Parents and Procreators: (Part 2 of 2)

(Part 1 is Here)

Mr. Bateman's reply is a bit lengthier.  He starts with some quick preliminary points:

First, I don't see how it's relevant to the truth of a statement that some would disagree with it or be offended by it. Second, the point of my post was not the "correct" definition of the word "parent" in some transcendental sense. Mr. Rosenberg is of course free to use the word however he likes, as long as he is clear about it. Instead, my objection was simply that the two premises in his syllogism used the word in different senses.

If somebody would disagree with a statement, it generally means they question the veracity of that statement.  That's not determinative of the truth, but it is certainly relevant.  As for his second point, the premises in my syllogism both used the word parent in the same sense.  Now, Mr. Bateman can disagree with the first premise.  He believes that it is not true that parents ought to be married, if parent is used in the sense of one who has the legal and/or moral responsibility to raise and care for a child.  He believes the statement is only true if parent is used in the sense of one who "begets or brings forth offspring".   I question why someone would disagree with the premise that parents ought to be married.  In fact why would someone go so far as to say that the parents should not be married.  Nor does Mr. Bateman in his entire post ever explain this.  Instead he merely claims that people should abstain from sex until marriage, as if this view somehow conflicts with the view that parents ought to be married. 

First, though, he inexplicably exludes a case from his position, writing:

Mr. Rosenberg is also interested in egg or sperm donor situations where the non-genetic parent encouraged the production of the child out of wedlock. That is a rarer and very different situation that requires a separate discussion.

Mr. Bateman himself made reference to this situation in his previous post.  I was merely responding to him.  Many same-sex couples--especially  female--have a child in this manner.  For example, this is how the Goodridges had their child.  When I said parents ought to be married, I naturally included them (they are both legal parents of their daughter Annie).  Mr. Bateman would exclude them, and I wonder why that is.  For now let us focus though, as he wishes, on the case of a couple (same-sex or opposite-sex) who adopts a child.  Should they be married?  He writes:

As much as I feel for those children currently in need of adoption to enjoy a two-parent home, I feel even more for the many more children yet unborn who will also need it in the future. While we're helping today's children who can't have two-parent homes, can't we also take steps to reduce the number of children who will have the same problem tomorrow?

First of all these children to which I refer do have two-parent homes.  And I believe marriage will help reduce the number of those children who end up without a two-parent home because their parents split up.  So I see allowing same-sex marriage as reducing the number of children who have this problem.  I should point out, though, that I believe we can also do more to help children in single-parent homes.  In any case, the answer to Mr. Bateman's question is yes we take steps to reduce this number, and allowing same-sex marriage is one of those important steps.  He continues:

It is possible for human beings to restrain their impulses and choose not to have sex until they are prepared to raise any children they produce. In fact, most people have done that for most of recorded history. In most places and most times in the past few thousand years, most people have felt a moral responsibility control their own reproductive urges. Women have been encouraged to have sex with only one man, and not to have sex with that man until he has committed himself, legally and morally, to recognize her children as his and support them.

That was the definition of sexual responsibility. It was called marriage.

I ask Mr. Rosenberg to consider a larger picture than the relationship between a child and adoptive parent: Let's discourage people from producing children who need to be adopted! Let's encourage sexual responsibility by urging people to marry before they have sex, and to stay married once they've produced children.

Mr. Bateman here encourages one to avoid premarital sex.  That's a great message, but he does not explain why allowing same-sex marraige would weaken it in any way.  In fact, it seems to me it strengthens it.  Right now the message is "No sex until marriage, unless you're gay.  In that case have all the sex you want with as many partners as you want.  It doesn't matter."  To me this sends the dangerous message that the only problem with promiscuity is that it could lead to babies.  Also the issue of marriage is not just the father committing himself to recognize and support his wife's children.  If that were the case, divorce would be no big deal once paterninty was established.  I object to this view of marriage as merely a paternity test.  Mr. Bateman does say we should encourage them to stay married once the children are produced, but why?  If marriage has nothing to do with childrearing, and only childmaking, it shouldn't matter.  If on the contrary, Mr. Bateman believes marriage is also important for childrearing why should same-sex couples, who Mr. Bateman praises and admires, and their children be denied this valuable protection? 

Mr. Bateman then explains that when he said adoptive parents were "play[ing] the role of parents" and "helping [to] raise another couple's children", he didn't mean to case aspersions on them, but rather on those that gave the child up for adoption.  In this post he has made clear that he praises and admires adoptive parents.  I don't know if that's an apology, but I would suggest Mr. Bateman think twice before telling an adoptive parent how wonderful he is for helping to raise somebody else's child. 

Finally we get to the core of what marriage is for.  As he writes:

Mr. Rosenberg focuses on marriage as a way to make child raising easier for whoever has volunteered to raise a child. In my view, the main point of marriage is to affect the behavior of heterosexuals before they produce children. It's to encourage them to first commit to each other sexually, financially, and emotionally, and then have children, so increase the chance that those children will grow up in stable homes, and so that the effort and expense of raising them falls on those who decided to make them. The legal benefits of marriage that make childrearing easier are primarily enticements to sexual responsibility, not rewards for taking on the job of raising a child.

First I should emphasize that I recognize multiple ways marriage is beneficial.  I don't believe mentioning any particular benefit is in any way detrimental to other ways in which marriage is valuable.  It is true that in many of my recent posts I focus on how marriage is beneficial to childrearing.  I did not however restrict that benefit to one has volunteered to raise a child.  I think it makes child raising easier for whomever has the obligation to raise a child, however that obligation was taken on.  Interestingly enough I agree with Mr. Bateman of the commitment marriage entails, and the benefit of the commitment to creating stable homes.   I agree couples should marry before they have children.  He has still not explained, though, why a couple who adopts or has a child with the aid of an egg or sperm donor should not also make this commitment.   Why are stable homes irrelevant for these children?  I do not believe the benefits of marriage that make childrearing easier are rewards or enticements.  I simply believe that marriage offers a number of protections and benefits to the child, not the least of which is helping the child's parents remain together.  Therefore, parents ought to be married.    The question remains, why should they in spite of all this cohabit?

Mr. Bateman concludes his post once again pleading for heterosexuals to refrain from sex until marriage.  Not once did he explain, though, why allowing same-sex couples to marry will encourage premarital sex.   As for the implication that homosexuals should not worry about refraining from sex unitl marriage--presumably since homosexual sex will not make babies--I think that misses the many implications of sexual relationships. 

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.