♦ ficino ♦ Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 One of the arguments directed against same-sex marriage rests on the assumption that marriage is set up as an institution by society (and/or God) to support a mother and a father in procreating and raising children. That assumption is already largely abandoned except for those who assert that it is God's will or the like. The argument goes on to say that a child has a right to a mother and a father. Sometimes it's specified, a "biological" mother and father. I think it a good thing for a child to live with mother and father in a wholesome household. But as to the "child's rights" argument: Which child? Do they mean, a child: 1. alive now, who lives with one parent? If same-sex marriage opponents took their own claim seriously, they would need to push for the state, or some other institution to provide a second parent of the other sex. If the rights of some child alive now are being violated, then action needs to be taken to redress them, as it is taken when property or other kinds of rights are violated. So I think this "child's rights" claim is bogus, at least in that "rights" is a term loosely thrown around but not seriously meant. 2. alive now, who lives with two parents of the same sex? Similar to the problem in 1. Plus, isn't it better that the kid has two parents than one? 3. who may be born in the future into a family with two same-sex parents? But that hypothetical child does not exist, so it cannot possess rights. And isn't it better, even from the opponent's POV, that the child exist than that it not exist? One hears some stories of children of same-sex parents who say they love their parents but wish they had had a mother and a father. But wouldn't those kids not exist if their same-sex parents hadn't planned their birth? I have heard only one such story, and the young woman had become an evangelical Christian. So... Anyone think this opposing argument is better than I'm giving it credit for being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhim Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 What I'm about to say doesn't necessitate the falsehood of this argument. However I would like to point out that the Christian argument of "child's rights" (which I never heard until reading your post) isn't consistent with Christian missionary work. Christians who successfully proselytize a parent in a non-Christian family upset the harmony of that family and this often removes either the proselyte or the unconverted parent from the family (e.g. St. Augustine). If Christians believe in children's rights, should they not cease all efforts to convert people belonging to non-Christian religions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted May 25, 2015 Author Share Posted May 25, 2015 @ Bhim... well, some rights trump others, I guess. But I would favor a stop of Christian proselytizing. Re the OP, perhaps I could sum up some flaws I see: 1. false dichotomy, as though the only significant difference is same-sex vs. opposite-sex parents. There are an uncountable number of factors that affect the experience of a child in any actual family. 2. some principle like: if we can define an optimal situation, someone has a right to that optimal situation. This certainly isn't a principle that will fly with Christians or anyone else. It would say that children have a right to be born of young parents, healthy parents, wage-earning parents... as though the law should debar any other sets of parents from having children. Um ... right. Resting on logical flaws, this argument immediately falls apart, once one starts looking at particular cases. E.g. family A, two loving lesbians vs. family B., an abused but vicious wife and an abuser husband... and law is supposed to say that a hypothetical child has a right to be born into family B and not into family A? 3. Complementarity principle. Some opponents argue that children have a right to be born to opposite-sex parents because their lives are significantly enhanced by being exposed to one parent of each sex from an early age, for such a model is essential to healthy child development. [i leave out the fact that these hypothetical children do not exist before the marriage.] This claim rests on so many assumptions that it begs the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 It strikes me as wishful thinking. What are you going to do for every child who has lost a parent? What about orphans? What about those abandoned by their parents? If we can't solve these problems then we shouldn't use this line of reasoning to deny gay people the right to adopt. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yunea Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I'm always bothered by these implications that heterosexuality alone makes someone a good parent. Heteros can, if irresponsible, accidentally have kids they didn't plan or even want. How is that automatically better than carefully planned and maybe fought for adoption of a homosexual couple, I just don't know. And that's just one example. Plus if the kid has "rights" to parents of two genders, how about rights to parents of enough mental health to raise kids? Nah, heterosexual schizophrenics (for one example of severe illness) have more right to get married and be parents than otherwisely healthy people who just happen to be gay. Again, how does that work, I just don't know. As for your arguments I like 1 and 2. 3 seemed a bit odd for me at first but then I remembered the Xtian argument that every kid is a gift from God and should live. I'll be following the thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Fundy xians never respect children's rights in any other way, lol. If you want to know what a legal framework that protects children's rights looks like, look at NZ's Care of Children Act 2004. It says that all court decisions about who the child will live with etc will be made in the child's best interest. The focus is not on which adults "win" "custody", its on who the child will live with, and their need for contact with both parents and any other people important to them. Under this framework children have rights and adults have responsibilities. Judges also cannot make decisions based on the gender or sexual orientation of the adults. If they do, it would be appealed, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. I've read many decisions where gay and lesbian parents get treated the same as straight parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I think I should clarify, the principle behind the NZ law is that if possible, and if in the best interests of the child, and their mother and father are both guardians (which is not always the case), then the court should consider them as the first port of call for the child to live with. However, there is ample room for any other adult to be the adult that the child lives with, for all or some of their time. So, an individual out gay man or lesbian, or a couple, could have the child live with them, if the court decided they were the best person/people, based on the child's relationship and history with them. A biological parent would not have more "rights" "to the" child. Their case for being included depends on the best interests of the child. And all this would depend on whether someone brought a case to court. In most cases the court is not involved. In summary, if an out gay man or lesbian woman has spent any amount of time living with and caring for the child, they would be well placed in a dispute over the care of that child. Legally, their sexual orientation in and of itself would not preclude them at all, like it would in most other countries. In some cities in NZ, children living with out LBGT+ parents or caregivers can live their lives with minimal discrimination. There are pockets of sanity in this little country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted May 25, 2015 Author Share Posted May 25, 2015 This Irish-born, gay legislator from Australia makes the further point: when you are concerned about the children, also be concerned about their future, about the kind of country they will grow up in. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australias-time-to-embrace-gay-marriage-is-just-around-the-corner-after-ireland-referendum-20150525-gh8qci 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts