Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, June 15, 2010
Homo / Hetero Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:33 AM
From NPR's report on closing arguments in California's Prop 8 trial:
Andrew Pugno—an attorney defending the state's ban on gay marriage—says there are plenty of rational arguments for preserving traditional relationships. "A same-sex couple can never offer a child both a mother and a father. And that is a reasonable reason for the people to decide to continue to keep marriage as a union between a man and a woman," Pugno says.
A mother and a father—every child deserves 'em.
1
As though keeping the two mommies or the two daddies who are actually raising the real live children from marrying in any way somehow grants them the missing-gendered parent.
2
Seriously, even if that argument made any sense whatsoever - which it doesn't - that's really an argument against gay adoption, not gay marriage. Gay people adopt all the time, married or not.
3
I know that there are those who continue to argue for a ban on same-sex couples being allowed to adopt, although if the argument is that same-sex couples "can never offer a child both a mother and a father" then there should be a ban on single parents as well.
Even if this is an argument against same-sex marriage, though, what about same-sex couples that don't want children?
Even if this is an argument against same-sex marriage, though, what about same-sex couples that don't want children?
4
I have a friend who's hardcore Catholic. His stance is love the sinner, hate the sin. He tells me he doesn't care if gays have job protections and live out and proud, but marriage is a federal arrangement meant to protect children, and since gays can't biologically create children, they don't deserve the federal arrangement.
I pointed out that lots of straights take advantage of adoption, test tubes, and surrogate mothers in order to create children that otherwise (straight) infertile couples can't have.
He says, "That's different, and kids need a mom and a dad anyway."
I asked, "What if, say, your sister's husband died and one of your other sisters moved in to take care of the children. That would be two women raising kids. Or, if your sister died, and one of your brothers -- or his brothers -- moved in to help him raise those 9 children. Would that be wrong?"
"Well, no," he says. "Because they aren't gay, so that's different."
"What," I asked him, "Do you think gay parents do differently? Does you think gay parents have sex in front of their children? Does you think they sexually assault their children more than straight parents or priests would? What does you think is happening in these gay households?"
"Well," he admits, "No -- he doesn't think they're doing any of that. But they might kiss in front of their kids!"
I threw my hands up in disgust, realizing there was no arguing with lunacy.
I pointed out that lots of straights take advantage of adoption, test tubes, and surrogate mothers in order to create children that otherwise (straight) infertile couples can't have.
He says, "That's different, and kids need a mom and a dad anyway."
I asked, "What if, say, your sister's husband died and one of your other sisters moved in to take care of the children. That would be two women raising kids. Or, if your sister died, and one of your brothers -- or his brothers -- moved in to help him raise those 9 children. Would that be wrong?"
"Well, no," he says. "Because they aren't gay, so that's different."
"What," I asked him, "Do you think gay parents do differently? Does you think gay parents have sex in front of their children? Does you think they sexually assault their children more than straight parents or priests would? What does you think is happening in these gay households?"
"Well," he admits, "No -- he doesn't think they're doing any of that. But they might kiss in front of their kids!"
I threw my hands up in disgust, realizing there was no arguing with lunacy.
5
It's good to see a lawyer using reason to arrive at a reasonable argument that is both reasoned and reasonable. I can see no better reason than reason reason reason reason reason.
6
Right.
Because some kids don't get the mother and father they deserve; because some heterosexual parents *GASP!* fall terribly short; we should throw up our hands and say 'the hell with it...'
Because some kids don't get the mother and father they deserve; because some heterosexual parents *GASP!* fall terribly short; we should throw up our hands and say 'the hell with it...'
7
@6 No one's saying "the hell with it". The fact that some heterosexual parents fall short simply demonstrates that being heterosexual doesn't automatically make someone fit to be a parent.
Also the fact that many same-sex couples have demonstrated both willingness and ability to be more than adequate parents is a reason for throwing out bans on same-sex couples being allowed to adopt.
Since not all married couples have children, either by childbirth or adoption, I don't see what it has to do with same-sex couples being allowed to marry, but then those opposed to same-sex couples marrying seem to be grasping at straws.
Also the fact that many same-sex couples have demonstrated both willingness and ability to be more than adequate parents is a reason for throwing out bans on same-sex couples being allowed to adopt.
Since not all married couples have children, either by childbirth or adoption, I don't see what it has to do with same-sex couples being allowed to marry, but then those opposed to same-sex couples marrying seem to be grasping at straws.
8
As I see it the root cause is greed. The fact that denying marriage equality hurts children and existing families does not matter. The single biggest cause of unnecessary human suffering throughout world history has and continues to be unjust social systems. Bans and amendments to block marriage equality are truly based in an attempt to control society in their own self-interests, to structure the system so that it serves them, to maintain the privileged status they deem themselves worthy of. Radix omnium malorum avaritia.
We know it. And, they also know it and the loss of their privileged status is the fear that motivated their politics. That's why their "reasons" crumble to it's "icky" in the end.
We know it. And, they also know it and the loss of their privileged status is the fear that motivated their politics. That's why their "reasons" crumble to it's "icky" in the end.
10
What is this talk of theirs about preserving traditional marriage. Allowing the mo's to marry isn't going to end traditional marriage.
11
@10 - they will if they are statistically more successful. so far, i'm not seeing any evidence in that. i mean, melissa and rosie alone are skewing the curve. but what if? then what will the argument be?
personally, i think everyone should have the same rights to screw up their lives as everybody else. i mean, i guess benefits and legal rights are worth the hassle. i think we should give up the charade all together and ban all marriage. i mean they don't work. it's a revolving door in today's culture, and hardly anyone makes it til death, unless one of them causes it.
even republicans are doing multiples now. preachers do relatively well, if they aren't secretly gay or big poon hounds. it's because of that thing in timothy about only having one wife as a qualification for leadership in the church. so they try to not get divorced. but that doesn't mean they are happy, just means they like their jobs.
personally, i think everyone should have the same rights to screw up their lives as everybody else. i mean, i guess benefits and legal rights are worth the hassle. i think we should give up the charade all together and ban all marriage. i mean they don't work. it's a revolving door in today's culture, and hardly anyone makes it til death, unless one of them causes it.
even republicans are doing multiples now. preachers do relatively well, if they aren't secretly gay or big poon hounds. it's because of that thing in timothy about only having one wife as a qualification for leadership in the church. so they try to not get divorced. but that doesn't mean they are happy, just means they like their jobs.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (11) RSS