HiddenMysteries: Gay Parents? How Fabulous!

by Joshua White

In a Time magazine online editorial James Dobson explains why he thinks that gay couples should not be parents to children. Allow me to explain to you why he's wrong and I'm right.

Recently, James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family posted an essay on Time.com. In it he discusses his feelings towards the revelation that Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary, is pregnant and she is going to raise the baby with her lesbian partner Heather Poe.

Now, if you think that Dobson is throwing around congratulations left and right you'd be very wrong. As an Evangelical, Dobson is obviously opposed to anyone, other than a married man and woman, having a baby. To defend his opinion, he gives different versions of the "what is best for the child" argument.

Throughout his essay Dobson insists that what is best for the child is that he has one father and one mother. The traditional family is what is best for the child. Further, by doing what is best for the child, you are doing what is best for the country. (So, if you care about your country, you won't want gay parents either!)

Let's look at his points individually along with my comments.

Dobson claims that "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father."

I'd first like to point out that there are plenty of studies out there that claim that gay parents do just as good a job as their heterosexual counterparts. I mentioned this in one of my past columns. For now, however, I am willing to concede that the majority of studies done "indicate that children do best" when in a heterosexual family. There are still problems with what Dobson claims. First, he doesn't mention which studies he's referring to. Are these social-scientists biased by, oh I don't know, Focus on the Family? Were these studies done when homosexuality was considered an illness? Basically, are these studies fair and unbiased? The funny thing about science is that it doesn't matter how many studies make one particular conclusion. What matters is which studies are correct. Sure, most studies indicate that children do better with "het" families, but all of those could be wrong! (To be fair, his column was very short, and it wouldn't have been appropriate to explicitly state every study he is quoting.)

Dobson goes on to stress how important both sexes are when child rearing. According to him (and the studies he quotes) men and women give the children different things. Women teach the child sympathy and empathy while men teach right and wrong, justice and fairness. If a child is missing one sex from their parental set, then they are going to be missing a huge part of what it takes to be a good person. This is another reason that heterosexual couples are preferable to gay ones when it comes to raising a child.

He admits that the "ideal is not always possible." He explains that "[d]ivorce, death, abandonment and unwed pregnancy have resulted in an ever growing number of single-parent families in this culture." Yet, he claims, if asked, most of the people in these situations would claim it would better and easier if they had help. And the child would be best off if they lived in a mother-father household.

My problem with Dobson's claims here is the idea of what is "best" for the child. Since when do we ask (even if it isn't explicitly so) for legislation that would force what is best for the child? Sure, there are times when we do so. We force parents to educate their kids. We make parents clothe their children. If they are sick, children must be taken to the doctor. However, how we raise them is much more up in the air. Parents are allowed to raise their children to be submissive or aggressive, assertive or laid back, masculine or feminine. The government doesn't get involved here in deciding what is "best" for the child.

Perhaps Dobson is right, that children are at their "best" when raised by a man and woman (who are presumably married), but is that a good enough reason to deny gays the right to adopt?

If we are only concerned with what is "best" for children, then I think that the amount of government mandated paternalism in this country should be increased. We shouldn't allow kids to ride in cars without side airbags. We should force kids to eat a proper diet. No more allowing children to live in certain areas of town.

Now that I think about it let me ask you a question. Who do you think has a better shot at what a decent future (i.e. getting an education, staying out of trouble, finding a good job, etc): a white kid raised by two suburban lesbians, or a little black kid raised by two welfare receiving parents?

My point here is that every single set of parents does things that is not what is in the child's best interested. Parents smoke, drink, drive too fast, make them feel insecure in all sorts of ways, and just generally mess up them up. But we (the government and Evangelicals) still allow them to have children.

I can agree with Dobson that gay parents are not the ideal set of adults to raise a child (not that I do) and at the same time still not only grant, but want gays to be parents.

What are the other options? Orphanages and foster homes? While both of these choices could offer the so highly man and woman, what they can't offer is a sense of permanence. They can't offer them a family environment for 18 years that a gay couple can. Orphanages are designed to push kids out and foster homes are temporary until they are adopted permanently. As there are not enough adopting parents these many children will end up in one of these scenarios. And neither option is desirable. Instead, they could be adopted by a loving gay family. Not perfect. Flawed. Better than the other options.

Finally, I would make the claim that there is absolutely nothing wrong with gays having their own biological children. Whether or not gays are gay biologically or not seemingly doesn't change their desire to have children. They have the same internal longing to have an offspring. And here is a reason, that I have never heard mentioned before, why gays having kids is nothing but good.

Assuming that the gay couple doesn't adopt and, like Mary Cheney, wants a biological child what is the alternative to the gay person not having child? The alternative is that no child is born. So, here is my question for every Evangelical who thinks that gays shouldn't have kids. Here is my question to James "Dobby" Dobson himself. You claim that living in a gay family is not what's best for the child. But what is better living in this family (which is admittedly not perfect) or not existing at all?

If Mary Cheney didn't get pregnant, then that child that she is soon to have would never exist. Never. If you really care about the children, why wouldn't you want this child to be born? This child, who would never have been born had it not been for Mary Cheney, is now going to be born and live. Hell, considering that this child will be born to a good little conservative girl, it has a fair chance at being raised Christian. He could accept Jesus and go to Heaven. Had it not been for this gay woman having a kid none of this could happen. So again I ask, which is better: living a life of non-perfection, where you don't have a father to instill justice and fairness in you, a life where you would have to find a positive male influence to teach you these lessons that is not your father, or simply not ever being born, living and experiencing all that is life.

I can not imagine anyone claiming that it would be better for this child to never be born.

There is part of me that believes Dobson does actually care about children and how they are raised. However, even if I do agree with who makes the best possible set of parents, I believe that he is completely wrong about every conclusion he comes to.

So, now it is your turn. Tell me why I'm wrong. Can you? I would specifically like any of my Evangelical readers to tell me why Dobson is right and I'm not.

Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here (and please don't believe anything Dobson says).

http://www.411mania.com

Gay Parents? How Fabulous!

Saturday, January 20 2007 @ 07:59 PM CST