Reengineering the Family (What are the consequences of our severing biology from parenthood?)

An image from a TV ad for gay marriage, reproduced in the January 18 New Yorker, provides a Rorschach test for reactions to America’s ongoing revolution in family structure. Two men in black suits stand shoulder to shoulder in a group of people, looking into each other’s eyes. In their arms are two newborns in white baby clothes and blankets. Though it’s not immediately apparent from the photo, the men are at a baptism for their infants. The ad, still being test-marketed, is called “Family Values,” and is intended to emphasize the “conventionality of gay couples,” explains the New Yorker.

If your reaction to the image is: “Where’s the mother(s)?” you may not yet be fully on board the “conventionality” bandwagon. If your reaction to the foregoing question, however, is: “Why does it matter?” then you are keeping pace with the revolution. “Why does it matter?” may ultimately prove the more appropriate response, but no one should pretend that it represents anything other than a radical revision of the traditional relationship between parents and children — one whose consequences no one can predict.

Every time a homosexual couple conceives a child, there is another parent offstage somewhere whose sperm or egg has allowed conception to occur (and, in the case of male homosexuals, whose womb has allowed gestation to occur). In some homosexual families, that parent will be involved in his child’s life; in others, he will remain completely anonymous and unknown. Parental identity and responsibility for children in a homosexual family do not flow from biology, they result from choice and intent. To the extent that a gay couple wants to retain the traditional number of parents in the home, it must exclude one biological parent from inclusion in the family unit. To the extent that a gay couple wants to preserve the traditional connection between that biological parent and his offspring, however, the adult side of the family becomes more of a non-traditional threesome.

These features of homosexual families also characterize infertile heterosexual couples who have used someone else’s gametes to conceive. Indeed, the medical revolution that allows gays to procreate was driven by heterosexual demand. Infertile heterosexual couples unwilling to accept a biological limit in their lives spurred the ever-increasing array of gamete- and womb-swapping technologies that now includes sperm banks and complicated surrogacy arrangements. Unmarried middle-aged women, similarly unwilling to give up their assumed right to have it all, have also provided a market for revolutionary fertility techniques. Gays have merely piggybacked on procedures that heterosexuals created for themselves. When a heterosexual couple or single woman (and occasional single man) makes use of someone else’s sex organs, biology is severed from parental responsibility no less than when a homosexual couple engages in that process.

This division of genetic and parental responsibility has been present throughout human history, of course, long before science learned how to manipulate reproductive cells. Orphans and abandoned children are raised by non-biological adoptive parents; divorce alienates one biological parent from the child’s household and sometimes replaces that parent with another adult. But these arrangements were considered outliers to the normal practice of conceiving and raising children, forced on the parties by sad necessity. However felicitous and loving the new family arrangement may turn out to be, it did not challenge the understanding that the ideal route to a family was the shared conception of a child by a married man and woman. Likewise, the use of fertility techniques by heterosexual couples is still regarded as an exception to ordinary conception and child-rearing, and may not even be perceptible to outsiders. By contrast, every gay (and single parent) conception by definition entails an absent parent; it is a visible affirmation of the social acceptability of severing genetic contribution from parenting. Every gay couple and never-married single parent raising a child trigger the same potential question as the couple in the “Family Values” ad: “Where’s the mother (or father)?”

A large number of people will respond: “Why does it matter?” New York Times editorial writer Adam Cohen recently considered the possibility that reproductive technology will eventually allow “three or more people . . . to combine their DNA to create a baby.” Cohen’s response ultimately boils down to: “So what?” The “law should move toward a greater recognition that the intent of the people involved is more important than the genes,” he wrote. The concept of “fractional parents,” a phrase coined by a professor at the University of San Diego law school, causes no obvious disquiet in Cohen, and the legal conundrums that the reality of “fractional parents” would generate — “Could a baby one day have 100 parents? Could anyone who contributes DNA claim visitation rights? How much DNA is enough?” — apparently are to him (and undoubtedly to many others) merely interesting intellectual challenges, not potential sources of heartbreak and chaos for children. (It is just possible that the centrality of tradition-exploding fertility technology to gay conception drives the cheerful acceptance of that technology’s complicated and destabilizing results by members of the enlightened intellectual elite.)

The main answer to the “Why does it matter?” question is this: The institutionalized severing of biology from parenthood affirms a growing trend in our society, that of men abandoning their biological children. Too many men now act like sperm donors: they conceive a child then largely disappear, becoming at best an intermittent presence in their child’s life. This phenomenon is increasingly common among the less educated, and dominates in the black community. Too many children — including the great majority of black children and large numbers of children of struggling working-class mothers — are now raised in single-parent homes; many do not even know who their father is. The negative consequences of this family breakdown for children include higher rates of school failure and lack of socialization. Moreover, in a culture where men are not expected to raise their children, boys fail to learn the most basic lesson of personal responsibility and self-discipline.

If parental status is a matter of intent, however, not of genes, absent fathers can say: “I never intended to take on the role of that child’s parent; therefore I’m not morally bound to act as a parent.” Defenders of the separation of genes and parental identity may respond that when homosexuals and infertile couples make use of fertility technology, the intent of all parties to either raise or repudiate the resulting child is explicit and contractual. Where there has been no contractual repudiation of parenthood, an argument could run, the default tradition that links genetic and social parenting roles should prevail. It is not at all apparent, however, why heterosexual fathers who have engaged in physical intercourse should not be able to define their responsibilities according to intent, like fathers who have engaged in non-physical intercourse.

Gay child-rearing undercuts another understanding of why fathers should stay with their children: that mothers and fathers bring complementary attributes to child-rearing. On average, men and women have different biological dispositions towards aggression, competition, empathy, and cooperation — a proposition that radical feminists and gender constructivists affirm, when they are not denying it as primitive and mystified. While there are of course exceptions and infinite variations on type, a father on average is more likely to serve as the authority figure and the model of manly virtues, the traditional understanding goes, the mother as nurturer. Gay child-rearing proclaims that boys do not need a father and male role model at home and that males can provide the same emotional rapport with their children as females can. Regardless of whether this claim is empirically accurate, it undermines the argument that fathers have a unique contribution to make in a boy or girl’s development. (Obviously, children who have lost one parent through death or separation may be raised without both sexes at home. But gay parenting creates a single-sex home as a matter of deliberate engineering, not accident or unforeseen chance.)

Even if one grants that the case for the biological two-parent family is more difficult in light of recombinant parenting, however, the implications for gay marriage are not self-evident. The primary challenge to traditional notions of parenthood comes from gay conception, not gay marriage. Even if gays never gain the right to marry, the practice of gay conception will presumably continue apace. Given that continuation, gay marriage at least preserves one strand of traditional child-bearing arrangements: raising children within the context of marriage.

Second, the rout of traditional parenting roles that fertility technology has set in motion is arguably so powerful that gay marriage will add little to the ongoing changes in how we think about parents and children. Designer babies engineered by heterosexual parents are in our future, no matter what parenting institution the law grants to gays.

But gay marriage moves the separation of parental status and biology to the center of the marriage institution. To be sure, most of the attributes of gay procreation and gay marriage can be found individually in other family structures. But those attributes — most importantly, the absence of a child’s biological father or mother from his life — have been considered exceptions and second-best solutions to the norm for child-rearing. (Contrary to gay marriage proponents’ favorite rhetorical strategy, the existence of an exception does not mean that a norm or rule does not exist.) When gays procreate and marry, all those exceptions become the rule. To the extent that you worry about, rather than celebrate, the dissolution of biological ties between parents and children, gay marriage could be a straw that you are reluctant to add to the camel’s back.

These are not easy questions. The deprivation to gays from not being able to put the official, public stamp of legitimacy on their love is large. If one were confident that gay marriage will have at most a negligible effect on the ongoing dissolution of the traditional family, I would see no reason to oppose it. And fertility technology is hardly the only source of stress on families; heterosexual adults have been wreaking havoc on the two-parent family for the last five decades in their quest for maximal freedom and choice. The self-interested assumption behind that havoc has been that what’s good for adults must be good for children: If adults want flexibility in their living arrangements, then children will benefit from it, as well. Perhaps children are as infinitely malleable as it would be convenient for them to be. But if it turns out that they thrive best with stability in their lives and that the traditional family evolved to provide that stability, then our breezy jettisoning of child-rearing traditions may not be such a boon for children.

The facile libertarian argument that gay marriage is a trivial matter that affects only the parties involved is astoundingly blind to the complexity of human institutions and to the web of sometimes imperceptible meanings and practices that compose them. Equally specious is attorney Theodore Olson’s central theme in his legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8: that only animus towards gays or religious belief could explain someone’s hesitation regarding gay marriage. Anyone with the slightest appreciation for the Burkean understanding of tradition will feel the disquieting burden of his ignorance in this massive act of social reengineering, even if he ultimately decides that the benefits to gays from gay marriage outweigh the risks of the unknown.

— Heather Mac Donald is the John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute and co-author of The Immigration Solution.

as a protestant, the protestant baptism of my kids is recognized as a valid Christian baptism by the Catholic church they now attend

In fact I have known a Catholic nurse who has in emergency baptized dying infants where a priest was delayed- I think the imperative of Christian baptism of infants (unlike the other sacraments) is pretty accepted by the Catholic church apart from the worthiness of the parents. Not that there aren’t some priests who would refuse

I would not feel at peace with any church that imposed a litmus test on the faith or worthiness of the adults before baptising a child. Baptism is about the child’s direct relationship to God, not the parents

Peter himself baptized gentiles, to the amazement of Jesus’ jewish believers.

I'm not quite sure I understand your post. Are you saying that the traditional family of a Father, Mother and children has been rare throughout history?

Yes. It's usually seen only in advanced civilizations and not always there. One could say Roman culture was an advanced civilization, but a father, mother, and children living together in relative isolation wasn't the case. In the United States the practice among Southern plantation owners of enforcing monogamous single family units among slaves was a giant step up for them from Africa. Such was not the case in the West Indies and Brazil where slaves were so brutally treated that they did not, on average, live long enough to establish families, not that it was encouraged to begin with. If you want a review of "family" dynamics around the world throughout history, look at The Origins of War in Child Abuse and The Emotional Life of Nations though I'm not convinced by the author's central thesis. He does, though, point out how much the anthropologists tried to put a good spin on really horrific child-rearing practices around the world. The section on pre-WW II Germany is quite interesting.

You are quite right when you say that the Catholic Church recognizes all Christian baptisms "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (understood to mean the Holy Trinity) with water and with intent: which means intending what the Church intends.

What the Church is looking for here is not "sinlessness" but intent.

If the Church only baptized those who are "sinless" or "worthy," there would be nobody baptized. Nobody! We all realize this!

But look again at the idea of "intent." Let me use a rather obvious example: if some movie-maker wished to portray a baptism, and filmed me (an actress) baptizing a baby as you described, though there was real water and the real words and a real baby, the baby would not be considered "really baptized" because there was no intent. It was just a movie.

However, I myself could certainly baptize a baby (same "me," same baby, same water, same words), and it would be recognized as a "real baptism" if the intent to baptize were there: if I intended what the Church intends by Baptism, and if the parents as well intended it.

No dount one can produce counter examples ("Hey, I know a couple didn't intend to raise their child with Christian beliefs but got him baptized anyway...") But they were supposed to think about, and accept the responsibilities of Christian parenthood. Nowadays, parishes ordinarily have parents attend pre-baptism classes in order to clearly understand their obligation to give their baby a Christian upbringing.

And -- back to the original topic --- if two men in an openly sexually disordered situation intend to remain in it, that might well indicate that they don't intend to raise the child in a Christian manner.

On the other hand: say you had a single mother who was a lesbian, but she left the lesbian lifestyle and wanted to have her child baptized: no problem. Because of her intent to raise her child in a Christian manner.

A thousand "welcomes" and many blessings to all such people!

So, you are simply taking issue with nuclear families being the norm (mom and dad with kids, instead of mom, dad, grandma, etc and kids)?
This seems not to be very germane to the issue at hand, which would be non biological parents raising kids in unusual combos, such as 2 dads, a mother and 2 dads, etc. Nuclear families are certain a much more modern construct, but then again so is living in single family homes and driving cars. Not sure why you bring it up.

baptism is for the child, no matter whose arms it rests in during the service

Baptism is for the child yes but infant baptism demands that the Parents and God Parents profess their faith. The Parents are the first teachers of the child in the faith, therefore one of the requirements for baptism into the Catholic Church is that there is the hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith. One of the sponsors also has to have received the sacraments of initiation (Baptism, Eucharist, and Confirmation).

So, you are simply taking issue with nuclear families being the norm (mom and dad with kids, instead of mom, dad, grandma, etc and kids)?

No, I'm not.

This seems not to be very germane to the issue at hand, which would be non biological parents raising kids in unusual combos, such as 2 dads, a mother and 2 dads, etc. Nuclear families are certain a much more modern construct, but then again so is living in single family homes and driving cars. Not sure why you bring it up.

Because too many people have as Disneyfied a view of human history and culture as they do of nature. They imagine Mommy and Daddy Indian with their little Indian kids, Weeping Willow and Rolling Rock, and even Mommy and Daddy Caveman with progeny in tow, the family preying together staying together. It wasn't like that. And it still isn't like that in much of the world. Though the nuclear family (even extended nuclear family with grandparents living with the family) is not the default mode of family grouping and childrearing in the human race, the family as pictured in The Donna Reed Show, Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, The Danny Thomas Show, The Dick van Dyke Show, I Love Lucy, and others represent the pinnacle of societal development expressed in the Western world. If society is too bent on dismissing it as simply another valid arrangement among many, it'll do so only to its detriment.

Though the nuclear family (even extended nuclear family with grandparents living with the family) is not the default mode of family grouping and childrearing in the human race, the family as pictured in The Donna Reed Show, Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, The Danny Thomas Show, The Dick van Dyke Show, I Love Lucy, and others represents the pinnacle of societal development expressed in the Western world. If society is too bent on dismissing it as simply another valid arrangement among many, it'll do so only to its detriment.

Even though some say these shows make buffoons of the father, compared to childrearing in pre-British Australia, pre-colonial Africa, and New Guinea, and many parts of the Muslim world today, they represent what would be to any of the kids in the latter societies a heaven on earth.

So, what IS the default mode? I don’t recall studying that in my one semester of sociology, but maybe we did and I slept thru that part! ;)

There is no default mode. There are only arrangements that either facilitate the spiritual, mental, and physical well-being of the group or erode it. A father and mother who live together in a state of mutual respect, who care for each other, who have children who aren't merely the unavoidable consequence of their pursuit of satisfying their sexual urges, who have a clear idea of what they need to do to provide for their children's needs, who make the home a shelter against whatever chaos the children may experience out in the world, who help to make the world intelligible to the children but make sure the children learn that they are not the center of the universe do more than anything or anyone else to ensure that their children will grow up to be adults who treat others right and who will help to protect others from harm. The arrangement best suited for this is the Judeo/Christian view of marriage of a man and woman forsaking all others and becoming one flesh until death do them part.

Reference your post about the family being rare in history.

“It's usually seen only in advanced civilizations and not always there.”

You (or your professors) are confusing the NUCLEAR family's fairly recent appearance with all family (marriage/blood-related) forms.

The extended family (father, mother, children, Grandparents, uncles and aunts) is indeed ancient, extending at least as far back as the beginning of recorded history. All members of extended families reared their offspring; specific roles were varied by ability, wealth, etc. The records are clear and extant, to say otherwise is pure BS. You can find some exceptions among primitive African tribes, but to extrapolate their exception back onto the rest of humanity is absurd, (and academically dishonest).

Brytlea and FrogJerk: This guy is spouting pure BS as taught by many in the academic world today. His cited reference “The Origins of War in Child Abuse and The Emotional Life of Nations” should be a big hint as to the inanity of his argument! This cr@p was starting to be taught when I was in school (I didn't fall asleep in my classes, LOL!), but most of us had taken other courses (such as ancient history) that we could effectively challenge these anti-western bozo professors.

I knew my spelling of “penitent” didn't look right, but spellcheck didn't catch it! LOL!

Back to your assertion that they weren't penitent, but touched by the Holy Spirit. Don't you think THAT makes a person contrite???

Unbelieving, unrepentant adults are not baptized just because they want to be—it's pointless.
For infants, it is the sponsors that are judged for worthiness; if they are unbelievers, the baptism is again pointless for the child.
The child will have other opportunities to be baptized when he can choose for himself.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.