeing the way some biological parents treat their children makes me thankful everyday to have such amazing parents. That isn't to say that adoptive parents are perfect, just that mine were really great. I can not imagine what would have happened if I had not been taken into such a loving home and it saddens me to know that many out there who claim to be "pro-family" are doing all they can to decrease the pool of prospective parents based solely on who that parent or parents choose to love.
Also, adoptive parents (at least those who adopt within the US) are followed pretty closely by social services, both before and after they adopt. Biological parents face no such scrutiny, though perhaps many should.
Also, adoptive parents (at least those who adopt within the US) are followed pretty closely by social services, both before and after they adopt. Biological parents face no such scrutiny, though perhaps many should.
22
20
21
Biology is so stupid.
All kids should be adopted- obviously people who "have" kid are totally unfit to be parents...
21
Biology is so stupid.
All kids should be adopted- obviously people who "have" kid are totally unfit to be parents...
23
im a lesbian and i desperately want to be a mother and have a family with my partner... how could anyone consider that to be wrong? i want to make my life whole by conceiving my own child and experiencing the miracle that is childbirth.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (23) RSS