PARENTAL OBLIGATIONS: Maggie replies to Mark Barton

Mark writes: "If it's really true that children need both a mother and a father, then then that imposes an obvious moral imperative on biological parents...."

OK, Mark: Does it impose a moral imperative on anyone else? Does it impose a moral imperative on a biological parent who happens to be gay or lesbian, for example?

How will we explain to single men, who didn't choose to have children--who in fact are given no choice in the matter--why they have obligations to their children?

Why does biology give rise to serious moral imperatives for them, but not for gay parents?

The oddity is that Mark assumes that once we have gay marriage, people will interpret the statement "Children need mothers and fathers" to apply only to straight people. Separate and unequal moral imperatives.

Adults who get offended at the expression of these important truths (Mark's "offensive moral slaps") are the problem. Placating them is not the solution.

I've been told for years that you can't say "children need moms and dads" because it will offend and hurt the large proportion of children raised outside of intact married families. I find the children are most grateful for the acknowledgement of their special difficulties. It's the adults who get offended.
posted by Eve at 10:55 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home