Response to an Old Friend
Yes, this blog is neglected. Facebook is essentially consuming any recreational Internet time I have, and I'm professionally busy writing a bunch of stuff that's appearing all over the Internet, but not under my own name. (Actually, this isn't my own name, either, but you know what I mean.) Anyway, look for me elsewhere as I start blogging about dogs at the end of the month. I'll give you the link when it's live.
But I came back to this blog and found several comments from friends on old posts, one of which is heartfelt, compelling and damning all at the same time. It was a response to my article about Keith Olbermann's special comment on Prop. 8. It was written thoughtfully, and it deserves a thoughtful response.
Her comments are in blue; my responses are in black.
I should be going home, but am going to stay to say one thing, J:
How does this alleged "required" daddy have to be one that is married to the mother? I, for one, was raised by three daddies and for a good portion of my upbringing by only one mommy. Yet, I turned out relatively well. In fact, many would say they think rather highly of me as an individual.
I think rather highly of you as an individual, too. I think you misunderstand the intent of my original post. It was not to denigrate any individuals raised in any circumstances. My best friend growing up lost his father to cancer at 16, and he and his four brothers were raised by a single mother. He turned out pretty well, too.
The point of my post was to define standards, not judge individuals, especially for circumstances beyond their control.
This may seem like a semantic distinction, but it's an important one. It's inconsistent to say, on the one hand, that marriage is irrelevant and superfluous, but, on the other hand, it's a violation of civil rights not to allow people to define marriage however they want. Either marriage matters, or it doesn't. And if marriage can be defined as anything anybody wants, then it doesn't.
To quote Harry Nilsson, "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."
You say that research has shown that children need both a mommy and a daddy and that children have said as much, but how does one know unless they've experienced it first hand?
That's a question for the sociologists. All you and I have is anecdotal evidence, which, as far as I can tell, strongly suggests a universal desire for a mommy and a daddy. In my experience, children of divorce or children where one parent passes away are quick to acknowledge that the absence of one parent leaves a gaping hole in their lives, one which is never adequately filled by anyone else.
I'm betting you grew up in a family with a mommy and a daddy and they never divorced. Some would count you lucky. I just count you as a statistic. There are many children who grow up in amazingly loving homes and learn to become valuable members of society without such an upbringing as I'm assuming you've had.
Of course there are. There are also real jerks like me who are raised by two-parent households. But again, we're dealing anecdotally, not empirically. Does the ideal of the mommy and daddy family matter? The sociological data on that point is compelling, indeed. Among other things, the likelihood of a child being raised in poverty increases by 700% when the parents aren't married.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/403/Illegitimacy_is_the_Major_Cause_of_Child_Poverty.html
The fact that you and thousands of others raised in nontraditional circumstances were still able to succeed spectacularly is a testament to your character and fortitude, as well as that of the rest of your family. It does not erase the societal need for marriage.
You're defining this issue purely on what YOU believe makes a family and limiting your beliefs to only that definition. And that makes me incredibly sad for you.
If it helps, it makes me sad that you're sad for me. I don't mean that facetiously. This is such an emotionally charged issue, and it's almost impossible to discuss without getting personal. I'm amazed at how many people will talk to me about this and, previously thinking I was a decent human being, they suddenly discover I'm secretly demonic and discount all the good they've ever seen in me. I would hope you'd be willing to think there's another explanation for my stand on this rather than the fact that I'm the devil.
For what it's worth, I think you're misrepresenting my position. I don't believe your family isn't a family, nor do I believe children with gay parents or divorced parents or unmarried, cohabitating parents or widowed parents or polygamous parents aren't in families. I'm not limiting the definition of the family at all. I'm saying that, all else being equal, the ideal circumstances for raising children is with a married mommy and a daddy.
And it also makes me think that your views somehow devalue my life and upbringing. It makes me think that because you are raising children in a family with a man and woman as husband and wife that anyone else raising a child without that construct is somehow less a valuable human. And that too makes me incredibly sad.
It would make me sad, too, if it were true. I think all human life is precious, and that, no matter what circumstances you are raised in, you are a child of God, who loves everyone infinitely, and no one more or less than anyone else. I really don't think anything I've said on this subject can be logically construed as a rejection of the value of any individual based on their family circumstances.
I have to stop now because just thinking about this is giving me a headache. And my heart hurts (literally) in my chest right now from the quote you shared too:
My mom had me out of wedlock. She had me on her own. And looking back I'm so glad she did.
As am I. The world is a better place with you in it.
But I came back to this blog and found several comments from friends on old posts, one of which is heartfelt, compelling and damning all at the same time. It was a response to my article about Keith Olbermann's special comment on Prop. 8. It was written thoughtfully, and it deserves a thoughtful response.
Her comments are in blue; my responses are in black.
I should be going home, but am going to stay to say one thing, J:
How does this alleged "required" daddy have to be one that is married to the mother? I, for one, was raised by three daddies and for a good portion of my upbringing by only one mommy. Yet, I turned out relatively well. In fact, many would say they think rather highly of me as an individual.
I think rather highly of you as an individual, too. I think you misunderstand the intent of my original post. It was not to denigrate any individuals raised in any circumstances. My best friend growing up lost his father to cancer at 16, and he and his four brothers were raised by a single mother. He turned out pretty well, too.
The point of my post was to define standards, not judge individuals, especially for circumstances beyond their control.
This may seem like a semantic distinction, but it's an important one. It's inconsistent to say, on the one hand, that marriage is irrelevant and superfluous, but, on the other hand, it's a violation of civil rights not to allow people to define marriage however they want. Either marriage matters, or it doesn't. And if marriage can be defined as anything anybody wants, then it doesn't.
To quote Harry Nilsson, "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."
You say that research has shown that children need both a mommy and a daddy and that children have said as much, but how does one know unless they've experienced it first hand?
That's a question for the sociologists. All you and I have is anecdotal evidence, which, as far as I can tell, strongly suggests a universal desire for a mommy and a daddy. In my experience, children of divorce or children where one parent passes away are quick to acknowledge that the absence of one parent leaves a gaping hole in their lives, one which is never adequately filled by anyone else.
I'm betting you grew up in a family with a mommy and a daddy and they never divorced. Some would count you lucky. I just count you as a statistic. There are many children who grow up in amazingly loving homes and learn to become valuable members of society without such an upbringing as I'm assuming you've had.
Of course there are. There are also real jerks like me who are raised by two-parent households. But again, we're dealing anecdotally, not empirically. Does the ideal of the mommy and daddy family matter? The sociological data on that point is compelling, indeed. Among other things, the likelihood of a child being raised in poverty increases by 700% when the parents aren't married.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/403/Illegitimacy_is_the_Major_Cause_of_Child_Poverty.html
The fact that you and thousands of others raised in nontraditional circumstances were still able to succeed spectacularly is a testament to your character and fortitude, as well as that of the rest of your family. It does not erase the societal need for marriage.
You're defining this issue purely on what YOU believe makes a family and limiting your beliefs to only that definition. And that makes me incredibly sad for you.
If it helps, it makes me sad that you're sad for me. I don't mean that facetiously. This is such an emotionally charged issue, and it's almost impossible to discuss without getting personal. I'm amazed at how many people will talk to me about this and, previously thinking I was a decent human being, they suddenly discover I'm secretly demonic and discount all the good they've ever seen in me. I would hope you'd be willing to think there's another explanation for my stand on this rather than the fact that I'm the devil.
For what it's worth, I think you're misrepresenting my position. I don't believe your family isn't a family, nor do I believe children with gay parents or divorced parents or unmarried, cohabitating parents or widowed parents or polygamous parents aren't in families. I'm not limiting the definition of the family at all. I'm saying that, all else being equal, the ideal circumstances for raising children is with a married mommy and a daddy.
And it also makes me think that your views somehow devalue my life and upbringing. It makes me think that because you are raising children in a family with a man and woman as husband and wife that anyone else raising a child without that construct is somehow less a valuable human. And that too makes me incredibly sad.
It would make me sad, too, if it were true. I think all human life is precious, and that, no matter what circumstances you are raised in, you are a child of God, who loves everyone infinitely, and no one more or less than anyone else. I really don't think anything I've said on this subject can be logically construed as a rejection of the value of any individual based on their family circumstances.
I have to stop now because just thinking about this is giving me a headache. And my heart hurts (literally) in my chest right now from the quote you shared too:
My mom had me out of wedlock. She had me on her own. And looking back I'm so glad she did.
As am I. The world is a better place with you in it.
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 8:20 AM
10 Comments:
1. It's too bad you didn't include the quote after my second to last paragraph. Did I in my comment or was the colon a mistype on my account?
There's a reference to a quote, but no actual quote in the comment.
I wasn't trying to omit anything you wrote. That would require advanced cut-and-paste skills that are beyond my pay grade.
2. I have a very long response to your responses. However, I believe it is not for public domain. There is a lot of personal beliefs within my response in which I may be damned by those who may read it and thus immediately discount what I have to say because of those personal beliefs. (I think this, too, is incredibly sad, but such is the way we are in this world today.)
I would love to have this conversation with you offline.
Re: quote
ah. Yes. Well. I think in my haste I had intended to include it but then scurried past so I could leave work and go home. haha
OK. Here's what I'll let loose online:
Your definition of marriage is based on one that comes from religion and your religion is very important to you. You also believe that marriage, as it is defined by religion, should be respected by the state as such.
You also use the construct of family is a huge basis for your need for marriage as an institution to be defined clearly and upheld.
Would you agree?
"Your definition of marriage is based on one that comes from religion and your religion is very important to you. You also believe that marriage, as it is defined by religion, should be respected by the state as such.
You also use the construct of family is a huge basis for your need for marriage as an institution to be defined clearly and upheld.
Would you agree?"
To your first statement: Sort of. That is to say, I have very strong religious reasons for respecting marriage, but I don't think the secular debate on marriage should hinge on theology.
This often leads to a logical fallacy wherein an argument is discounted solely because the arguer is religious. If, say, Thomas Edison believed in Xenu, that wouldn't make his invention of the lightbulb any less valid.
To sum up: I do not think religion should direct public policy, nor do I think the fact that public policy may be consistent with any religious tenet is enough to discredit it.
I can't find any areas of disagreement with your second statement.
I'm missing a lot in this exchange, but I'd like to assert that pointing out a child's inherent desire or even need for a father and a mother is not belittling the existence of someone who grows up with an alternative. SC has not done this. It's simply that he is acknowledging that the "ideal" situation for a child is to have 1 father and 1 mother (and hopefully emotionally engaged ones).
I also grew up in a household without both. My mother raised us mostly alone (though we had the occasional year or two when we had a step-father). My sister and I always hungered deep down for a father, our real father in fact. Even now, in my 30's, when I have a friendship with my father and have had steady contact with him through the last several years, I still feel the void left by his not having raised me. He remarried when I was 15, and though he might vehemently deny this, I KNOW from his actions that his two step children in his second marriage came to mean more to him as children than my sister and I ever did. That's not self-pity or insecurity, it's completely evident in the way he treats my sister and me.
I grew up and will continue throughout my life without the ideal, and I can come to peace with it despite the pain. Many can come to peace with something other than the ideal. And SC's comments never indicated that my life is meaningless or that I am less of a person for it. And I take no offense if he points out that it's unfortunate the I (we all) couldn't enjoy a more ideal situation.
Why are we so afraid to teach good ideals? Would it be healthy for a single person who never marries to condemn marriage on the grounds that it supposedly belittles their single existence? Should sex-ed teachers never teach the benefits of abstinence (the smartest and safest birth control and STD preventer of all), because those who are sexually active will take offense? Do we have to chuck out every ideal because so many of us are forced to cope with something that wasn't ideal?
I'm not saying that an alternative experience cannot have value. I may have wished my whole life that my parents could have loved each other enough to make their marriage work, but it doesn't mean that I can't love and adore my step-mom and step-siblings. A great joy in life is making something wonderful out of something less than ideal. But I'm not going to pretend that it's better to grow up without a real dad (and with a mother who doesn't really want to be a mother) just because it didn't prevent me from finding great joy in my life. (And I have found and continue to find great joy despite the self-pitying tone of this comment).
I only know this. I want to teach my children what the ideals are, and I hope that they can have some of those ideals in their lives. I would not wish on them, for my own satisfaction, the pain my sister and I had to grow up with. Nor am I glad that my mother, my father, my step-mom, and everyone else in our lovely mixed up family had to go through.
That is all.
(SC, I think the above post may be spam, but I'm not sure. I don't read Russian.)
I will add to the discussion an important point that is often ignored:
There are two separate forms of marriage. There is the union sanctioned and sanctified by God, and there is the combining of two households for tax and other legal purposes.
In some places two "ceremonies" must be conducted - civil and religious - to satisfy both definitions.
And I fail to see why this obvious separation cannot be applied to "marriage" here in the US, but that's another discussion.
With the sorry state of "marriage" today (more than half of them ending in divorce), most families now are products of several "marriages" - step and half brothers and sisters, shared custody and visitation, etc. have become the norm. And, too, there is no evidence that having parents of the same gender is detrimental to the development of a child into a well-adjusted contributor to society. With solid values, too.
My point - yes, I have a point here - is that the "nuclear family" we all seem to yearn for is not strictly necessary to someone's proper development. I take particular note of a couple of the posters here as proof of that.
What I believe is necessary are three qualities too often missing even from the mythical "nuclear family" - consistency, love, and strong role models. Having strong male and female role models teach children how to behave as males and females, and how to expect to be treated by the other gender.
That doesn't have to be taught by Mommy and Daddy. It can be taught by Mommy and Grandpa, or by Daddy and Daddy and Aunt Sue, or...
As long as they are consistent, love the kid, instill a set of solid societal values, the result will be indistinguishable from someone raised in a "traditional nuclear family."
Good dispatch and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you as your information.
Easily I to but I dream the post should secure more info then it has.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home