Fred and I are having a little discussion over at Gay and Right.
He made the point that he wishes Harper would follow Gordon Brown's example and acknowledge society's failings regarding young boys.
Now, Fred seems to be a nice guy. Since he is also a Blogging Tory, I am trying to be as polite and objective as I can. But something bothered me when I read the article from the Daily Mail.
If it is true that society is responsible for the rising incidence of single parent families, with most custodial rights belonging to the mothers, and if this is having a negative effect on male children from those families, then why do we allow single people to adopt, and put them deliberately in that situation? And why do we allow gays and lesbians to adopt for the same reason, i.e. that we deny the child the benefit of an opposite-sexed parent right off the bat.
O.K. I've heard all the arguments; especially the ones about lesbians apparently being better parents than heterosexuals. I'm guessing the rationale there is that men are inherently more violent? Anyway, the point is that there is a certain benefit in the ying and the yang.
Girls need a male in their lives to validate their femininity. This encourages them to feel strong in their role as a woman, and not immediately seek out a casual fling to fulfill that need.
Boys need their fathers as role models. Fathers also sometimes provide that little push to do things that Mom would not have the courage to do. Sometimes Mom coddles when what the child really needs is Dad behind him to help deal with the real world out there.
Fred immediately began defending his right to same-sex marriage, which while it is part of the issue, is not the issue itself. Gay parents will always have children from previously failed marriages or whatever.
But what about adoption? Whose right is most important here?
I invite your comments, but please let's try to be especially calm and objective here. I will not tolerate any labelling or name-calling in this post. Thanks.