I'm not the one who said that there is no difference between adults and children.
I thought you had me on ignore.
BTW - For those who missed NJ's reference, in a discussion sometime ago I pointed out that biologically human beings and all mammals are either infant or adult and that our definition of the time between biological adulthood and legal adulthood has changed and varied over time, geography, and culture. He seems unable to process the difference between biology and sociology. But what would you expect from him?
And before you jump in with the idea that a child can "get used to it" look at the figures for children of divorce in terms of their ability to succeed educationally, economically, and personally (relationships). Divorce forces all those numbers down. Add extra divorcing "parents" (and you know they will divorce--gay couples are already divorcing in California, where gay marriage was only legal for a few months in 2012 before the Prop 8 fights) and these poor children are going to have extremely serious mental health issues.
And when does a child "have" more than two parents? In the straight world, children have two bio parents and, sometimes, step-parents, but these step-parents don't have custody or legal parental rights (usually), and unless there are serious mental health or drug issues with the bio-parent, they shouldn't have. This new law opens up a whole new arena to manipulative step-parents who wants some kind of control over a children that are not theirs. The control of a bio-dad, for example, can be completely undercut if the abusive second husband mommie married gets some kind of parental rights under this new law and "disciplines" a child that is not his own. The potential for abuse increases exponentially and bio-parents will no longer be able to protect their children from strangers who claim "parentage" for one reason or another.
The only place this law makes any sense is in the gay world, where gays, who cannot have children, use other people's wombs, eggs or sperm to create children that are not biologically theirs. But even in the GLBT utopia of no natural parentage, a law giving rights to multiple parents is not going to play out well. Let's say Adam and Steve use Susie's womb like an Easy Bake Oven to "have a baby." The baby's egg is from Susie; the sperm may be from either Adam or Steve. Now I am totally opposed to the creation of children in this way, but if you're hell-bent on doing this, then Adam and Steve must be the legal parents, even though Adam and Susie (or Steve and Susie) are the real bio parents. The child's stability depends on a consistent two-parent family, where the two parents are a married couple who have a vested interest in what's best for the child and who have learned to compromise for the sake of their relationship and the child.
The last thing you need is a third party (Susie), who after having second thoughts (and experiencing a thoroughly natural and biologically necessary bonding with her baby) realizes that she wants a role in the child's life and becomes "parent" #3. Now you have a situation in which you have a committed couple against a third party. Disagreements about the child--and there are ALWAYS disagreements--can lead to 2-against-1 situations, which pit the parties against each other. The couple's stability is threatened with every disagreement in which one of them sides with Susie against the other, even though there may be good reasons for doing so. Or, perhaps, Adam and Steve are in lock step and it's Susie's opinion that get thrown under the bus again and again, creating real resentment. After all, she carried that child for 9 months, while Adam and Steve did no physical labor outside of one of them picking up some porn one afternoon and filling a plastic cup. If Susie has no recourse legally (since they are all parents), might she not do what so many parents who lose control do and kidnap the child?
You might argue that they are all mature adults, all friends, and that they should all work to get along. But people always have their bad moments, their immature moments, and--when there are 3 or more of them--their "us" against "them" moments. The more people you have raising a single child, the more opportunities there are for disagreements and in different permutations. In the end, you're creating havoc for a child. A two-parent household has its disagreements, but there are fewer people, fewer directions in which to disagree, and much more of a need to compromise since both the relationship and the child depend upon it. Even in adoption situations, this holds true for 2 people.
In the case of Adam and Steve, one of the men should simply adopt the baby (assuming the other is related) and Susie needs to be out of the picture. If she really yearns to stay, she should learn from that experience that giving birth is not something you do for money or for someone else's family. Adam and Steve will have to answer extremely uncomfortable questions later on (like "Who is my mommy?") and both men will have to go through what adoptive parents do when their beloved children still feel incomplete and go in search of their bio-parents. It's a thoroughly natural thing for a adopted kid to do, but, in the end, a steady background with two loving parents can do a lot to mitigate the loss.
The GLBT's brave new world of babies who don't belong to the people who bore them or whose chromosomes they share has created a new and overwhelming kind of havoc. The utter selfishness of gay couples to not consider the true effects on children of any laws (like multiple parenting) on the larger community and only consider their own needs is beyond comprehension. It can only come from people who are so wound up in their own grievances that they can't see other people or their needs, even children. This multiple parent law will wreak havoc on children, and not just from the gay community. It will bleed into the straight community, and there will be test cases of step-parents wanting "parental" rights as a 3rd party (or "parent") and winning them, much to the destruction of the child's stability.
Children should not be given "third" parents. If a child's bio-parent is severely abusive, a drug addict, or chronically absent geographically, then parental rights should be severed and a step-parent or grandparent be given parental rights for the good of the child. But under no circumstances should a third party be given parental rights when there are two other available and serviceable parents. (They needn't be perfect.)
About the only good thing I can see that might perhaps come out of this law is that both non-related parents (like Adam or Steve) and the surrogate bio-mom parent (like Susie) will have to come up with money for the child. This will mean that if any of them leave the situation, they will still be hounded by the California courts for child support. This might make some people think twice about getting involved in these 3-way parenting situations.
Other than that, it's bloody hell for children. And Robert Oscar Lopez gets that, which is why I read him and bring him over here.
Last edited by Elspeth; 10-06-2013 at 08:33 PM.
I think the more adults that love a child can only make it better. But granting the same additional adults legal status will just create confusion for the same child.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|