Blog powered by Typepad

« Parents and Procreators: (Part 1 of 2) | Main | Always the Bridesmaid... »

April 02, 2004

Comments

Nick Kiddle

As I understand Mr Bateman's reasoning, it's something like this. Genetic parents should be married in order to shield the children from the harms that might result if the relationship breaks down. For all other parents, marriage is optional, because whatever hardships the children might suffer, they're not as bad as the pain they're already suffering at being separated from their biological parents.

For this to make any sense at all, you have to agree that children need their biological parents (something that I've seen precisely no evidence to support and much evidence to contradict), but if you do swallow it, the rest follows pretty much naturally.

Jake Squid

Ah, another example of Ben Bateman's ever moving target of why SSM is a BAD THING. So now we're moving down the road of "Marriage is to control hetersexual behaviour before they have children." Which leaves me wondering how this is in any way relevant. And where we go next. Maybe, "Marriage is vital to technological advance?"

I remember those heady days (was it only a month or two ago?) when Bateman's argument was that SSM is bad because we must encourage primarily (or was it ONLY) biological parents to raise children. Following the zigs and zags to get to this point have been.... I don't know if interesting is the correct word. Perhaps amusing?

lucia

I don't know if interesting is the correct word. Perhaps amusing?

I've always liked "subtle" said with the appropriate intonation.

Galois

For all other parents, marriage is optional, because whatever hardships the children might suffer, they're not as bad as the pain they're already suffering at being separated from their biological parents.

I don't believe the rest follows even from this statement. First of all, for those other parents Mr. Bateman would have marriage not be optional, but prohibited. (And I'm not suggesting marriage be mandatory). Perhaps it would be better to say that accepting this premise would lead one to be indifferent to marriage of said parents, as opposed to in favor of it.

Even then, though, there is another problem. Even if one believed--and let me be clear that I do not believe this--that the pain of being separated from one's genetic parents was worse than the hardships suffered from a parental breakup, that would not lead to Mr. Bateman's conclusion. As long as one believed the child would suffer additional wouldn't one still be interested in decreasing the chance of a parental breakup (unless somehow the breakup would lead to a reunion of the child with the genetic parents). That is one could still believe a child needs to be protected from the harms of family dissolution even if a separation from a genetic parent was not one of those harms.

Nick Kiddle

I guess he wants SSM prohibited because it will force him to update his dictionary, and he doesn't believe the protection children derive from their non-genetic parents being married is sufficient reason to change his mind.

Galois

it will force him to update his dictionary

Actually his dictionary is already updated.

The comments to this entry are closed.