Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Do social scientists get to have a "consensus" on our right to free speech? Why do they get to tell us whether we have a right to a mom and a dad?

Things are getting very heated and I don't want to say something I might regret, so I will try to be careful here.

Regardless of the condemnations and attacks, I stand by my point of view, made in recent American Thinker and Public Discourse articles, that same-sex parenting is inherently abusive of children.

I know that hurts a lot of gay and lesbian people's feelings, but there's really no nice way to state this. We've been nice and delicate about the issue ever since Heather Has Two Mommies was foisted on elementary schools. The Gay Lobby, rather than engaging in a good-faith discussion of whether it was ethical to deprive children of a mom or dad based on adult wishes, simply steamrolled everybody and rammed same-sex parenting down all our throats.

The basic nature of the situation hasn't changed. Same-sex parenting can occur through five basic routes: (1) a parent dies and the other parent comes out as gay, (2) a divorce or breakup followed by a divorcee coming out as gay, (3) adoption, (4) insemination, and (5) surrogacy.



Scenario #1 is respectable up to a point since nobody chose the death of the parent, obviously. But it is wrong to force kids who've lost a mom or dad to suddenly get enthused about their other parent's newfound homosexuality and call a total stranger who's sleeping with the surviving parent "mom" or "dad." Call that new partner Joe or Susan or whatever the person's name is, and let the kid's emotional tie to the deceased stand.

Scenario #2 is problematic. This is how I ended up being raised from the age of two onward by a lesbian mom with the help of her lifelong partner. Often divorces are inevitable and better for children than a toxic home with a dysfunctional mother-father couple. But many of the same considerations for Scenario #1 apply to Scenario #2 as well. Dear Gay Parent: your kids lost one parent to a divorce, which may or may not stem from your coming out as gay, which could very well have been a selfish act based on your carnal urges rather than your obligations to your family. It's a BAD idea to bring a new gay partner into the home and tell your kids that this is a replacement for the one who just left. In most cases, the best thing to do is what my mother did: Involve your same-sex partner in the kids' lives but don't have that partner move in, don't force your kids to treat that partner's kids like siblings, and DO NOT try to force your kids to replace the missing parent with a new gay partner. Too much drama.

Scenario #3 is problematic. An orphan has lost a mom and a dad. Whoever placed the orphan with child services entrusted the most precious of all beings -- a child -- to the state. The first priority of the state must be to reconstitute that orphan's identity with as close a match as possible to the parents the orphan lost. If there is nobody who's racially and culturally similar to the birth parents, then a transracial adoption may take place, but with tremendous care. Placing a child in a same-sex parent home violates the central ethics of adoption. You aren't replacing what the child lost -- a mom and dad -- with a new mom and dad. You are aggravating a void left by one missing parent and then force-fitting a second mom or second dad onto the child. Homosexuality is still controversial and now the adoptee has to heal his own losses and then fight your battles on top of it. And the child, already needing reconstitution, is still lacking a mom or lacking a dad. It's a travesty. Adoption agencies must serve the needs of orphans first, so they have to recruit homes with moms and dads in them. They cannot serve the market demand of adult couples for children, for once the adoption services become an industry, we get baby farming, which has already popped up in Eastern Europe, southeast Asia, and west Africa

Scenario #4 is a crime against humanity. Sperm banking by lesbian couples involves paying a man to abandon his offspring in exchange for cash. All the problems in the above scenarios are compounded with the added reality of treating human beings as chattel and using the force of institutions to deny a child knowledge of his origins, combined with the day-to-day trauma caused by not having a dad at all.

Scenario #5 is a crime against humanity. Surrogacy is [trade in human chattel -- I have omitted the world slavery after some thought --ROL] because you are paying a woman for her child. All the problems above are compounded.

In the five scenarios above, you might find a same-sex parenting arrangement that's suitable and works, but this depends on luck and external circumstances outside of adults' control. Whenever you begin a same-sex relationship with an intent to raise a child together, you are assuming culpability for a problem.

Going back to social science is just a means of avoiding the central problem. Children have a right to a mom and a dad. You don't ask sociologists to prove to us that free speech and liberty from slavery are justifiable because you can prove the negative impacts of being denied those rights. You can't do that when it comes to a child's right to a mom and a dad. Such a right follows from the tenets of the Declaration of Independence, which is based on (1) self-evident truths, (2) inalienable rights, and (3) people being created equal.

(1) It is a self-evident truth that every baby comes into the world with a mom and a dad.

(2) The tie linking that baby to its mom and dad is inalienable. If a man impregnates a woman and then absconds, the courts can track him down and force him to pay for child support. This isn't based on the adult's rights -- it is based on the child's right to a mom and a dad. In adoptions necessitated by hard times, the logic goes that you must fulfill the child's rights by providing a new mom and dad to replace the mom and dad with which the child was born. If a child grows up without a dad, unless the dad died, the absence of the dad is the malfeasance of adults and a violation of the child's right.

(3) All people are created equal. Notice the role of "creation." We all come from a mom and a dad and must have a mom and a dad, even if one is dead and only remembered, for us to be respected by the state formed by the Declaration of Independence.

Same-sex parenting flagrantly violates children's rights, deprives them of inalienable rights, and risks inflicting grievous emotional distress on them, with no justification whatsoever, other than the whims of adults.

It is abuse. It is abuse. Face it.