Dear Cath Elliott,
You really don’t get it, do you. You and all the other supporters of lesbian parents accuse those who support the ‘traditional family’ of discriminating against you and being “religious fundamentalists who spewed their hatred on the streets”. Your name-calling and “we’ve moved on” argument are outrageously selfish and I totally disagree with you.
I am not even remotely religious. What affects my views is the rights of children. I find it abhorrent that gay couples who want to have children claim that it’s their ‘right’ to have a family and that the ‘need for a father’ is discriminatory. Well, let me ask you something - what about the ‘rights’ of children to have a mum and a dad? Opposite sex parents have been the bedrock of the human race throughout history and now you think that you have the ‘right’ to impose same sex parents on children because you’re so special that you can deny children this? I agree that “parenting can take many forms” but for you to say that ”it’s the quality of that parenting that matters” and then stand up for gay parents even though the quality of parenting from gay couples can NEVER be as good as a loving mum and a loving dad is outrageously self-centred. In case you hadn’t noticed, ‘quality of parenting’ includes providing the best role models possible for children, which gay couples can never do as they are the same gender.
I’m not the kind of person who says that gay couples should never adopt, but the ‘traditional family’ (a term which you use in a derogatory sense whenever possible) is, and always will be, the best place for children to grow up. Your desire to force out the traditional family and claim that lesbian parents are just as good for children is laughable and totally misguided if you had bothered to look at the research evidence on this subject. Disagreeing with gay and lesbian parents is not discrimination - it’s called ‘doing what’s best for children’.
Yours in disgust,
A.Tory
17 responses so far ↓
Madeley // April 10, 2008 at 11:34 am
“…the quality of parenting from gay couples can NEVER be as good as a loving mum and a loving dad.”
I’m afraid I find this comment to be both offensive and unconscionable, and I’d love to know what data you have to back up this assertion. Considering the sheer amount of children I have dealt with in my job who have been badly served to say the least by their heterosexual parents, the idea that male/female couples are the only good way to bring up children is absolutely laughable.
And yes, claiming that specific people are unfit parents based not on their character but their sexuality is practically the definition of discrimination.
Letters From A Tory // April 10, 2008 at 11:50 am
Human evolution has taught us a very basic fact - a child with a mother and a father is brought up with two role models, two different sets of parenting skills, two perspectives, two genetic relationships etc.
You seem to have assumed (like so many people, including Cath Elliott) that if I don’t support gay couples as parents, then I must want to ban them altogether - which I find “absolutely laughable” to coin a phrase. I did NOT say same sex couples are unfit to be parents and I did NOT say that male/female couples are the only way to bring up children. You have clearly misunderstood my argument completely.
There is no way to guarantee that a married mum and dad will provide the perfect environment for a child - I never said they did - but out of choice, I believe that society should promote opposite sex parents because the benefits to children are blindingly obvious.
And I cannot stand people saying that supporting opposite sex parents is ‘discrimination’ - is paternity/maternity leave ‘discrimination’? Obviously not! It is just a recognition of mothers having naturally better parenting skills (the research evidence is unequivocal). I assume that you also think the mother being considerably more likely to be awarded child custody when a marriage breaks up is ‘discrimination’? By your logic, it must be.
Madeley // April 10, 2008 at 12:07 pm
My problem is that statements made about the parenting skills of any given group, whether seperated by gender lines or otherwise, are by definition generalisations that cannot hold in every specific case. Each family is unique, and I don’t find it acceptable myself to make sweeping statements about whether one set-up is “better” than another.
I apologise for reading “unfit” into your post, but please understand that it’s all to easy to extrapolate that conclusion from the way the debate’s been framed (Cath Elliot being more to blame for that than anyone).
And I hate to split hairs regarding definitions of words, but my example and yours regarding child custody isn’t my logic, it’s what the word actually means (amongst other things, decisions made based on given characteristics). Just because the word has gained a negative connotation doesn’t mean you can disavow its meaning if that’s what you’re doing.
Letters From A Tory // April 10, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I think society should make generalisations when it comes to parenting, because otherwise opposite-sex parents, same-sex parents, single-parents, adoptive parents etc all suddenly become merged into one big mush and are looked up in the same way whereas in my opinion there is no argument about it - opposite-sex parents are the best option. You can never know what will happen to an individual child in a particular family, but society should promote the interests of the child as much as possible.
I take your point about problems with defining ‘discrimination’, but people now use ‘discrimination’ to describe a situation that just recognises that people are different. Are we going to agree that men and women competing in different races at the Olympics is discrimination? If treating men and women differently = discrimination then separate toilets for men and women should be illegal as well.
In reality, supporters of opposite-sex parents like myself are indeed ‘discriminating’ by treating people differently, but this does not amount to discrimination because it is the interests of the child that put opposite-sex parents above other family types, not some prejudice against them (not in my book anyway).
Candid // April 10, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Sam sex parents is as you may have noticed very very unnatural. This is not a term used to be discriminatory but to demonstrate a fact. Unlike religious nutters I do not think that to be gay or lesbian is in any way unnatural as this is present in many different animals - most notably in our closest relatives - the chimpanzees. But even they do not bring up children in a solely maternal or paternal environement.
The males and females have very different roles in upbringing but never completely exculsive of the other gender.
New research that may allow same sex parents to have their own biological children, truly distrubs me. I am against IVF aswell so again this is not discriminatory but going against nature.
I agree with LFAT - human children are better off brought up in a stable male/female combination of parents. That said there are obvious exceptions - but that is exactly what they are - exceptions or anomalies.
Blue Eyes // April 10, 2008 at 1:54 pm
You can’t generalise because everyone is different. I don’t see any reason why a same-sex couple shouldn’t be good parents and it is obvious that many heterosexual couples are bad parents. Clearly homosexual couples cannot have their own children without intervention but does that mean that they shouldn’t be excellent parents to adopted or IVF children? I don’t see how the two are correlated.
I think LFT and Candid are probably just worried that the children might be taunted in the playground or somehow be “damaged” because their household doesn’t fit the “norm”. That is not a good reason in itself.
Letters From A Tory // April 10, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Well, it’s either that or the fact that I’ve done a Masters degree in Child Development and took an entire module based around ‘Atypical families’ including stepfamilies, adoptive families, lesbian and gay couples, divorced parents etc and came to my own conclusions (which, not unsurprisingly, were exactly the same as the overall picture in the research literature). And interestingly enough, there is already evidence that the development of children with same-sex parents is noticeably different from those with opposite sex parents, so thank you for raising that point.
And for the millionth times it seems, I did not say that same sex couples are completely incapable of being good parents, nor did I say that all opposite sex parents are great. Did anybody read what I actually wrote? Stop putting words into my mouth, please!
Blue Eyes // April 10, 2008 at 2:53 pm
You said that a loving mum and dad were the best, fair enough. Would you say that a loving mum and mum were better or worse than a loving mum and a series of not-so-loving stepfathers? It’s quite hard to generalise.
Madeley // April 10, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Just one question regarding this: what effect does being brought up by a same-sex couple have on a child? I understand it’s “noticeable different”, but in what way is it a negative difference? In what way do the studies say the child has been effected? Do they do worse educationally, are they more likely to commit crimes?
Letters From A Tory // April 10, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Blue Eyes, I certainly agree that in some circumstances (e.g. abusive parents) same-sex parents may offer a child a better environment than the one they currently reside in - in which case, as the interests of the child are the key issue here, you’d be crazy not to consider same-sex parents. This is my point - I am not saying that same-sex parents should never ever be allowed near children, but a loving mum and dad is still on a pedestal above every other family type.
Madeley, the evidence always provides a mixed bag. Some studies say that children with same-sex parents are more likely to be bullied and harrassed at school in addition to being more likely to be gay themselves, whereas other studies do not reach the same conclusion. More importantly, the majority of studies in this area are very poor. For example, they frequently rely on studying same-sex parents who volunteered to take part (which is a joke in research terms), they are often very small-scale and they tend to just look at young children. The age of the children is critical because identity formation and social development rapidly come to the fore in adolescence but the research often ignores this. To cut a long story short, I don’t pretend to be an expert but I’ve seen enough to make me very concerned about the effect of same-sex parents on children’s development.
storm23 // April 10, 2008 at 3:49 pm
“And I cannot stand people saying that supporting opposite sex parents is ‘discrimination’ - is paternity/maternity leave ‘discrimination’? Obviously not! It is just a recognition of mothers having naturally better parenting skills (the research evidence is unequivocal). I assume that you also think the mother being considerably more likely to be awarded child custody when a marriage breaks up is ‘discrimination’? By your logic, it must be.”
A wide range of literature shows that judges are discriminatory in awarding custody and that an assumption is made that generally children will stay with the mother unless there clear evidence that this would be bad for the child. I’m not sure about discriminatory but it is certainly something thats based on societys norms rather than evidence provided that is relevant to the case.
Candid // April 10, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I would feel sorry for children being brought up in these same sex couples.
Being a ‘Butch Mummy’s girl’ rather than a ‘Daddy’s Girl’ is just not quite right. I think its good for children to have a balance and be able to see the world from a males’ and females’ way of thinking - which is, let’s face it, very different.
This also leads children to grow up knowing the gender differences and therefore being able to form friendship and relationship bonds. Just think how screwed up some kids become after leaving a same-sex school and suddenly find members of the other sex.
It is not healthy for children to be brought up in a mono-sex or mono-culture background.
James // April 10, 2008 at 8:05 pm
To put in my entirely irrelevant teenager-old view, I was raised without a father entirely, which puts me slightly closer to a female same-sex upbringing then most. I also have a friend who grew up with two lesbian parents, but is a rather difficult case because he has mildADHD and it’s hard to tell what traits of his personality draw from what.
In general, however, I have no problem with the concept of same-sex parents, though I would take a step back when it means turning to options past adoption.
Building upon a point Candid made about growing up without knowing the gender differences, I actually agree in some respects, but don’t think that it’s a particularly good argument against same sex marriages. I have always felt like I was struggling to connect myself with normal people because, in a shamelessly arrogant manner I have always felt much more intelligent then those around me. Having been raised without a steady father figure on top of this, I have never really felt that I associate with conventional male behavior at all. It is true, too, that as far as British young males go, I am a fairly effeminate one, but I do not consider myself particularly ‘girly’ in any respect.
The aspects of my personality that most would consider effeminate are ones I personally just consider signs of a balanced personality. I am quite sensitive, mature when I need to be, quite compulsive about cleanliness. Awkward gender stereotypes that really shouldn’t be, because they aren’t something we should be attaching a negative connotation with.
I do believe that if I had a father figure in my earlier life I would have been an entirely different person. I was bullied enthusiastically at school all the way through to university, but I would not go back and decide that I would rather have my father there so that I was able to accommodate myself into a person who wouldn’t be, because I feel like my development (including the bullying) has led to who I am. I look at other people who came up from conventional family units, who led what you could call ‘normal’ childhoods and I just think ‘boring’.
I am much more capable then most of my friends and I do not feel like my life has been ruined from not growing up in what you believe to be the best environment, in fact I’m pretty positive I’ve gained more as a person from the one I got.
Letters From A Tory // April 11, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I’m obviously glad that you feel your upbringing has set you off on the right foot.
I agree that gay adoption is a very different issue from something like lesbian IVF couples, and same-sex marriages are another issue entirely. In my defence, it would take me ages to explain my views in detail on everything to do with gay and lesbian couples, marriages and families!
Will Rhodes // April 12, 2008 at 12:55 am
What about if both parents are bi-sexual? A male bi-sexual and a female bi-sexual. Or, as we have seen in the US, polymorphic?
Looking at parenting in such a black and white view can distract from the real problem - which is normally the case.
If a child needs role models, which all children do, what does it matter the sexuality of that role model?
Jersey // April 15, 2008 at 2:59 am
What about the children of parents who choose to remain single? Do not these children as well deserve the need to have both paternal and maternal forces in the home as well?
Now, I do not mean singles who are because of unfortunate choices, they are because of a divorce caused by the other party, or they are widowed…I mean these wealthier, yet snobbier single women (usually single women) who refuse to have a husband or who hire nannies to raise their children instead of having a husband and sharing the raising of the child(ren).
woopsie32 // May 13, 2008 at 10:08 pm
*comment deleted for breaching rules of this blog*
Leave a Comment