The Kids Are Not All Right, But It’s Not Solely Because Many of Them Are Being Reared in Homosexual Households: A Response to the Family Research Council’s Recent Update
By Ken K. Gourdin
Hat-tip to Dan Peterson at Patheos for pointing me to the Family Research Council’s Washington Update, located on the FRC’s Web site (located at the following address and last accessed February 3, 2015): http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20150130/the-kids-are-not-all-right. The update goes against the supposed social science and legal consensuses, respectively, that family life is no different for children raised by gay partners than it is for those raised by opposite-sex parents. For the amicus brief filed by B.N. Klein in support of the state’s defense of traditional marriage, see the following address (also last accessed February 3, 2015: http://www.scribd.com/doc/240312276/B-N-Klein-Amicus-Brief.
This is what I wrote to another poster who responded to the FRC update on Peterson’s blog:
To be fair, while B.N. Klein describes being used as a prop by the parent and the parent’s homosexual partner to prove that gay families are no different than straight ones, homosexual couples are hardly the only ones to use children as props, as pawns in vendettas against erstwhile partners (and possibly against others), as a way for the adults in their lives to achieve “fulfillment” (that’s bass-ackwards; it is we who fulfill the wants and needs of our children, not the other way around), and so on.
Ostensibly, U.S. family law is about the best interests of children. However, in practice, too often, the best interests of children are only given top priority insofar as those interests do not conflict with supposed “rights” of adults. For example, even though a one-night-stand, sperm-donor father was only in it for the sex and didn’t care enough about the woman he bedded to stick around long enough to see to her needs and to those of the child that resulted, once he’s made aware of the child’s existence, he suddenly acquires “rights,” even if his exercise of those “rights” may entail serious disruption of the child’s life. Good parenting ought to consist of more than the donation of an egg or a sperm, a monthly check, and regular visits.
I fully support the concept that “No” means “No.” What I don’t understand is why this concept only seems to apply to rape, and why women aren’t inclined to wield the enormous power they have by saying it even more often. Instead, we hear, “But he said he loved me, and that’s good enough for me.” Women who hear this ought to pause long enough to consider whether men tell them that simply so the men can get them into bed. Rather than being persuaded by mere assurances of men’s love, in response, women, instead, ought to say, “If you love me enough to go to bed with me, you love me enough to make a more serious, long-term commitment to me and to any child we might have”—and, ideally, as terribly old fashioned as this might seem (not to most people who frequent this blog, of course, but certainly to the world at large), that commitment ought to involve marriage.