PARENTS AND PROCREATORS: Mary Catelli replies to Gabriel Rosenberg

Gabriel Rosenberg writes, "Actually, I did use the word 'parent' to denote someone with responsibilities toward a child. I do not mean someone who is having sexual intercourse with a genetic or adoptive parent. I have no idea what gave Ms. Catelli this idea."

I got the idea from the fact that his statement "Gay people are parents" is unintelligible without it. His claim that there is a difference between one's gay lover and one's nanny does not hold water. He claims "The differences are enormous, but perhaps the most significant is that either can walk away at will. A parent cannot (legally and/or ethically) just walk away from a child." -- but so too can one walk away from one's (heterosexual or homosexual) lover's children or, for that matter, one's stepchildren.

Rosenberg: "Perhaps she does not realize that in many same-sex couples both spouses have the same legal (and moral) responsibility to the child."

I do not think that adoption changes the matter so enormously as to justify marriage -- particularly as marriage does not secure any legal responsibilty toward the child. What is needed is adoption, which is not required by marriage. I doubt Mr. Rosenberg would require all homosexual couples to agree to adopt each other's children as a condition of marriage, which is the only way his "Gay people are parents" argument for marriage would stand on its own.
posted by Eve at 12:05 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home