GENES MATTER: Gabriel Rosenberg replies to Ben Bateman

At MarriageDebate.com, Ben Bateman has accused me of creating some confusion by my use of the word "parent." I'll let him explain the problem....

"Gabriel Rosenberg gives a syllogism that SSM proponents probably find compelling: 'Parents ought to be married. Gays are parents. Therefore, gays ought to be married.' The problem with this logic is that it uses the word 'parents' in two very different senses."

If that's a problem, it was one Kurtz created, not me. If he only meant that "genetic parents" should be married, he should have stated that. Without any sort of modifier why wouldn't somebody assume that "parents" include couples who adopt or who used sperm or egg donors to conceive? More importantly, why shouldn't these parents be married as well? Is Kurtz--or anyone else--really going to argue that it doesn't matter if parents are married unless they both share some genes with the children. One of the main benefits Kurtz and others have argued marriage provides is keeping the couple together. They point out that a cohabiting couple is far more likely to break up. Are we to believe that this family break-up is detrimental for children if and only if those children were the genetic offspring of the parents? Marriage can also provide the security needed for a parent to make some career sacrifices in order to spend more time caring for the child. Does anyone believe children don't benefit from this extra time unless those parents are "genetic"? From all that marriage does to help with childrearing, I find it unbelievable to think Kurtz meant anything other than parents ought to be married. ...

Parents who adopt are "role playing"? They're just helping to raise another couple's children? I know some parents who would strongly disagree. I would think every parent--gay or straight--of an adopted child would be offended by these statements. Furthermore, I thought the whole "threat" of same-sex marriage is that it will treat as "equal under the law" something which Mr. Bateman believes is inherently "unequal." By the same logic doesn't it follow that one who believes that parents by adoption are "unequal," should similarly decry any law which makes such people "legally equivalent"? ...

Although I am quite skeptical of the importance of genetic connection in determining how a parent will raise a child, that's not my reply. My reply is, even if somehow you convinced me this was the case, so what? The question here is whether marriage will benefit children being raised by "nongenetic" parents. More precisely the question is "should parents be married or should only genetic parents be married?" We're not debating some question of custody here, trying to figure out who should be raising the child. We know who is raising the child. We're trying to see if it makes any sense to prevent those parents from being married.

more
posted by Eve at 5:43 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home