Yesterday I inadvertently started a flame war when I stated that “It’s a lot like the belief that children are best off with a mother and a father, which, under optimal circumstances, I would agree. We generally are better off with two vibrant parties.” I still don’t understand why that is a controversial statement- it seems to me that in order to be the optimum situation, you would have to take into account a lot of things- biological and legal realities, as well as the unpleasant stigmas that still regrettably exist today in many portions of the country. It doesn’t mean that two lesbians, two gay man, an unmarried couple, or a single parent can’t all be great parents. It just means that in the abstract right now, this is the optimum situation.
All a man and woman need to do to produce a child in most cases is a few minutes of fun, and should they be good parents, our entire societal structure is set up for that relationship. There are no legal questions at stake regarding custody as those issues have for the most part been long settled, there are no issues regarding whether the parents can marry, there are no issues regarding the extension of benefits to children, etc. It seems to me that is the optimum condition. Otherwise, why are we fighting for gay marriage and gay rights in general? I thought it was to erase these kinds of disparities (such that we can), but I guess I’m out in left field. I thought the flame war was particularly odd when the entire premise of the post was that SOMETIMES ONE PARENT IS ENOUGH.
I’m guessing I got caught in the crossfire with the bigots, one of whom was just absolutely destroyed today by Al Franken:
That was beautiful.