Anti-gay groups are in trouble. They have been offering up shifting rationales as to why they hate same-sex marriage, and why not? They do seem to lack a solid argument against same-sex marriage. Thus, it is not surprising that these groups are busy trying to come up with some kind of solid argument that sounds alright, but not really. Thus, we come to Focus on the Family’s latest gem.
Now, ThinkProgress notes that this latest gem was first proposed by Focus on the Family back in February 2012 and only rehashed by the national group this month. Maybe they’ve run out of original hatred and are having to recycle.
Here’s what they say:
Children have a right to a mother and a father. This right is more than a sentimental tie to social custom; it is based on an iron law of biology. We are all created male and female. Although we have devised mechanisms in the last twenty years that allow us to circumvent traditional fatherhood and motherhood, a new life can still not be created without male and female genetic material. Significantly, these artificial means display a grave lack of respect for human dignity.
Alright, we will grant some things. First, yes, being born to a stable family is preferable to everything else. Yes, that means that being adopted by anyone is not optimal; however, it can be preferable to living in a home where you, the child, are beaten regularly, neglected, and left starving.
There is a difference between living in a perfect world and living in the real one. In a perfect world, parents wouldn’t hit their children, nor would they abandon them to go get drugs. In a perfect world, everyone has the right number of loving parents.
Now, ThinkProgress notes that “Even the National Organization for Marriage has had to take a position against adoption to avoid sounding too anti-gay with its other rhetoric about protecting children. Still, the post doesn’t argue that adoption should be outlawed — only same-sex marriage — and its three arguments are easily refuted.”
The post also relies heavily on the now thoroughly debunked Regnerus study with their claims that children do better in a “married-couple family with a mom and dad.” And TP also notes that “just like the Regnerus study would later do, the researchers apply evidence about broken homes and separated families to same-sex families, presuming that the biological connection is more important than the parents’ commitment to the child’s well-being.”
Here is what TP left out. The idea of a nuclear, two-parent family is newer than the interstate highway system. It is a product of the growth of suburbia. Prior to the 1950′s, most Americans lived in extended families. Children actually did live at home with their parents, more often than not, and their grandparents and aunts, uncles, etc. Even if they didn’t exactly live in the same apartment or house, they lived in such close proximity that they were together a lot.
This means that most of today’s adults have grandparents who were raised by their grandmothers, aunts, uncles, grandfathers, etc. The family tended to raise the children together. Yes, there were rare instances like my maternal great-grandmother who raised five children on her own, but then again, she had her reasons. My paternal ancestors lived on farmers and the children were largely raised together.
In some Native American tribes, the children were often raised by an elderly member or a person of the third gender within the tribe so that everyone else could go and work or hunt. In fact, looking back over the history of humanity, children were almost never raised by their mother and father. Rather, they were raised by the collective family.
But don’t be surprised if Focus on the Family doesn’t really want to notice that. They just want to argue that same-sex marriage is wrong and are desperate to come up with some reasonable sounding reason why.