PARENTING AND SSM: Ben Bateman replies to Gabriel Rosenberg

(Sorry that this is long, but it's hard to know what is obvious and what is not.)

In a previous post, I argued for a distinction between two meanings of the word "parent." On the one hand, it can refer to the two people who genetically produce a child, and on the other it can refer to those people who help raise a child, especially those who legally take on that responsibility. The dictionary lists both definitions.

Mr. Rosenberg used the word without distinction in two statements: "Parents ought to be married," and, "Gays are parents." I responded that "parents" in the first sentence uses the genetic definition, while in the second it uses the upbringing definition. Mr. Rosenberg's response shows how difficult basic communication can be in the SSM debate.

Two quick preliminary points: First, I don't see how it's relevant to the truth of a statement that some would disagree with it or be offended by it. Second, the point of my post was not the "correct" definition of the word "parent" in some transcendental sense. Mr. Rosenberg is of course free to use the word however he likes, as long as he is clear about it. Instead, my objection was simply that the two premises in his syllogism used the word in different senses.

Mr. Rosenberg says that he doesn't understand my premises. So rather than responding point by point to his post, it would be more productive to try to clarify those premises.

Mr. Rosenberg clearly thinks very highly of those who are willing to raise children with whom they have no genetic relationship. I share his sentiments, especially in the very common and tragic situation of a young woman who believes that the father of her child will marry her, or who marries unwisely and is later forced to divorce to protect herself and her children. Mr. Rosenberg is also interested in egg or sperm donor situations where the non-genetic parent encouraged the production of the child out of wedlock. That is a rarer and very different situation that requires a separate discussion.

When we start with children whose genetic parents cannot or will not both raise them for whatever reason, the natural response of every moral person is to want those children to get the best upbringings possible. The people who adopt those children are generally very kind people who are doing something morally wonderful. They are to be praised and admired.

So I agree with Mr. Rosenberg on the importance and goodness of adoption. But I also see another part of the picture that he seems to miss: Who produced those children? The vast majority need adoption because some man or some woman produced them without intending to raise them. Heterosexual irresponsibility creates the problem; adoption tries to fix the damage it causes. As much as I feel for those children currently in need of adoption to enjoy a two-parent home, I feel even more for the many more children yet unborn who will also need it in the future. While we're helping today's children who can't have two-parent homes, can't we also take steps to reduce the number of children who will have the same problem tomorrow?

It is possible for human beings to restrain their impulses and choose not to have sex until they are prepared to raise any children they produce. In fact, most people have done that for most of recorded history. In most places and most times in the past few thousand years, most people have felt a moral responsibility control their own reproductive urges. Women have been encouraged to have sex with only one man, and not to have sex with that man until he has committed himself, legally and morally, to recognize her children as his and support them.

That was the definition of sexual responsibility. It was called marriage.

I ask Mr. Rosenberg to consider a larger picture than the relationship between a child and adoptive parent: Let's discourage people from producing children who need to be adopted! Let's encourage sexual responsibility by urging people to marry before they have sex, and to stay married once they've produced children.

When I wrote that a same-sex couple can "play the role of parents," your response spun that into "Parents who adopt are 'role playing,'" which another blogger further spun into a distinction between "real" parents and "role-playing" parents. This turned my point completely upside down, because it focused on the children and their adoptive parents rather than the people who produced the children and thereby created the need for the adoption in the first place. The genetic parents are the ones whose irresponsibility created the problem that some very generous and caring person was willing to help solve. Adoptive non-genetic parents are "playing the role of parents" in the sense that they are voluntarily taking on a burden that should properly fall on the genetic parents. That isn't an insult of non-genetic parents; it's bemoaning the fact that so many children need non-genetic parents.

Mr. Rosenberg focuses on marriage as a way to make child raising easier for whoever has volunteered to raise a child. In my view, the main point of marriage is to affect the behavior of heterosexuals before they produce children. It's to encourage them to first commit to each other sexually, financially, and emotionally, and then have children, so increase the chance that those children will grow up in stable homes, and so that the effort and expense of raising them falls on those who decided to make them. The legal benefits of marriage that make childrearing easier are primarily enticements to sexual responsibility, not rewards for taking on the job of raising a child.

Irresponsible heterosexuals will always make more children than the number of available adoptive or foster parents. The only solution--the proven historical solution--is to encourage heterosexuals to restrain their urges by waiting until marriage to have sex. Most Americans once did that, and I believe that they can do it again.
posted by Eve at 9:46 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home