So, the real argument, or the one that a lot of people try to bring up in efforts to undermine same-sex marriages, or make them look evil, is the effect it will have on a child. In Naples' article, she states that in CT, couple of the same sex can co-parent a child without being married. Okay first off, whats wrong with that picture? The two arguments that stem from this are that same-sex marriages will undermine heterosexual marriages, and that it will disturb some sort of social balance that we have created. I have friends who come from homosexual households, and while yes, it was hard and sometimes awkward for them to be at school with their parents, it was a happy stable household. I'd have to look at some real statistics, and personally ask more kids who have been in these kinds of households to truly come to a conclusion about whether or not children suffer any sort of social or mental backlash. Which I doubt, but then again society puts so much pressure on us, both visibly and invisibly, that the pressure to conform can get overwhelming .I think the issue with this debate, is that our culture, has been conditioned forever, literally since the dawn of time, to believe that unity should be between a man and a woman. But cmon even some of the greatest poets, writers, and hottest guys ever are homosexual. This is both a social issue and an economic/political issue, in the sense that people believe that the social order cannot be disrupted, but the other side is that, if we are openly acknowleding that two homosexual parents care for a child, why arent they able to reap the same economic benefits of marriage? Well some states agree, I think in Vermont they allow same-sex marriages, and has that disrupted any sort of social order? Not that I have heard of. But again, I think that this issue of having a child is different between homosexual race, and gender. For lesbian women, I think that more people would be willing to allow two women to care for a child on the basis that they are women, more so than if it were two men. And of course, having a mother is beneficial without a doubt, and without one, can be detremental to the gender role growth of a young girl for example (Spillers). Yet, I feel that there is no reason why single fathers, versus two homosexual men, cannot care for a child equally as caring and loving and as well as the former. I think its interesting that Naples points out that for black homosexual men, the economic incentive, or the act of being married legally, is even harder for them. Which leads me to wonder how this sort of profiling can still be so transparent today? Is this some sort of hierarchical system ?
Monday, April 5, 2010
QUEER PARENTING-NAPLES
I'm going to focus my blog post on the arguments for queer parenting. First and foremost, let me start by saying that I am completely for same-sex marriage. I think that we as a culture, have been conditioned to believe that "marriage" or "family" are all words that can only be associated between a man and a woman. Isn't that a little ridiculous?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought the Naples reading was interesting as well. One of the most important aspects of this debate, which Monica mentions, is the vast amount of political and social benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy by currents laws in the majority of the country. Naples mentions "more than one thousands benefits accrue to couples through marriage, which is a large disadvantage imposed on same-sex couples trying to battle the powerful hegemony of heteronormativity. How is it that we can deny viable citizens the right to engaged in beneficial partnership based on their sexaulity? I also wanted to mention an experience with the issue of queer parenting, as my previous neighbors on my street were a lesbian couple with a daughter in the local high school. Although I cannot speak for the classmate of mine, it seemed as though her family fit in pretty seamlessly in with the rest of our predominantly homogeneous white, middle-class, heterosexual suburban neighborhood. Perhaps this speaks to my rather liberal upbringing in a Boston suburb, but this does serve as an ideal example for what a more culturally open-minded society could look like. A family is a family. Moms are moms, even if there are two of them. It has always been really hard for me to wrap my head around this debate, as I see the most important part of a child's upbringing as the amount of love his/her family provides rather than the commitment they represent to a "traditional" and "stable" (read heteronormative) values.
ReplyDeleteThese issues definitely brought me back to our discussion of African-American women and other minority groups distancing themselves from the feminist movement as well the dividing issue of abortion.
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate what Ettelbrick is arguing, I find Naples' article much more compelling and logical. Her question of, "How can we harness the political energy that has been unleashed by the debates over same-sex marriage and queer parenting to destabilize the taken-for-granted notions of what counts as a family and what can be in the best interests of children in a resilient and inclusive society?" is the important one. Political mobilization is important; it raises awareness and gets people involved. Ettelbrick's criticisms of the fight for gay marriage, though relevant, do not help society move forward in any way, shape, or form. I feel that fighting for gay marriage and then tackling the next or simultaneous step of providing equal rights for those who choose not to marry would be more effective than not fighting for equality at all.
That said, however, I did really appreciate Ettelbrick's idea that "the concept of equality in our legal system does not support differences." The idea that people must be compared to others to obtain the same rights is definitely intriguing. I find her argument, as a whole, to be to extreme for the place we are at in society today. Smaller steps, based on ideas that people are slowly but surely beginning to accept more, will be more effective.
I think this post makes a very valid point. It's interesting that people are so hesitant towards lesbians having children, but wouldn't people be more hesitant towards two male parents. It just goes to show that these awful stereotypes do not only affect women. Often times a lot of the setbacks we talk about in class affect men too. Personally, two good parents are better than no parents at all. Even if they are two moms or two dads. It seems absolutely ridiculous that people would want to stop two loving parents from adopting a child just because those two parents are of the same gender. Who cares?!?!?! Every child needs parents.
ReplyDeleteWhat Monica brings up about conventional marriage is fascinating in regards to gay and lesbian marriage, but perhaps even more interesting for heterosexual relationships. As Monica says, many use the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman. While this phrase may have Biblical clout, what does the concept of marriage between a man and a woman mean today? While the historical significance of marriage may seem archaic today, why do our fathers still walk us down the isle? I think if we were to look very critically at the heterosexual concept of marriage, we might just deem it obsolete. If that's the case, it seems as though the concern over gay and lesbian unions won't be our only problem.
ReplyDelete