I didn't think I was one of those testy adoption people who feels slighted all the time, but then I didn't expect to be reading
this column by Fox News' John Gibson:
"Gays can't have kids -- other than going to the abandoned kids store and getting one or two, or borrowing sperm from someone with more sperm than brains -- so by definition they're out of the marriage game."
Gibson titled this philosophical missive "The Basic Idea of Marriage Is to Raise Kids." So, let's follow his trail of genius at work here:
- Lisa and I are going to the "abandoned kids store" because we can't have kids
- The basic idea of marriage is to raise kids
- Therefore, Gibson believes we shouldn't be in the marriage game either
Did I miss anything, John?
3 comments:
I would expect nothing less from anybody/anything affiliated with Fox Networks.
"The Basic Idea of Marriage Is to Raise Kids."
Yeah, nevermind about that whole committing to someone forever/love crap right? Something I've been told is that no matter what (when it comes to kids), the marriage itself always comes first. I equate saying the idea to raise kids is equivalent to working simply for a paycheck...you gotta love the job (marriage) in order to make anything happen. Pure rubbish; I want the bandwidth back I just wasted downloading that article.
Go ahead -- accuse me of hairsplitting. BUT...
Gibson is confused. He begins by talking about the raising of kids. But then, perhaps realizing that any couple (or n-tuple, or single person, for that matter) can "raise" kids, he changes the rules mid-rant. Now, instead of asking, "Who can raise kids?", he talks about who is capable of conceiving and giving birth.
And as long as we're talking about what's "theoretically" possible, let's admit that there's no greater theoretical difficulty in imagining a same-sex couple conceiving a child than there is in imagining a post-menopausal woman getting pregnant. Both of them go far beyond the biological facts as we know them. So if he's willing to allow heterosexuals who don't even intend to have kids to marry, on the grounds that they could "theoretically" have (not raise?) children, then, etc. That point's been made a million times. If he doesn't see the problem by now, then this little missive won't do the trick, either.
Why would gays need to borrow some sperm? More likely they should try to borrow some eggs. Mr. Gibson should rethink his position.
Post a Comment