From: bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel)
Subject: Re: Alternative Families
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:15:27 GMT

In <1992Dec17.160646.20839@Arco.COM> dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham) writes:

>It is important to portray families based on sexual practices because the
>sexual activities of the parents matter to the children.  It matters a
>great
>deal to them.  Children understand at a visceral level when mommy or daddy
>can't or won't commit to a loved person on a permanent basis.  They also
>know instinctively that it is not good for mommy or daddy to be sleeping
>with different people on a regular basis because this may indicate a basic
>selfishness in the parent.

>One of the great fears that any child has is of abandonment.  They worry
>about the relationships that their parents have because this tells them
>something about their parents.  Sexual activities matter because they
>not only affect the "consenting adults" but all those who depend on them.
>Children know from the experience of their peers that the sexual practices
>of their parents can result in abandonment of the kids by one of the
>parents
>when a parent "runs off" with a new love.

Now, don't equate same-sex couples with automatic promiscuity.  They're
not the same thing.  There are faithful same-sex couples, you know, and
certainly it is the long-term rather than the short-term that matters.

>Any child that lives in a family with two parents of the same sex, will be
>well aware of the difference between his/her family and any other.  Not
>only will the child be in a family with one biological and one "step"
>parent (as in a divorce/remarriage situation), they will realize as soon
>as they understand simple biology (it takes a male and a female chicken
>to make a baby chick), that their family is not and cannot be a biological
>, or "normal" family.  This would be an example of (in my opinion) a
>non-beneficial difference that the child is not equipped to understand
>even if explanations are given.

So you would break up all such existing "families."  Great going, John.
If you are trying to promote stability in family groupings, the last
thing you want to do is take up ANY family and break it up on arbitrary
grounds, without regard to how well it functions as a group?
 
But how many families are based on "biology"?  And don't think that our
present "nuclear family" is at all historically common.  I mean, what
happened to extended families, or polygamy, or polyandry?  There are
certainly cultures that practice all these things. . .Of course, the
US is undergoing a lot of change, which produces all sorts of cultural
angst, but one result is that children are far more sophisticated than
we give them credit for.

As far as problems in a same-sex family grouping, the main problem I
would worry about is not having role-models for the children who are of
opposite sex to the parents, and if the parents take care to cultivate
some family friends that are of the opposite sex, then I think that
could be taken care of.  It all depends on expending a little
creativity, see?

>
>My conclusions are that a same-sex couple should decide on their own to be
>child-less.  If one is already a custodial parent, perhaps consideration
>should be given to transferral of custody.  

See above.

>If that is not feasible,
>perhaps a change to a celibate lifestyle, with a decision by the couple
>to be room-mates, but not sexual partners.  Many sacrifices are routinely
>made for one's children, and the children are often grateful for these
>sacrifices even without being told of them.  Having and raising children
>is all about growing out of selfishness and growing into a greater
>capacity
>for sacrificial love.

Sacrificial to what extent?  I assume that you are happily married.
Would you stop making love to your wife because someone told you it
would be better for the children?  I bet if you did, after awhile, you
would start getting really jumpy, and being mean to your wife and
children, and I bet that wouldn't be good for the family stability,
particularly for the children, who wouldn't understand what was going on
at all. Well, why do you suppose that would be any different for a 
same-sex couple?  

Even if both parents keep their tempers, there is that sort of sexual 
tension going on, the parents won't be able to show each other the same 
affection the would otherwise, and the children would recognize that 
something was dreadfully wrong and feel uneasy. Children understand at 
a visceral level when something that important is not right.

People are of all different types, including homosexual.  They are still
human beings, and apart from forming sexual relationships with members
of the same sex, they still have the same feelings as the rest of us.
Too much self-denial is not good for anyone (look at anorexics, for
example), so why do you ask it only of gays and lesbians who are raising
children?

Shalom 
								Beth



-- 
"This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
	-Arthur Dent, on being told that the Earth is about to blow up.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh