Were I to try to invalidate YOUR marriage, I suspect you might consider that a personal attack whether I called you insulting names or attacked your personal character.

If there were institutional reasons for it, no. Especially if there was no attempt to force me apart from anyone. But then, I wouldn’t get married if I thought the legality of it might be overturned. You knew full well that there was a possibility that SSM would be overturned when you decided to take advantage of it.

How should this couple feel? Should the law be changed for them too? If not, should they be forced apart? Or are you going to claim insult at the comparison? If so, are you not in essence insulting them?

You knew full well that there was a possibility that SSM would be overturned when you decided to take advantage of it. If it is overturned, I have no intention of forcing anyone apart, and I don’t know of any who do. I’m sure there are some who may want that, but they do not represent the majority of SSM opponents.

As for Alana’s statement, let’s take an analagous statement that could be made about biological parents:

“No one is automatically a good parent just because they had sex and fertilized an egg”.

I’m sure that many biological parents would feel offended by this statement, implying that it “reduces” the birth of the child to that. And such a statement might be insensitive. Clearly, though, when applied to the worst cases (those who have biological children and do not love them or make any effort to properly raise them) it fits; that’s all it means to them. Similarly, in the worst cases of adoption (and Alana did not say you were in that group), it’s no more than what Alana said it was. You say you understand that not all who adopt are doing it for good reasons but attack others who make that point merely because they use the wrong phrases.

Uh, please tell me where I have ever said anything remotely implying “that biology must be totally disregarded not just in matters of legality but in all terminology as well”? Not only did I never say such a thing, I don’t believe it.

But you implied that you don’t want your child to ever be referred to, in any context, as your adopted son.

Were I to try to invalidate YOUR marriage, I suspect you might consider that a personal attack whether I called you insulting names or attacked your personal character.

Next thing you know, you’ll be telling me that Alana really did not say that her parents “bought” her older sister or referred to adopting as “human trafficking” or defended her use of the word “buy” after I told her that it was offensive and then proceeded, in a pretty pointed reference, to wonder “why so many people are invested in separating children from their biological parents and not more interested in supporting moms and dads in taking care of their own.”

No, only someone eager to find an insult would assume that she meant to insult me when she said “No one is an automatic saint just because they’re raising someone else’s unwanted kid.”

She had a lot of time to apologize for that particular insult and did not do so until sometime later and then perhaps that’s not what she meant since the apology was pretty general. As I said, I am happy to accept it, and I will assume that she said what she said in anger rather than out of a considered belief about adoption.

Your argument that no insult was meant is positively Jesuitical.

But let’s go through the statement: a) I never pretended to sainthood, but she certainly intended to insult me by saying that I was no automatic saint (if you don’t see that you are not a very good reader) just because I am an adoptive father; b) to tell an adoptive parent that “they’re raising someone else’s unwanted kid” is insulting on so many levels that only someone incredibly obtuse would defend it.

It may be consistent with Alana’s “radical” critique of adoption, but it is nevertheless insulting and was intended to be so. Your attempt to unpack it of its intended sting ignores the context and the nuance.

And then, as characteristic on this site, you turn around my criticism of her and make it a means to criticize me, even putting words in my mouth: “Apparently your anger with Alana’s use of this term is over her not agreeing that biology must be totally disregarded not just in matters of legality but in all terminology as well.”

Uh, please tell me where I have ever said anything remotely implying “that biology must be totally disregarded not just in matters of legality but in all terminology as well”? Not only did I never say such a thing, I don’t believe it.

Even Alana never accused me of saying that, notwithstanding her pointed privileging of biological parents over adoptive parents.

This kind of absurd and inaccurate misrepresentation and exaggeration is on the same level as Elizabeth Marquardt’s declaration that when someone requests the term “parent” instead of “mother” or “father” on government documents they are redefining parenthood.

Of course, I don’t like to be insulted, but I’m not going to cry over it. But I am also not going to be quiet when I am insulted. I learned a long time ago that the way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.

“No, because I don’t have exact answers as to how we should do that, and it is not relevant to the question I asked that I do have exact answers. It is something that I would discuss with others to determine the best way to do this culturally without engaging in the coercive straw man trap you are trying to get me into. If you want to deny that cultures transfer messages at all through any means other than coercion, than all I can say is that I agree with David that you need to do some research, not only on how deinstitutionalization occurs, but how cultures disseminate values.”

“No one is an automatic saint just because they’re raising someone else’s unwanted kid.”

Which you misrepresent as “…your statement that my son is just someone else’s unwanted child.”

And later, the same misrepresentation:

I said nothing to Alana that remotely approaches the personal attack she leveled against me and my family when she said that my son was not really my son, but was just “someone else’s unwanted child.”

Alana NEVER said that your son was just someone else’s unwanted child. YOU are the one who inserts that word “just” in there to make it look like an insult.

Let’s look at Alana’s statement again, though.

“No one is an automatic saint just because they’re raising someone else’s unwanted kid.”

“No one is an automatic saint just because…”. That part you’ve indicated agreement with. Adoption alone does not make you a saint. Actually, I would argue that altruism is involved to varying degrees, with some people more than others, of course.

“…they’re raising…..”

ALL parents who have custody of children are raising them, whether they are their biological children or adoptive children. So this term is accurate.

“….someone else’s…”

YES, biologically they are someone else’s, even if the biological parents are totally unfit and don’t have and shouldn’t have anything to do with the child’s upbringing. Alana was pointing out a biological fact which cannot be altered because we want to pretend it isn’t true. Apparently your anger with Alana’s use of this term is over her not agreeing that biology must be totally disregarded not just in matters of legality but in all terminology as well.

“…unwanted kid.”

Of course, you are not denying that your child and most adopted children were most likely unwanted by their biological parents. Or did you think she was implying that they are also unwanted by the adoptive parents? She was doing nothing of the sort, I think it’s fair to say.

Not to mention that she has NEVER generalized her negative statements about the motives of some onto all who adopt, and has repeatedly clarified that she is not doing this.

But you keep harping on a choice of words which, in the strict definitional sense, is correct, but which you feel was insulting, even after she apologized for it. I’m going to call that as I see it, Jay, it’s childish on your part.

What I find a little weird about this site (maybe about social conservatives generally) is that people here are so free to attack others and make the most outlandish statements about them…

Your interpretation of what is “attacking others” goes WAY overboard when you imply that institutional arguments are in some way personal attacks.

David Blankenhorn engages in a high-stakes, widely publicized (and likely highly remunerated) attempt to deprive gay people of equal rights, and then gets practically apoplectic when Frank Rich calls him a bigot.

See what I mean? Where has David called gays insulting names, or attacked their personal character? This is a false equivalency.

I am just amazed at this hypersensitivity. If one is that sensitive to criticism, I think it would behoove one not to attack other people.

Or to overstate one’s position.

As you said, pot meet skillet.

…if I recall correctly, the most personal response I have published here was in response to a particular question you asked about whether same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages should be treated alike. After saying, twice I think, that yest they should be treated alike, you made it clear that the question you were really interested in was whether monogamy should be expected in gay marriages.

Sorry if you didn’t understand, but the question I was getting at was whether they should be held to the same expectations if (even if just hypothetically) those expectations are not equally fair for opposite-sex and same-sex couples. You get around this question by simply denying that there could be any such disparity, at least in the case of attitudes toward monogamy, although you in fact cite a disparity in this regard (that heteros are just dishonest about their cheating) which you think is an insult on heteros but actually indicates that there is a difference in how the two types of pairings regard monogamy, which if true has obvious biological reasons (exclusive homosexuals don’t have to worry that the mate’s child isn’t biologically theirs or that the mate has other children elsewhere).

As I recall, you never answered the questions I asked in response as to how you proposed to enforce the expectation of monogamy in marriages.

No, because I don’t have exact how we should do that, and it is not relevant to the question I asked that I do have exact answers. It is something that I would discuss with others to determine the best way to do this culturally without engaging in the coercive straw man trap you are trying to get me into. If you want to deny that cultures transfer messages at all through any means other than coercion, than all I can say is that I agree with David that you need to do some research, not only on how deinstitutionalization, but how cultures disseminate values.

All of Alana’s postings seem to involve her family, from which she reaches some far-fetched conclusions. She didn’t like the fact that her sister’s adoption elicited responses that she thought were inappropriate, so she concludes that adoption is equivalent to human trafficking and that her sister was “bought.” I think that is way overreaching.

I have never dissed Alana’s family. She does that herself.

I said nothing to Alana that remotely approaches the personal attack she leveled against me and my family when she said that my son was not really my son, but was just “someone else’s unwanted child.”

What I find a little weird about this site (maybe about social conservatives generally) is that people here are so free to attack others and make the most outlandish statements about them, yet display such hypersensitivity when they are attacked in return.

David Blankenhorn engages in a high-stakes, widely publicized (and likely highly remunerated) attempt to deprive gay people of equal rights, and then gets practically apoplectic when Frank Rich calls him a bigot. Methinks he protests too much.

Blankenhorn and Elizabeth Marquardt get very upset when reviewers point out that their book is not peer-reviewed and is the product of a conservative think-tank, accusing these reviewers of unfairly dissing them, judging the book not on its merits but on its association with the Institute. Yet when two published scholars review them in a scholarly publication and point out that their data is subject to a very different interpretation, Maquardt immediately attacks the scholars, dissing them for being “activists” instead of scholars and blowing way out of proportion a minor error in calling AVI a Christian organization (as though that were libelous).

Pot meet skillet.

Similarly, when I pushed back after Alana characterized adoption as human trafficking by observing–based exclusively on what Alana said about her family–that she must cause them grief, you would have thought I had assaulted her: Elizabeth not only defended Alana’s outrageous assertions by observing that other people also make “radical critiques” of adoption, and wondered if I could sleep at night.

I am just amazed at this hypersensitivity. If one is that sensitive to criticism, I think it would behoove one not to attack other people.

Or to overstate one’s position.

From one extreme to another: Alana finds an analogy between murdering someone in order to harvest their organs with someone donating sperm or ova; and Elizabeth reads a blog in which a lesbian mother points out that it would be easier if passport applications used terms like parents instead of “mother” and “father” and that becomes proof that the sky is falling: those evil homosexuals not only want to redefine marriage they want to redefine parenthood altogether.

Paranoia?

In any case, I harbor no illusions of my superiority and I can certainly engage in a respectful conversation. I do insist, however, on being treated respectfully and on my family being treated respectfully.

Are you willing to admit that the same is true of yourself in your remarks here, Jay?

Your attitude here is, “don’t you dare use any word which hurts my feelings. If you do, I will attack you all I feel like, and even if you apologize to me I will not apologize to you”. Sounds like an arrogant sense of superiority, and your eloquence elsewhere does not negate it.

“Second, “an elective procedure used to treat one person’s medical or social issue, which has the most direct effects on another, entirely different person who is, at the time, unable to speak for him or herself or consent to treatment” is an excellent, if slightly ham-handed, description of *pregnancy*. To propose that it “should be held to the rigorous ethical test of asking is anyone harmed at all” would be quite a burden on most heterosexual marriages.”

The thing is, marriages have a right to have sex and conceive and give birth to offspring, that is the basic human right that we all have. That right overrides any rigorous ethical tests or asking if the unconsenting different person might be harmed.

And natural sex, which as we know often leads to what we call “unintended pregnancies” and “unwanted children” and often doesn’t result in pregnancy, is not a medical or elective “procedure” and it isn’t done for the purpose of producing children. And people have a right to be healthy and that includes a right to be fertile, including doing medical procedures to become healthy and fertile. There is some case for IVF on the basis of it being a medical procedure and helping people do what healthy people can do, but since it clearly could be avoided it is subject to the rigorous ethical tests on the basis of nonconsent.

When a sperm and egg come together, they do so at their own accord, if they want to, they aren’t forced together. It isn’t necessarily the first sperm to arrive, it’s the first to be let in, that wants to get in. They bring tiny flowers, maybe. So natural sex conception really IS consented to by the new person. And they’re doing so on the assumption that they wouldn’t be together if it wasn’t a good idea, if their parents didn’t think each other were good, that’s part of their consent to joining. Fooling them into joining in a nonconsenting or exploitative way violates their informed consent.

I know only what you have posted about your family and I don’t doubt that you are trying to articulate what you think is your particular truth. But I think you rely too much on your personal history. You seem to believe that from it you can extrapolate and generalize about many things that you really can not.

In any case, I agree with you that people’s motives in adopting are usually not primarily altruistic. Who said they were? Not me. The only person I can remember using the term altruism is either David Blankenhorn or perhaps the publication about the future of parenthood.

Most people do not adopt in order to improve the quality of life of the adopted child, though that is usually the result, and it was dramatically so in our adoption.

In any case, my husband and I did not adopt for altruistic reasons. We adopted because we wanted to be parents for some of the same reasons most people want to be parents: to nurture a child, to connect with a future generation, to enlarge our family, to experience a cyclical connection as we watch our child mature into adulthood, etc. That we met a desperate need of a neglected and abandoned child was lagniappe, but we didn’t say, “oh that poor child needs a home, so let’s adopt him.”

We express our altruism in charitable gifts, and we have never thought of our son as the recipient of our charity. He is a marvelous and miraculous gift to us.

I doubt that anyone adopts out of altruism. Neither do biological parents procreate for altruistic reason. If they even think about it, they usually have, in addition to the reasons we had, the conscious or unconscious desire to perpetuate their own genes. That actually seems a lot more selfish to me than our desire to raise a child with no genetic connection to us.

(However, if John Howard’s obsession with same-sex procreation ever becomes a realistic option, I’d be for it, primarily because I’d love to merge my genes with those of my husband, who is the finest person I’ve ever known. That would be a selfish, but I bet we would make beautiful babies if we could.)

The other reason many parents have children is as a way to cement their love for each other. That may seem obvious with biological procreation. But, curiously enough, that also factors into our experience as parents as well. We had not thought of this as a reason to have children, but the experience of parenting has indeed deepened and intensified our relationship. That surprised me because I would not have thought that we could grow closer than we were, but there is something special about having a shared bond with a child that does that. But, I want to emphasize, that is not why we wanted to adopt.

But our son is not our “adopted son”; he is our son.

He has biological parents, but he is NOT their son. (And he will have no contact with them until he is an adult. At age 18, he will have access to his original birth certificate, and if he wishes he can contact them. That will be his decision.)

I don’t doubt that there are shady lawyers and dubious adoption agencies, and I support stringent regulation of adoption. From what I have seen, most states–certainly my state–regulates adoption pretty rigorously.

You seem to think I need a more developed sense of scale and analogy. Perhaps. But I think your propensity for over-the-top and ill-considered analogies does not help your writing.