The needs of children or the wants of adults?

[UtahDan]

I ran across the following and thought is contained an interesting argument. Too often what happens to children is about what their parents want and not what the children need. Here is one example:

"Is the same-sex family about the needs of children or the wants of adults? We can learn a lot from the world’s most famous lesbian mom: Rosie O’Donnell. In an interview on ABC’s “Primetime Live” a few years ago, Diane Sawyer asked, “Would it break your heart if he [Rosie’s 6-year-old son Parker] said, ‘I want a mommy and a daddy’?” Rosie said, “No. And he has said that.” Diane said, “He has?” Rosie answered, “Of course he has. But as I said to my son, Parker, ‘If you were to have a daddy, you wouldn’t have me as a mommy because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.’”24

Can anyone say that is a good parenting ethic? The child needs a daddy, but he is told “no” because the parent has wants, and those wants come before the child’s needs. Many people say marriage is about legal benefits and privileges — Social Security benefits and hospital visitation rights, and children should be given these benefits and protections. But little Parker has never asked, “Mama, why can’t we have all the rights and benefits and protections of marriage?”

Parker asks, “Mama, why can’t I have a daddy?” And again, the answer is you can’t have what you need because I want what I want. Why does Parker want a daddy? Not because Rosie enrolled him in a fundamentalist day school where they indoctrinated him with that idea. He’s reminded of the lack of his father all over the place. He sees it in the fact that he’s different from all the rest of the adults in his house. When he looks in the mirror, he wonders if he looks like his dad. When he bathes, physically and psychologically he’s reminded that he’s not like the women in his house. Where is this adult male who is like me, whom I can emulate, whom I can follow after?"

(Ten Persuasive Answers to the Question, “Why Not Gay Marriage?”, Glenn T. Stanton)

That last bit about the child wondering about his father just about breaks your heart. I realize that many kids grow up without a dad for reasons beyond anyone's control. Still, you have to wonder whether it is a good idea to guarantee that a child won't have a dad.

[non sequitur]

My kids want to know why they can't have parents that are rich.

Who's to say that Rosie's kids are not better off with her and her partner than they would be with some other heterosexual couple? What if little Parker had a daddy who was a boozer, or was abusive, or was just neglectful? If Parker is loved and provided for, then he has it pretty good.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

My kids want to know why they can't have parents that are rich.

Who's to say that Rosie's kids are not better off with her and her partner than they would be with some other heterosexual couple? What if little Parker had a daddy who was a boozer, or was abusive, or was just neglectful? If Parker is loved and provided for, then he has it pretty good.

I don't think the fact that a minority of people are lousy parents means you stop upholding the ideal. That is why I said before that I question whether it is good to guarantee that the ideal can't happen.

Who is to say that children ought to be in school? Having no education would be better than having a teacher who molests you. I don't think that holding up the few bad examples of anything makes that thing bad over all.

Finally, I don't think the burden is on me to say why Parker isn't better off with Rosey and her partner, but on the proponant of such a situation to show why it is a good thing. Since there is nothing more than anecdotal data on the impact of growing up in such a home, Parker is nothing more than a social experiment. It may be shown that children do very well in these unions, but at this point the jury is out.

I agree, however, that being loved and provided for is a leg up on a lot of people. I have said many times that I think gay couple adoption is perfectly apprpriate where there is no qualified hetero-couple available. It probably is worth noting, however, that in places that have a lot of experience with civl-unions etc that the divorce rate is much, much higher than that or normal marriage so the likelihood of kiddo having both folks around is even smaller than normal. Still, most such adoptions are rescues in my opinion and appropriate.

[ute4ever]

Unfortunately children are pretty much forced to do whatever their parents feel to impose upon them. That could mean raising them Amish, Jehovah's Witness, or whatever lifestyle they choose; and/or being homeschooled and told not to talk to anyone; and/or being vegetarian or fruitarian; and/or forcing them to go to military camp every summer.....so be it.

And naturally most parents feel they are doing the right thing, so it's hard to convince anyone otherwise. Was anyone in here scoffed at for being raised LDS?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Unfortunately children are pretty much forced to do whatever their parents feel to impose upon them. That could mean raising them Amish, Jehovah's Witness, or whatever lifestyle they choose; and/or being homeschooled and told not to talk to anyone; and/or being vegetarian or fruitarian; and/or forcing them to go to military camp every summer.....so be it.

And naturally most parents feel they are doing the right thing, so it's hard to convince anyone otherwise. Was anyone in here scoffed at for being raised LDS?

It is a sliding scale to be sure, but I don't think you can just say "some parents make their kids eat their vegetables and others force them to service them sexually; all kids have to things they don't want to" and act like they are somehow equivalent.

That is a much more extreme example than what we are talking about here, but it illustrates the point that not everything on the sliding scale is the same just because it falls loosely under the category of "things parents make thier kids do."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Still, most such adoptions are rescues in my opinion and appropriate.

Very good points.

As far as rescues are concerned, gay adoptions make sense.

However, if it's between a qualified loving heterosexual couple and a gay couple, I would hope society would avoid selecting the social experiement.

I'm not certain what standard is being applied to gay adoptions. If they are being treated on par with heterosexual couples, then that doesn't make sense, but neither do a lot of other things.