Gay Marriage and the Test-Tube Tidal Wave
August 2, 2012
Alana S. Newman
I am the daughter of a sperm donor. For a long time I didn’t understand how this had negatively impacted my life, until I read David Blankenhorn’s Fatherless America. It was like stepping into a series of scenes from my adolescence. Never before had someone so eloquently and acutely described my personal struggles. I now staunchly defy the pro donor-conception script I was expected to embrace. Two years ago I asked for David’s help in creating The Anonymous Us Project—an anonymous story collective for people involved with Artificial Reproductive Technologies (ART), and he obliged. Through the stories I’ve received on my site and the research I have read, I am convinced that I am not alone in my struggles being donor-conceived.
So I was surprised with David’s new stance on same-sex marriage as described in his recent New York Times piece. I feel he underestimates, inter alia, the rapid expansion of donor-conception that will accompany same-sex marriage, and with it, many of the social ills he so diligently describes in Fatherless America.
David pivots his resistance to same-sex marriage because his desire to enhance the public’s understanding of marriage as it is related to parenthood has “largely failed to persuade.” He says that, “In the mind of today’s public, gay marriage is almost entirely about accepting lesbians and gay men as equal citizens.” But in his conclusion he asks, “Can we discuss whether both gays and straight people should think twice before denying children born through artificial reproductive technology the right to know and be known by their biological parents?”
This final remark suggests that anonymity is the only problem with ART. It is true that straight people started ART, but same-sex marriage will increase the demand for sperm and egg donors—inherently denying children access to one or both of their natural parents.
Why?
The connection between marriage and parenthood is not a vestige—it is a thriving expectation that those who get married will at least consider pursuing parenthood. Marriage is a celebration of two people’s union and the possibility of parenthood. And gay marriage entails not just social approval of gay love, but also social approval of the possibility of gay parenthood.
But should we celebrate the possibility of gay parenthood?
Most people approve of gay couples adopting. I am one of these people. Adoption exists as an institution because of human frailty; sometimes people are unable to raise their biological children, but those children still need loving homes. Adoption is not a market that provides children to the adults that desire them. It is for parents to find children who—tragically—cannot be raised by their biological parents. The problem for couples interested in adopting these days is that because of abortion and birth control, many children that would have been adopted were simply never born.
Because of this, many gay married couples that want to become parents will opt to use ART.
But there’s a big difference between ART and regular adoption. Donor-conception, unlike adoption, is a market where new humans are created to fulfill the demands of the adults that want them. “Commercially conceived” persons are deliberately denied a relationship with one or both of our biological parents. The tragic, primal wound ubiquitous in adoption literature is woven into every commercially conceived person’s life story.
Motherlessness and commodification of human life and the womb are concerning. According to the 2010 My Daddy’s Name Is Donor report (released by Blankenhorn’s colleagues at the Institute for American Values), the first large comparative study of young adults conceived via commercial conception, “Donor offspring are significantly more likely than those raised by their biological parents to struggle with serious, negative outcomes such as delinquency, substance abuse, and depression, even when controlling for socio-economic and other factors.”
Being raised by one’s biological parents is not only ideal according to social science research, but according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is a human right. My biggest fear is that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples will strip children of the right to be raised by their natural parents, because law and culture will demand that we celebrate all the means by which same-sex couples become parents.
Alana S. Newman is the founder of the Anonymous Us Project.
RESOURCES
The Anonymous Us Project
David Blankenhorn, How My View On Gay Marriage Changed
My Daddy’s Name is Donor, 2010
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.2.2012 | 9:06am
Michael PS says:
What I find particularly deplorable is the extent to which, in the United States assisted reproduction has been commercialised.
In countries with a Civil Law tradition, the great Roman law principles that only things in commerce may be the object of agreements and that the human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right have done much to mitigate such abuses. They render void agreements to pay for human gametes along with all agreements relating to procreation or gestation on account of a third party, whether for payment or otherwise. Perhaps, the most comprehensive statement of these principles is to be found in Articles 16 & 1128 of the French Code Civil.
California seems to be the jurisdiction of choice for French people wishing to evade these laws; according to the Procurator of the Republic, there is a brisk market there for babies, bespoke or prêt à porter !
In countries with a Civil Law tradition, the great Roman law principles that only things in commerce may be the object of agreements and that the human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right have done much to mitigate such abuses. They render void agreements to pay for human gametes along with all agreements relating to procreation or gestation on account of a third party, whether for payment or otherwise. Perhaps, the most comprehensive statement of these principles is to be found in Articles 16 & 1128 of the French Code Civil.
California seems to be the jurisdiction of choice for French people wishing to evade these laws; according to the Procurator of the Republic, there is a brisk market there for babies, bespoke or prêt à porter !
8.2.2012 | 9:32am
patricksarsfield says:
Ms. Newman closes her piece with this:
"My biggest fear is that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples will strip children of the right to be raised by their natural parents, because law and culture will demand that we celebrate all the means by which same-sex couples become parents."
This is confused thinking. The "same sex couple" does not become "parents" by a multiplicity of means. The law can declare both members of the couple parents by fiat (i.e., "Adoption") but it cannot turn sperm into ova. Necessarily at most one of the two members of the couple can be one of the two "natural parents" of the child. To avoid confusion let's call the "natural parents" "genetic material donors" ("GMDs").
However the genetic material of the two GMDs is mixed and matched, one of the two GMDs has to be a member of the opposite sex who is by definition NOT a member of the "same sex couple or family." The other member of the couple can only become an adoptive parent ( a "non-GMD"), and a superfluous second "parent of the same sex." Simply put, the sexual exclusivity that was a keystone of marriage and parenthood would mean that no "same sex marriage" could ever produce children because a GMD homosexual would have to go outside the marriage to find another GMD of the opposite sex. "Cherchez la femme" may be politically incorrect but it remains "the facts of life."
"My biggest fear is that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples will strip children of the right to be raised by their natural parents, because law and culture will demand that we celebrate all the means by which same-sex couples become parents."
This is confused thinking. The "same sex couple" does not become "parents" by a multiplicity of means. The law can declare both members of the couple parents by fiat (i.e., "Adoption") but it cannot turn sperm into ova. Necessarily at most one of the two members of the couple can be one of the two "natural parents" of the child. To avoid confusion let's call the "natural parents" "genetic material donors" ("GMDs").
However the genetic material of the two GMDs is mixed and matched, one of the two GMDs has to be a member of the opposite sex who is by definition NOT a member of the "same sex couple or family." The other member of the couple can only become an adoptive parent ( a "non-GMD"), and a superfluous second "parent of the same sex." Simply put, the sexual exclusivity that was a keystone of marriage and parenthood would mean that no "same sex marriage" could ever produce children because a GMD homosexual would have to go outside the marriage to find another GMD of the opposite sex. "Cherchez la femme" may be politically incorrect but it remains "the facts of life."
8.2.2012 | 9:42am
Rachel says:
In Canada, the adoption of gay marriage led to the immediate change of all laws concerning family. The "mother" and "father" in the law was replaced by legal parent #1 and legal parent #2, thus abolishing the legal recognition of any biological bond. What Alana Newman expresses is not a fear of what gay marriage may lead to, but a direct and immediate consequence of it. That this aspect received no debate before the change in the law in Canada is tragic.
8.2.2012 | 10:35am
The Moz says:
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. According to this moral maxim, because I would never not want to know and be raised by both my biological parents I can not approve of other people being denied their right to a mommy and a daddy.
Why has the Left seemingly abandoned this principle? Isn't it universal? Afterall 100% of all people have had one mommy and one daddy. Yes, including 100% of all gay men and women in the world.
PS About gay adoption: Well why if you could choose between 2 sets of equally capable parents one two men and one one man and one women why would you rather choose two men? It doesn't make sense to me from a fairness perspective. Adoption agencies try to match kids' background to their adoptive parents so a native american child will go to a native american couple first. So because every child is the result of a man and women coming together wouldn't you want to place them as close to their background as possible? ie mom and dad? Also because 98% of kids grow up to be straight and those raised by gay parents are like maybe 90-95% likely to be straight wouldn't you want for fairness and for basic justice to put them with a couple to whom they will be most likely to relate? and on whom they can most easily model their behaviour? This has nothing to do with any religious convictions just basic reasoning, or am I missing something?
Anyway great article and yes, look at even what Elton John said last week, that his adoptive boy will be crushed to find out he doesn't have a mum. Of course the truth is that he does, but she's just decided to have nothing to do with him, short of giving him half his genes via an egg, but look if I found out that I actually had a mum but was denied her by her and my dad and my so-called adoptive other dad I think I'd have a mental breakdown. I would be crushed and emotionally I think I'd be devastated. Maybe that's just be but I suspect it isn't.
Maybe our society is going too far to make a group of people feel welcome that I suspect will never feel welcome enough.
Why has the Left seemingly abandoned this principle? Isn't it universal? Afterall 100% of all people have had one mommy and one daddy. Yes, including 100% of all gay men and women in the world.
PS About gay adoption: Well why if you could choose between 2 sets of equally capable parents one two men and one one man and one women why would you rather choose two men? It doesn't make sense to me from a fairness perspective. Adoption agencies try to match kids' background to their adoptive parents so a native american child will go to a native american couple first. So because every child is the result of a man and women coming together wouldn't you want to place them as close to their background as possible? ie mom and dad? Also because 98% of kids grow up to be straight and those raised by gay parents are like maybe 90-95% likely to be straight wouldn't you want for fairness and for basic justice to put them with a couple to whom they will be most likely to relate? and on whom they can most easily model their behaviour? This has nothing to do with any religious convictions just basic reasoning, or am I missing something?
Anyway great article and yes, look at even what Elton John said last week, that his adoptive boy will be crushed to find out he doesn't have a mum. Of course the truth is that he does, but she's just decided to have nothing to do with him, short of giving him half his genes via an egg, but look if I found out that I actually had a mum but was denied her by her and my dad and my so-called adoptive other dad I think I'd have a mental breakdown. I would be crushed and emotionally I think I'd be devastated. Maybe that's just be but I suspect it isn't.
Maybe our society is going too far to make a group of people feel welcome that I suspect will never feel welcome enough.
8.2.2012 | 11:17am
Charles Lee says:
The author owes her very existence to the process which she now condemns. No gratitude at all? Would she prefer not to have been born? Her mother obviously desired to bear and rear a child, and the author's life--life! Glorious life!--is the result. I'm having difficulty understanding why she would actively work to restrict this possibility for others.
8.2.2012 | 11:39am
patricksarsfield says:
David Nickol argues:
"I know your concern is with children not knowing their biological parents, but certainly it is better for a child who does not know his or her biological parents to at least *have* parents."
But the person who does not know his biological parents still "has" two biological parents, one male and the other female. The reason the child does not know the biological parents is because someone is hiding the truth from him or her. As Rachel notes, it is tragic that Gay Marriage forces its supporters to ignore the biological bond and to reduce the legally recognized "parents" to ""legal parents 1 and 2."
Barring a "Big Brother" re-education scheme that is perhaps in the future, what will be clear to any and all children is that if their "legal parents 1 and 2" are of the same sex, then a real biological parent is among the missing. And that will cause the "personal struggles" and "tragic primal wound" that the author notes based on her own personal experience. The law can deny the facts of life all it wants by judicial or legal fiat and it can be aided and abetted in its lie by the "legal parents 1 and 2", but kids inevitably will learn the facts of life and seek to learn the truth of their own conception. In days gone by, we would have called that their birthright; it may shortly be deemed a subversive quest.
"I know your concern is with children not knowing their biological parents, but certainly it is better for a child who does not know his or her biological parents to at least *have* parents."
But the person who does not know his biological parents still "has" two biological parents, one male and the other female. The reason the child does not know the biological parents is because someone is hiding the truth from him or her. As Rachel notes, it is tragic that Gay Marriage forces its supporters to ignore the biological bond and to reduce the legally recognized "parents" to ""legal parents 1 and 2."
Barring a "Big Brother" re-education scheme that is perhaps in the future, what will be clear to any and all children is that if their "legal parents 1 and 2" are of the same sex, then a real biological parent is among the missing. And that will cause the "personal struggles" and "tragic primal wound" that the author notes based on her own personal experience. The law can deny the facts of life all it wants by judicial or legal fiat and it can be aided and abetted in its lie by the "legal parents 1 and 2", but kids inevitably will learn the facts of life and seek to learn the truth of their own conception. In days gone by, we would have called that their birthright; it may shortly be deemed a subversive quest.
8.2.2012 | 12:09pm
Kelly says:
Charles Lee: I suspect that people who were conceived as a result of rape might just oppose the process that gave them life, too.
8.2.2012 | 12:10pm
The Moz says:
Brilliant prose patricksarsfield and true. Truth hurts and in coming decades persecution will be upon many once again.
8.2.2012 | 2:20pm
Jim Pierce says:
"Most people approve of gay couples adopting. I am one of these people."
The sentences you read in FR these days. . .
The sentences you read in FR these days. . .
8.2.2012 | 2:30pm
harry says:
"Most people approve of gay couples adopting. I am one of these people. ,,, Being raised by one’s biological parents is not only ideal according to social science research, but according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is a human right. My biggest fear is that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples will strip children of the right to be raised by their natural parents, because law and culture will demand that we celebrate all the means by which same-sex couples become parents."
If "being raised by one's biological parents is not only ideal" but is also "a human right," then being raised by a mother and a father is also "ideal" and "a human right." If Alana Newman's biggest fear is that "children will be stripped of their "right to be raised by their natural parents," how is it that she approves of gay couples adopting, which not only leaves the child without either a mother or a father, but also forces the child into the unnatural home environment created by two adults of the same sex sleeping together. It is not like children don't figure out what that means.
We won't really know until a generation of children have been raised that way what the most common psychological impact an unnatural home environment has on children. It is hard to imagine how that most common psychological impact will be anything but negative. Our willingness to use them like millions of guinea pigs in a huge social experiment is indicative of the loss of respect for children that is so rampant in our culture.
Acceptance of same-sex adoption and the disrespect for children inherent in it should not surprise us. After all, another blatant indication of our dramatic loss of respect for children is late abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in the United States, 1.5% of abortions are at 21 weeks or after. There have been well over 50 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe. That is at least 750,000 late 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions where children clearly recognizable as just that were murdered. Taking innocent human life at any stage of its development is gravely wrong, but you can show even a small child a picture of an unborn child at 21 weeks or later and they will know it is a baby. So should we. Or maybe we know that all too well and the problem is that we just don't respect children anymore.
If "being raised by one's biological parents is not only ideal" but is also "a human right," then being raised by a mother and a father is also "ideal" and "a human right." If Alana Newman's biggest fear is that "children will be stripped of their "right to be raised by their natural parents," how is it that she approves of gay couples adopting, which not only leaves the child without either a mother or a father, but also forces the child into the unnatural home environment created by two adults of the same sex sleeping together. It is not like children don't figure out what that means.
We won't really know until a generation of children have been raised that way what the most common psychological impact an unnatural home environment has on children. It is hard to imagine how that most common psychological impact will be anything but negative. Our willingness to use them like millions of guinea pigs in a huge social experiment is indicative of the loss of respect for children that is so rampant in our culture.
Acceptance of same-sex adoption and the disrespect for children inherent in it should not surprise us. After all, another blatant indication of our dramatic loss of respect for children is late abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in the United States, 1.5% of abortions are at 21 weeks or after. There have been well over 50 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe. That is at least 750,000 late 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions where children clearly recognizable as just that were murdered. Taking innocent human life at any stage of its development is gravely wrong, but you can show even a small child a picture of an unborn child at 21 weeks or later and they will know it is a baby. So should we. Or maybe we know that all too well and the problem is that we just don't respect children anymore.
8.2.2012 | 3:10pm
David Nickol says:
patricksarsfield,
You say: "As Rachel notes, it is tragic that Gay Marriage forces its supporters to ignore the biological bond and to reduce the legally recognized 'parents' to 'legal parents 1 and 2.'"
There is absolutely nothing about same-sex marriage that forces the adoption of children or the conceiving of children through ART. There is also absolutely nothing about same-sex marriage that forces, in cases of adoption or children conceived through ART, children to have no contact with their biological parents.
There are practices that go on right now, largely among heterosexuals, that directly guarantee a child will never know one or both of its biological parents. The question, then, is why campaign against same-sex marriage when one can campaign against the actual practices that cause children never to know one or both biological parents?
If you take a look at the recommendations in "My Daddy's Name Is Donor," the most "radical" is to end anonymous donations of sperm and eggs. The rest of the recommendations, as far as I can see, do not limit the freedoms of anyone to reproduce any way they choose to. They are just recommendations on dealing with conception by ART when chosen, and recommendations for those thinking of choosing to be required to think very hard about what they are doing. In short, there are no recommendations that could not be applied just as well to same-sex couples choosing to have children as to opposite-sex couples or to single individuals. And yet somehow there is supposed to be a case against same-sex marriage based on what some same-sex couples *might* do. The recommendations basically leave everyone to do as they please, and yet one of Alana S. Newman's personal recommendations seems to be to block same-sex marriage because of what some same-sex couples *might* to if they got married. Consequently, a woman like Octomom who wants to have 14 children through IVF is free to do so, and yet older couples like the friends I spoke of, who have no intention of raising children, are to be prohibited from marrying because of what other same-sex couples *might* do.
Alana S. Newman makes some serious points about ART and the effects it has on children conceived by IVF or artificial insemination, and I agree these matters must be more fully discussed and regulated. But what I don't agree with is using this as an excuse to oppose same-sex marriage.
This is not a same-sex marriage issue. It is an adoption issue and an assisted-reproductive-technologies issue. By all means, take the issues into account when passing legislation regarding same-sex marriage, but don't prohibit same-sex marriage itself. As I said, there are many reasons people oppose same-sex marriage, and I am not addressing all of them. But if your sole objection to same-sex marriage is that you feel it will increase the use of ART, then it is blatantly discriminatory to oppose same-sex marriage on those grounds. There is nothing inherent in same-sex marriage that requires the use of ART. There are many same-sex couples who do not intend to have children, yet they would be prevented from marrying because other same-sex couples might have children, and might have them through ART. And gay people are asked to bear a burden that straight people are not.
People do not want to regulate ART, because they want total freedom. But people seem to be willing to deny freedom to marry to gay people in the name of curbing ART. It is discrimination.
You say: "As Rachel notes, it is tragic that Gay Marriage forces its supporters to ignore the biological bond and to reduce the legally recognized 'parents' to 'legal parents 1 and 2.'"
There is absolutely nothing about same-sex marriage that forces the adoption of children or the conceiving of children through ART. There is also absolutely nothing about same-sex marriage that forces, in cases of adoption or children conceived through ART, children to have no contact with their biological parents.
There are practices that go on right now, largely among heterosexuals, that directly guarantee a child will never know one or both of its biological parents. The question, then, is why campaign against same-sex marriage when one can campaign against the actual practices that cause children never to know one or both biological parents?
If you take a look at the recommendations in "My Daddy's Name Is Donor," the most "radical" is to end anonymous donations of sperm and eggs. The rest of the recommendations, as far as I can see, do not limit the freedoms of anyone to reproduce any way they choose to. They are just recommendations on dealing with conception by ART when chosen, and recommendations for those thinking of choosing to be required to think very hard about what they are doing. In short, there are no recommendations that could not be applied just as well to same-sex couples choosing to have children as to opposite-sex couples or to single individuals. And yet somehow there is supposed to be a case against same-sex marriage based on what some same-sex couples *might* do. The recommendations basically leave everyone to do as they please, and yet one of Alana S. Newman's personal recommendations seems to be to block same-sex marriage because of what some same-sex couples *might* to if they got married. Consequently, a woman like Octomom who wants to have 14 children through IVF is free to do so, and yet older couples like the friends I spoke of, who have no intention of raising children, are to be prohibited from marrying because of what other same-sex couples *might* do.
Alana S. Newman makes some serious points about ART and the effects it has on children conceived by IVF or artificial insemination, and I agree these matters must be more fully discussed and regulated. But what I don't agree with is using this as an excuse to oppose same-sex marriage.
This is not a same-sex marriage issue. It is an adoption issue and an assisted-reproductive-technologies issue. By all means, take the issues into account when passing legislation regarding same-sex marriage, but don't prohibit same-sex marriage itself. As I said, there are many reasons people oppose same-sex marriage, and I am not addressing all of them. But if your sole objection to same-sex marriage is that you feel it will increase the use of ART, then it is blatantly discriminatory to oppose same-sex marriage on those grounds. There is nothing inherent in same-sex marriage that requires the use of ART. There are many same-sex couples who do not intend to have children, yet they would be prevented from marrying because other same-sex couples might have children, and might have them through ART. And gay people are asked to bear a burden that straight people are not.
People do not want to regulate ART, because they want total freedom. But people seem to be willing to deny freedom to marry to gay people in the name of curbing ART. It is discrimination.
8.2.2012 | 3:37pm
Gil says:
Ms. Newman,
If you want an insight into the mystery of evil, just examine how you can write "Most people approve of gay couples adopting. I am one of these people" yet can't accept Mr. Blankenhorn's rebellion against God for an equally humanly conceived good. Look at it from a 20th century historical perspective in philosophy:
Sartre and Heidegger prided themselves in discovering and understanding Nothingness (up until their explications this was a "mystery of evil"). And these two giants in existential thought, after having understood in their own minds what constitutes the mystery of evil, went about in their respective fashions to do their part in eradicating this ultimate source of evil, Sartre devoting himself to Stalinism and Heidegger devoting himself to Hitlerism, and together these two philosophers ending up supporting the most widespread manifestation of evil in history.
In other words, you and Mr. Blankenhorn are not the first to defy God's revealed word with a perceived better, more humanistic, plan than His.
“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their own craftiness…’” (1 Corinthians 3:18-19)
If you want an insight into the mystery of evil, just examine how you can write "Most people approve of gay couples adopting. I am one of these people" yet can't accept Mr. Blankenhorn's rebellion against God for an equally humanly conceived good. Look at it from a 20th century historical perspective in philosophy:
Sartre and Heidegger prided themselves in discovering and understanding Nothingness (up until their explications this was a "mystery of evil"). And these two giants in existential thought, after having understood in their own minds what constitutes the mystery of evil, went about in their respective fashions to do their part in eradicating this ultimate source of evil, Sartre devoting himself to Stalinism and Heidegger devoting himself to Hitlerism, and together these two philosophers ending up supporting the most widespread manifestation of evil in history.
In other words, you and Mr. Blankenhorn are not the first to defy God's revealed word with a perceived better, more humanistic, plan than His.
“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their own craftiness…’” (1 Corinthians 3:18-19)
8.2.2012 | 3:48pm
Gil says:
“Our willingness to use [children] like millions of guinea pigs in a huge social experiment is indicative of the loss of respect for children that is so rampant in our culture.”
It’s child sacrifice, pure and simple—like never before in history.
It’s child sacrifice, pure and simple—like never before in history.
8.2.2012 | 4:27pm
David Nickol says:
It's interesting reading the comments, because I see a lot of opposition to same-sex marriage, but I see very little concern about the underlying issue Alana S. Newman is bringing up—the already widespread use of assisted reproductive technologies to allow people—certainly the vast majority currently heterosexual couples and single women—have children who may never know either one or both of their biological parents.
Can no one think of anything to do about this other than to block same-sex marriage? I have no doubt that Alana S. Newman is sincere in her concerns, but I wonder how many here are seizing on them as just another way to oppose same-sex marriage.
Once again, I challenge you: Can no one think of anything to do about ART (and adoption)—aside from opposing same-sex marriage—that will lessen or eliminate the number of children who will never know one or both of their biological parents? Did anyone bother to take a look at the web sites Alana S. Newman linked to?
Can no one think of anything to do about this other than to block same-sex marriage? I have no doubt that Alana S. Newman is sincere in her concerns, but I wonder how many here are seizing on them as just another way to oppose same-sex marriage.
Once again, I challenge you: Can no one think of anything to do about ART (and adoption)—aside from opposing same-sex marriage—that will lessen or eliminate the number of children who will never know one or both of their biological parents? Did anyone bother to take a look at the web sites Alana S. Newman linked to?
8.2.2012 | 4:41pm
patricksarsfield says:
Food for thought on the question whether there is a benefit to the biological bond of parent and child: my wife happened to have on Dr. Phil when I came in just now, and he was noting that research shows that children raised in family environments where there is an adult who is not the biological ancestor of the child suffer twenty times the sexual abuse that is suffered by children living with both biological parents. I should note that the statistic quoted was not about homosexual "parents" per se.
He noted that statistics on the question could be found at his website. The website is:
http://www.d2l.org/site/c.4dICIJOkGcISE/b.6250785/k.620E/Are_There_Certain_Factors_that_Put_A_Child_at_Risk_for_Sexual_Abuse.htm
Here is an excerpt:
"Family structure is the most important risk factor in child sexual abuse. Children who live with two married biological parents are at low risk for abuse. The risk increases when children live with step-parents or a single parent. Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused than children that live with both biological parents. Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse than children living with both biological parents (Sedlack, et. al., 2010). "
He noted that statistics on the question could be found at his website. The website is:
http://www.d2l.org/site/c.4dICIJOkGcISE/b.6250785/k.620E/Are_There_Certain_Factors_that_Put_A_Child_at_Risk_for_Sexual_Abuse.htm
Here is an excerpt:
"Family structure is the most important risk factor in child sexual abuse. Children who live with two married biological parents are at low risk for abuse. The risk increases when children live with step-parents or a single parent. Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused than children that live with both biological parents. Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse than children living with both biological parents (Sedlack, et. al., 2010). "
8.2.2012 | 4:49pm
Inis Magrath says:
--- "Being raised by one’s biological parents is ... ideal according to social science research..."
No it isn't. Citation please?
No it isn't. Citation please?
8.2.2012 | 6:52pm
Don Roberto says:
As the serpent promised, we can be like gods. But at what cost? Another example of the consequences of sin: chaos (legal confusion over parental rights) and confusion (even to people who think that it might not be ideal, generally speaking, to be raised by one's biological parents), sorrow (myriad unborn destroyed for commercial purposes) and misery (growing up without mommy and daddy). Sinful thoughts lead to sinful acts lead to sinful habits lead to lives of sin. And the children born of sin will suffer, yea unto the fourth generation.
And for those atheist/materialists out there, it should not be at all surprising from an evolutionary psychology standpoint that natural parents would abuse children less than stepparents. (Why not have a little twisted fun, if the propogation of my genes will not be impacted detrimentally?) †
And for those atheist/materialists out there, it should not be at all surprising from an evolutionary psychology standpoint that natural parents would abuse children less than stepparents. (Why not have a little twisted fun, if the propogation of my genes will not be impacted detrimentally?) †
8.2.2012 | 7:15pm
patricksarsfield says:
Responding to me, D. Nickol writes:
"There is absolutely nothing about same-sex marriage that forces the adoption of children or the conceiving of children through ART. "
Perhaps if they don't want children or if one of the "partners" goes off the marital reservation and adulterously has sex with a person of the opposite sex; otherwise: NOT TRUE. If one or both of the participants in a "same-sex marriage" want a child, that child CANNOT be the "issue" of the sexual congress of the two participants in the "same-sex marriage." IOW, the only ways a "same-sex couple" can have a child are through: 1) adoption or 2) some form of combination of the genetic material of one of the partners with the genetic material of a person of the opposite sex (i.e., Adultery or ART).
"There is absolutely nothing about same-sex marriage that forces the adoption of children or the conceiving of children through ART. "
Perhaps if they don't want children or if one of the "partners" goes off the marital reservation and adulterously has sex with a person of the opposite sex; otherwise: NOT TRUE. If one or both of the participants in a "same-sex marriage" want a child, that child CANNOT be the "issue" of the sexual congress of the two participants in the "same-sex marriage." IOW, the only ways a "same-sex couple" can have a child are through: 1) adoption or 2) some form of combination of the genetic material of one of the partners with the genetic material of a person of the opposite sex (i.e., Adultery or ART).
8.2.2012 | 10:17pm
Alexander says:
David Nickol -- I agree with the need to limit ART across the board, but same-sex marriage will only make it more difficult to implement such limitations. Why? Because ART is the *only* way for a same-sex couple to have biological children. Any limitation on ART will be cast as discriminatory against same-sex couples. If same-sex couples must be treated equally as heterosexual couples, you know as well as I do that the "equality" will involve allowing same-sex couples (and therefore all couples) access to ART.
David -- I read your comments here a lot. You're a smart guy, and you always seem to have a cute little gotcha point about some particular sentence or comment in the post. But very rarely do I see a deep or practical engagement with the most serious underlying issues. Think about whether you ever want to rise above being the smart alleck sophist sitting in the back of the classroom making debater's points.
David -- I read your comments here a lot. You're a smart guy, and you always seem to have a cute little gotcha point about some particular sentence or comment in the post. But very rarely do I see a deep or practical engagement with the most serious underlying issues. Think about whether you ever want to rise above being the smart alleck sophist sitting in the back of the classroom making debater's points.
8.2.2012 | 10:35pm
Alana S. Newman says:
Thank you so much everyone who read and commented, It is a pleasure writing for First Things because the readers here are so clearly intelligent people that consider the ideas shared and do their best to bring something valuable to the comment section.
Patricksarsfield: Your Dr.Phil quote is right on the money. One of the big reasons why I advocate against the use of ART in family building is The Cinderella Effect. A child living in a home with a non-biological male is indeed the #1 predictor of child abuse, and a child in care of a non-biological guardian is 50 times more likely to die from negligence.
Of course, these are the living arrangements for every single child created through third party reproduction. Why are there no home studies for children born via ART as there are for adopted children?
On the point, why am I talking about gay marriage when what I should be doing is campaigning against ART specifically?
-- I do campaign against ART specifically. I am due out soon with a book that is a collection of all the stories written on my website, www.AnonymousUs.org. My mom was married to a man. I grew up in a heterosexual context. When I first began fighting third party reproduction I had never considered what marriage was for. I was a liberal from San Francisco and actually voted against Prop 8 in California. But as I started advocating against third party reproduction, the #1 counter-argument I would receive back from people would be something like, "Yea, but how are gay people supposed to have kids if you outlaw 3rd party reproduction??"
After a lot of this kind of push-back I had to sit down and think about how I feel about gay people having kids, and then I thought about what marriage is for... And that's how I arrived at my current position.
I wrote an article as a response to David Blankenhorn's changed mind. My first priority is limiting ART and illuminating people as to its consequences- gay marriage is a related topic. It is a hot topic. And it is proving to be a worthwhile venue to get people thinking about third party reproduction.
I'll end with this, "the best gift you can give your child is to love its other parent".
Patricksarsfield: Your Dr.Phil quote is right on the money. One of the big reasons why I advocate against the use of ART in family building is The Cinderella Effect. A child living in a home with a non-biological male is indeed the #1 predictor of child abuse, and a child in care of a non-biological guardian is 50 times more likely to die from negligence.
Of course, these are the living arrangements for every single child created through third party reproduction. Why are there no home studies for children born via ART as there are for adopted children?
On the point, why am I talking about gay marriage when what I should be doing is campaigning against ART specifically?
-- I do campaign against ART specifically. I am due out soon with a book that is a collection of all the stories written on my website, www.AnonymousUs.org. My mom was married to a man. I grew up in a heterosexual context. When I first began fighting third party reproduction I had never considered what marriage was for. I was a liberal from San Francisco and actually voted against Prop 8 in California. But as I started advocating against third party reproduction, the #1 counter-argument I would receive back from people would be something like, "Yea, but how are gay people supposed to have kids if you outlaw 3rd party reproduction??"
After a lot of this kind of push-back I had to sit down and think about how I feel about gay people having kids, and then I thought about what marriage is for... And that's how I arrived at my current position.
I wrote an article as a response to David Blankenhorn's changed mind. My first priority is limiting ART and illuminating people as to its consequences- gay marriage is a related topic. It is a hot topic. And it is proving to be a worthwhile venue to get people thinking about third party reproduction.
I'll end with this, "the best gift you can give your child is to love its other parent".
8.2.2012 | 10:51pm
Michael says:
“But there’s a big difference between ART and regular adoption. Donor-conception, unlike adoption, is a market where new humans are created to fulfill the demands of the adults that want them.”
Newman is absolutely right. I’ve adopted two wonderful children who I love completely. I love them so completely that, if I could wave a magic wand, I would plop them in their birth parents’ arms and go childless forever. Adoption is that tough for children, which makes ART out of bounds.
But it is also wrong to discriminate against gays. If ART is wrong, it is wrong for all. If gays want children, they can adopt just like my wife and I did.
There’s no reason to stop one crime by committing another.
Newman is absolutely right. I’ve adopted two wonderful children who I love completely. I love them so completely that, if I could wave a magic wand, I would plop them in their birth parents’ arms and go childless forever. Adoption is that tough for children, which makes ART out of bounds.
But it is also wrong to discriminate against gays. If ART is wrong, it is wrong for all. If gays want children, they can adopt just like my wife and I did.
There’s no reason to stop one crime by committing another.
8.2.2012 | 11:37pm
Dean from Ohio says:
God help us! Here we sit parsing whether the author should be supporting homosexual marriage and adoption, and we are oblivious to the smoke trails we are leaving as we plunge over the slippery slope.
This is merely the next bread crumb into the forest in which the wicked witch will put us in the oven and eat us all. Listen to the words of J. Bottum, on the occasion twelve years ago of the creation of human-pig embryos, as he warns us of the abyss into which we are falling:
"It used to be that even the imagination of this sort of thing existed only to underscore a moral in a story. . . . But we live at a moment in which British newspapers can report on nineteen families who have created test–tube babies solely for the purpose of serving as tissue donors for their relatives—some brought to birth, some merely harvested as embryos and fetuses. A moment in which Harper’s Bazaar can advise women to keep their faces unwrinkled by having themselves injected with fat culled from human cadavers. . . . In the midst of all this, the creation of a human–pig arrives like a thing expected. We have reached the logical end, at last. We have become the people that, once upon a time, our ancestors used fairy tales to warn their children against—and we will reap exactly the consequences those tales foretold. Like the coming true of an old story—the discovery of the philosopher’s stone, the rubbing of a magic lantern—biotechnology is delivering the most astonishing medical advances anyone has ever imagined. But our sons and daughters will mate with the pig–men, if the pig–men will have them. And our swine–snouted grandchildren—the fruit not of our loins, but of our arrogance and our bright test tubes—will use the story of our generation to teach a moral to their frightened litters."
Quoted by J. Budsiszewski at http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-second-tablet-project-36
This is merely the next bread crumb into the forest in which the wicked witch will put us in the oven and eat us all. Listen to the words of J. Bottum, on the occasion twelve years ago of the creation of human-pig embryos, as he warns us of the abyss into which we are falling:
"It used to be that even the imagination of this sort of thing existed only to underscore a moral in a story. . . . But we live at a moment in which British newspapers can report on nineteen families who have created test–tube babies solely for the purpose of serving as tissue donors for their relatives—some brought to birth, some merely harvested as embryos and fetuses. A moment in which Harper’s Bazaar can advise women to keep their faces unwrinkled by having themselves injected with fat culled from human cadavers. . . . In the midst of all this, the creation of a human–pig arrives like a thing expected. We have reached the logical end, at last. We have become the people that, once upon a time, our ancestors used fairy tales to warn their children against—and we will reap exactly the consequences those tales foretold. Like the coming true of an old story—the discovery of the philosopher’s stone, the rubbing of a magic lantern—biotechnology is delivering the most astonishing medical advances anyone has ever imagined. But our sons and daughters will mate with the pig–men, if the pig–men will have them. And our swine–snouted grandchildren—the fruit not of our loins, but of our arrogance and our bright test tubes—will use the story of our generation to teach a moral to their frightened litters."
Quoted by J. Budsiszewski at http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-second-tablet-project-36
8.2.2012 | 11:43pm
Dean from Ohio says:
This article is welcome, but J. Budziszewski and J. Bottum pinpointed the flaw in the "no one but us nice tomato-loving eugenicists here" reasoning ten years ago:
"Genesis, I think, is the crux of it: not the text of Genesis, but its idea of creation. To abolish and remake human nature is to play God. The chief objection to playing God is that someone else is God already. If He created human nature, if He intended it, if it is not the result of a blind fortuity that did not have us in mind—then we have no business exchanging it for another. It would be good to remember that Genesis contains not only the story of creation but the story of Babel, of the presumption of men who thought they could build a tower 'to heaven.' "
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-second-tablet-project-36
"Genesis, I think, is the crux of it: not the text of Genesis, but its idea of creation. To abolish and remake human nature is to play God. The chief objection to playing God is that someone else is God already. If He created human nature, if He intended it, if it is not the result of a blind fortuity that did not have us in mind—then we have no business exchanging it for another. It would be good to remember that Genesis contains not only the story of creation but the story of Babel, of the presumption of men who thought they could build a tower 'to heaven.' "
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-second-tablet-project-36
8.3.2012 | 12:14am
Tim says:
The Moz: "Maybe our society is going too far to make a group of people feel welcome that I suspect will never feel welcome enough."
Hi, I just stopped by the site for the first time and I have to say, this is an insulting characterization. I can't speak for the entire gay population, but as one gay man I can say I really only want equal legal protection under the law and the same recognition of commitment that I witnessed between my own parents. I feel this is a reasonable request. I'm not a whiny child asking for a third dessert.
As to the topic, I agree with the previous statements on the thread that Alana's fight seems to be with ART, not same-sex marriage.
As to Patricksarsfield, I know plenty of gay couples who have involved a close, trusted friend of the absent gender to have a child. This person maintains a close relationship with the child, there to be a solid role model -- no mystery, no missing shadowy parent figure. This is not adultery or ART. Of the couples I know with this arrangement, it's going well. [Also, your post has some "quotation marks" where "none" are "needed".]
Thanks for your time.
Hi, I just stopped by the site for the first time and I have to say, this is an insulting characterization. I can't speak for the entire gay population, but as one gay man I can say I really only want equal legal protection under the law and the same recognition of commitment that I witnessed between my own parents. I feel this is a reasonable request. I'm not a whiny child asking for a third dessert.
As to the topic, I agree with the previous statements on the thread that Alana's fight seems to be with ART, not same-sex marriage.
As to Patricksarsfield, I know plenty of gay couples who have involved a close, trusted friend of the absent gender to have a child. This person maintains a close relationship with the child, there to be a solid role model -- no mystery, no missing shadowy parent figure. This is not adultery or ART. Of the couples I know with this arrangement, it's going well. [Also, your post has some "quotation marks" where "none" are "needed".]
Thanks for your time.
8.3.2012 | 1:03am
Peter says:
We won't really know until a generation of children have been raised that way what the most common psychological impact an unnatural home environment has on children.
It's quite possible that being raised by two homosexuals is detrimental, but it is also beyond our scientific capabilities to prove this conclusively. Of course we may find that children raised in this way are eg 20% more likely to suffer from mental problems, but it will be argued that this is simply due to the stigma that attaches to homosexuality, and more education is needed to combat it.
The situation might be a bit analogous to cigarette smoking: it was suspected for a long time that it might be harmful, but it took generations before this could be proven conclusively and generally accepted. In the meantime, powerful vested interests did everything they could to resist.
It's quite possible that being raised by two homosexuals is detrimental, but it is also beyond our scientific capabilities to prove this conclusively. Of course we may find that children raised in this way are eg 20% more likely to suffer from mental problems, but it will be argued that this is simply due to the stigma that attaches to homosexuality, and more education is needed to combat it.
The situation might be a bit analogous to cigarette smoking: it was suspected for a long time that it might be harmful, but it took generations before this could be proven conclusively and generally accepted. In the meantime, powerful vested interests did everything they could to resist.
8.3.2012 | 9:12am
Michael PS says:
patricksarsfield
You overlook a technique, now increasingly used, taking two eggs from a given woman, fertilizing one with the sperm of one man and the other with the other's, letting each divide several times, pulling one cell from each to test and be sure they were the same sex, then pushing the two bunches of cells together so that they form a single cell mass and implanting that in a surrogate. The same technique can be used, using ova from two women.
In order to resolve the complications that can arise from genetic manipulation, the French courts [Court of appeal, Rennes, July 4, 2002.] have ruled that “the mother is the one who bears the child and gives it life by bringing it into the world.”
David Nickols
The issues of SSM and assisted reproduction are plainly connected in those jurisdictions that permit assisted reproduction only to those couples, one or both of whom are suffering from a pathological condition. and which reject surrogacy agreements.
Otherwise, it means allowing the transfer of bonds of filiation outside what have hitherto been controlled processes – socially controlled in the case of adoption. It means introducing into the law of filiation, which is now granted by an outside authority, the possibility of contracted filiation. We would thus be moving away from institutional filiation and towards brokered filiation.
You overlook a technique, now increasingly used, taking two eggs from a given woman, fertilizing one with the sperm of one man and the other with the other's, letting each divide several times, pulling one cell from each to test and be sure they were the same sex, then pushing the two bunches of cells together so that they form a single cell mass and implanting that in a surrogate. The same technique can be used, using ova from two women.
In order to resolve the complications that can arise from genetic manipulation, the French courts [Court of appeal, Rennes, July 4, 2002.] have ruled that “the mother is the one who bears the child and gives it life by bringing it into the world.”
David Nickols
The issues of SSM and assisted reproduction are plainly connected in those jurisdictions that permit assisted reproduction only to those couples, one or both of whom are suffering from a pathological condition. and which reject surrogacy agreements.
Otherwise, it means allowing the transfer of bonds of filiation outside what have hitherto been controlled processes – socially controlled in the case of adoption. It means introducing into the law of filiation, which is now granted by an outside authority, the possibility of contracted filiation. We would thus be moving away from institutional filiation and towards brokered filiation.
8.3.2012 | 12:21pm
David Nickol says:
Michael PS,
If the use of ART is objectionable, ban it. Don't ban same-sex marriage because some same-sex couples *might* use ART to have children.
Over on Mirror of Justice, Rob Vischer succinctly summarized some of the questions in this thread as follows: "If ART is the problem, isn't opposition to SSM a wildly over- and under-inclusive proxy for addressing it?"
It seems Alana S. Newman would deny the right to marry to homosexuals in order to fight against ART. What is she willing to deny to heterosexuals, who of course are and will certainly always be the largest group to employ ART? Let's start with a very practical and realistic first step: Let's legally prohibit insurance coverage of ART except in cases where couples are using their own sperm and eggs. How many people arguing here against SSM would go along with that? ART, especially in vitro fertilization, is very expensive. Why should anyone opposed to ART be expected to pay insurance premiums to help someone else pay the expense of ART?
If the use of ART is objectionable, ban it. Don't ban same-sex marriage because some same-sex couples *might* use ART to have children.
Over on Mirror of Justice, Rob Vischer succinctly summarized some of the questions in this thread as follows: "If ART is the problem, isn't opposition to SSM a wildly over- and under-inclusive proxy for addressing it?"
It seems Alana S. Newman would deny the right to marry to homosexuals in order to fight against ART. What is she willing to deny to heterosexuals, who of course are and will certainly always be the largest group to employ ART? Let's start with a very practical and realistic first step: Let's legally prohibit insurance coverage of ART except in cases where couples are using their own sperm and eggs. How many people arguing here against SSM would go along with that? ART, especially in vitro fertilization, is very expensive. Why should anyone opposed to ART be expected to pay insurance premiums to help someone else pay the expense of ART?
8.3.2012 | 12:25pm
Lisa says:
Alana needs to understand that she has had loving parents that have allowed her the freedom to explore these ideals. I, however was raised by my biological parents and did not have this luxury. I think there is another side to this. While I do not oppose or support homosexual marriage I do believe I would have been better off with 2 loving parents regardless of there gender, or biological relationship. It has occurred to me also that a compromise might be reached on this issue. If the right would give up the fight on same sex marriage, and the left would agree that abortion is wrong and should be abolished. -- And we all fought to keep all children (regardless of race) in a safe place and non-sexualized none of these problems would exist.
8.3.2012 | 12:31pm
patricksarsfield says:
Tim responds to me:
"As to Patricksarsfield, I know plenty of gay couples who have involved a close, trusted friend of the absent gender to have a child. This person maintains a close relationship with the child, there to be a solid role model -- no mystery, no missing shadowy parent figure. This is not adultery or ART.
It's not adultery? Actually it is because the "couple" did not "involve" a "trusted member of the absent (i.e., opposite) gender." Rather, one of the two "marital partners" engaged in sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex. Only in a law model where sex with someone other than one's marital partner is not adultery would that not constitute adultery.
It is not surprising that a person who supports Gay Marriage would seek to rewrite the parameters of marriage to make this square peg fit into the round hole of marriage. Such a person will no doubt try to recast adultery as merely the outsourcing of Genetic Material Donation to the Absent Gender. Curiouser and curiouser.
"As to Patricksarsfield, I know plenty of gay couples who have involved a close, trusted friend of the absent gender to have a child. This person maintains a close relationship with the child, there to be a solid role model -- no mystery, no missing shadowy parent figure. This is not adultery or ART.
It's not adultery? Actually it is because the "couple" did not "involve" a "trusted member of the absent (i.e., opposite) gender." Rather, one of the two "marital partners" engaged in sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex. Only in a law model where sex with someone other than one's marital partner is not adultery would that not constitute adultery.
It is not surprising that a person who supports Gay Marriage would seek to rewrite the parameters of marriage to make this square peg fit into the round hole of marriage. Such a person will no doubt try to recast adultery as merely the outsourcing of Genetic Material Donation to the Absent Gender. Curiouser and curiouser.
8.3.2012 | 3:45pm
John Howard says:
Marriage doesn't give a right to use third party gametes, that's adultery. So prohibiting gamete donation would not conflict with marriage rights. But marriage does approve and allow the couple to conceive offspring together using their own genes, and it should continue to. A married couple should always be allowed from conceiving a child using their own genes.
But people should be prohibited from conceiving a child with someone of the same sex, using stem cell derived gametes perhaps, or any other method. But if same-sex couples are married, such a ban would conflict with marriage rights. The conflict would have to be resolved in one of two ways: we'd either have to allow same-sex couples to conceive offspring using stem cell derived gametes, or we would have to deny that marriage approved of conception of offspring using the couple's own genes. Both are unacceptable, therefore same-sex marriage is unacceptable.
Civil Unions should be defined as "marriage minus conception rights" to give same-sex couples all the other protections. We should not equate a same-sex couple's conception rights to a marriage's. People only have a right to reproduce as the sex they were born as, with someone of the other sex.
But people should be prohibited from conceiving a child with someone of the same sex, using stem cell derived gametes perhaps, or any other method. But if same-sex couples are married, such a ban would conflict with marriage rights. The conflict would have to be resolved in one of two ways: we'd either have to allow same-sex couples to conceive offspring using stem cell derived gametes, or we would have to deny that marriage approved of conception of offspring using the couple's own genes. Both are unacceptable, therefore same-sex marriage is unacceptable.
Civil Unions should be defined as "marriage minus conception rights" to give same-sex couples all the other protections. We should not equate a same-sex couple's conception rights to a marriage's. People only have a right to reproduce as the sex they were born as, with someone of the other sex.
8.3.2012 | 5:49pm
David Nickol says:
patricksarsfield,
It is my guess, although I cannot site any statistics (and doubt that there are any), that when, say, a lesbian couple decides to have a child, it is done through artificial insemination. If they pick a man they know as a donor, he doesn't have sex with them. He is the sperm donor for artificial insemination.
Since you do not believe that gay couples can marry how would conceiving by actual sex outside of the relationship be adultery?
It is my guess, although I cannot site any statistics (and doubt that there are any), that when, say, a lesbian couple decides to have a child, it is done through artificial insemination. If they pick a man they know as a donor, he doesn't have sex with them. He is the sperm donor for artificial insemination.
Since you do not believe that gay couples can marry how would conceiving by actual sex outside of the relationship be adultery?
8.3.2012 | 7:02pm
Tim says:
Hi patricksarsfield!
"It's not adultery? Actually it is because the couple did not "involve a trusted member of the absent (i.e., opposite) gender". Rather, one of the two "marital partners" engaged in sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex."
Heavens, no. No intercourse between the involved parties. [Think of a Thanksgiving cooking implement.] Simpler and simpler!
I absolutely agree -- intercourse between married adults with someone other than their legal partner: that's adultery.
Patrick, we can disagree on tons of things. But can we meet in the middle on our intentions? I'm really not trying to rewrite the moral code of the world to remake it into my legal funhouse. [For one thing, I don't have the time.] I'm looking for equality and a simple life.
Thanks again for reading.
"It's not adultery? Actually it is because the couple did not "involve a trusted member of the absent (i.e., opposite) gender". Rather, one of the two "marital partners" engaged in sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex."
Heavens, no. No intercourse between the involved parties. [Think of a Thanksgiving cooking implement.] Simpler and simpler!
I absolutely agree -- intercourse between married adults with someone other than their legal partner: that's adultery.
Patrick, we can disagree on tons of things. But can we meet in the middle on our intentions? I'm really not trying to rewrite the moral code of the world to remake it into my legal funhouse. [For one thing, I don't have the time.] I'm looking for equality and a simple life.
Thanks again for reading.
8.4.2012 | 2:59pm
John Howard says:
Whether third party sperm donation is adultery or not, it should be prohibited, as there is no right to do it, and it violates the rights of the child being created to be raised by its own parents. It harms society and liberty by introducing eugenics and pressuring people to use better gametes than their own.
8.4.2012 | 4:38pm
Michael PS says:
John Howard is right. The issues of SSM, adoption and assisted reproduction cannot be separated
8.4.2012 | 11:14pm
David Nickol says:
Michael PS,
You say: "John Howard is right. The issues of SSM, adoption and assisted reproduction cannot be separated."
But the question is what you, society, and the law are willing to do about adoption and assisted reproduction. If no restrictions are put on what single people, married heterosexuals, unmarried heterosexuals, and unmarried same-sex couples may do, but same-sex marriage is restricted because same-sex married couples *might* adopt or use ART in ways you considered harmful, that is patently unfair.
You say: "John Howard is right. The issues of SSM, adoption and assisted reproduction cannot be separated."
But the question is what you, society, and the law are willing to do about adoption and assisted reproduction. If no restrictions are put on what single people, married heterosexuals, unmarried heterosexuals, and unmarried same-sex couples may do, but same-sex marriage is restricted because same-sex married couples *might* adopt or use ART in ways you considered harmful, that is patently unfair.
8.5.2012 | 11:59am
John Howard says:
Thanks Michael PS! They can't be separated. David Nickol is also right, we need to also make it illegal to attempt to reproduce offspring with someone of the same sex, or else it'd separate reproductive rights from marriage.
The methods of ART that are currently done are not rights of marriage, but conceiving offspring together is a right of marriage. So prohibiting sperm donation and stuff would be good and wouldn't conflict with marriage, but isn't necessary. But prohibiting same-sex reproduction IS necessary.
The methods of ART that are currently done are not rights of marriage, but conceiving offspring together is a right of marriage. So prohibiting sperm donation and stuff would be good and wouldn't conflict with marriage, but isn't necessary. But prohibiting same-sex reproduction IS necessary.
8.6.2012 | 7:35am
Michael PS says:
David Nickol and John Howard
It seems to me that there are three fundamental principles or values, protective of human dignity.
The first is that the human body, its elements and products cannot be turned into articles of commerce and that this applies to human gametes and to a woman’s gestational power.
The second is that civil status cannot form the subject of a contract. It is exclusively a matter of public law, not private bargains.
The third is that assisted reproduction should only e available to treat a pathological condition.
It seems to me that there are three fundamental principles or values, protective of human dignity.
The first is that the human body, its elements and products cannot be turned into articles of commerce and that this applies to human gametes and to a woman’s gestational power.
The second is that civil status cannot form the subject of a contract. It is exclusively a matter of public law, not private bargains.
The third is that assisted reproduction should only e available to treat a pathological condition.
8.6.2012 | 1:42pm
John Howard says:
Right on, Michael. I agree with all three. I hope when Alana S. comes back from her shows and reads these comments, she sees we agree with her about prohibiting gamete donation and commerce. And Alana - please don't think that the solution for two lesbians is to let labs make sperm from one of their stem cells so they can use that, it is equally bad for different reasons. It would make reproduction even more mechanical and commercial and confusing and unethical and lead us into a brave new world of genetic engineering and inequality, etc...it needs to be banned so girls don't think they'll be able to do it someday, and natural procreation rights of marriage need to be preserved.
It strikes me as extraordinarily unjust to oppose same-sex marriage based on the conjecture that permitting it will result in an increase in the number of children conceived through ART. Why not simply oppose ART? Why not oppose insurance coverage of in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination (except for couples using their own eggs and sperm)? Why not oppose ART for single women? I know your concern is with children not knowing their biological parents, but certainly it is better for a child who does not know his or her biological parents to at least *have* parents.
To the best of my knowledge, artificial insemination and IVF are available to all—straight or gay, married or unmarried—who can pay for it. To deny them to same-sex couples but allow them for opposite-sex couples strikes me as discrimination. And considering the problems of single motherhood in the United States, denying IVF or artificial insemination to same-sex couples but allowing it for single women strikes me as even more discriminatory. But you are not talking about regulating ART. You are talking about opposing same-sex marriage because same-sex couples *might* use ART. Among the people I know, the two same-sex couples that have legally married are two men in their sixties and two women in their fifties, neither of which has any intention of raising children. Why should their marriages have been prevented because of a concern that same-sex marriage will increase ART?
I doubt that there is anyone who would not find it outrageous to suggest that infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry because such marriages would likely push up the rate of ART. Of course, there are many reasons people oppose same-sex marriage, but if one's sole objection is based on concerns about ART, then it is discrimination to oppose same-sex marriage but not the marriage of infertile heterosexual couples.
I have only had a chance to look very quickly at "My Daddy's Name Is Donor," but I don't see anything in the recommendations that would restrict the rights of those who want to use ART. Why would you suggest restricting the rights of same-sex couples to marry based on the idea that they *might* use ART?