Same-sex parenting deprives children of a mother or father. But isn't the same thing happening with heterosexual adoption?
The science shows that children are best served
when raised by their biological mothers and fathers. This is a point
that I have made repeatedly in debates over same-sex marriage. But
recently I was pulled up by Anne, the mother of an adopted child. She
wondered if I regarded heterosexual parents who adopt as being abusive.
The short answer is No; there is a moral
difference between adoption by same-sex couples and heterosexual
couples. Let me explain why in my open letter to Anne.
Anne, thank you for raising this issue.
I don’t want to complicate the issue unnecessarily,
but we need to distinguish four terms: "primary-intended deprivation,"
"primary-unintended deprivation," "secondary-intended deprivation," and
"secondary-unintended deprivation."
Let’s start with "primary-intended deprivation".
This occurs when a child could be raised by the biological mother and
father and this deliberately does not happen. This happens with IVF
using donor eggs and sperm and a surrogate mother. Some governments
think that this is a good, or at least permissible, situation.
Our second term is "primary-unintended deprivation."
The most common instance of this is divorce. Divorce deprives a child
of a mother or father, but this is not necessarily deliberate. One
parent might even oppose separation. The death of one or both parents
also causes unintended deprivation. No government welcomes the impact of
divorce or death on children.
Now to our third and fourth terms, which are
relevant to your situation. "Secondary deprivations" occur after the
child already has experienced a primary deprivation.
A "secondary-unintended deprivation" occurs after a
child already has been separated from a biological mother or father.
Adoption is an example of this. No wholesome reunion with the biological
mother and father is possible. What is needed is to pick up the pieces
in the child’s life -- which you have done so generously. Yes, the child
has been deprived of his or her biological mother and father, but you
had no part in it.
With "secondary-intended deprivation", too,
a deprivation has already occurred on the primary level, ie relating to
the biological parents. But the adopting parents reinforce this pattern
of deprivation. In the case of same-sex adoption, a child is deprived
of two things: gender complementarity of those who raise the child and –
so the research suggests -- a stable adult union.
With our terms defined, let us examine the specific
differences among five different family structures: (1) same-sex couples
creating children with IVF and surrogacy; (2) same-sex couples raising a
biological child after a divorce from a heterosexual partner; (3)
adoptive heterosexual couples; (4) adoptive single mothers; and (5)
same-sex couples adopting.
(1) When same-sex couples create children with
reproductive technologies, they deliberately deprive them of a
biological mother or a father or both. When governments allow this, they
are permitting the deliberate deprivation of a child of a major theme
of development. I would call this state-sanctioned child abuse.
(2) Same-sex couples raising a biological child
after divorce from a heterosexual partner. This "secondary-intended
deprivation" is a common scenario among lesbian couples. The child has
been deprived of a father figure (or possibly a mother figure). This
also deliberately deprives a child of a major theme of development. If
the couple breaks up, as often happens, the child is also deprived of
his or her need for a stable environment.
(3) Adoptive heterosexual couples. This is an
example of "secondary-unintended deprivation." The primary deprivation
would not be your fault. You are satisfying the child’s need for gender
complementarity in its parents. Hopefully, for the child’s sake, your
relationship will be stable. Most are.
(4) Adoptive single mothers. If the mother did not
intend to be partnerless, this is a case of "secondary-unintended
deprivation". In any case a single woman might marry and give her child
an adoptive father as a role-model of manhood. Of course, this scenario
is far from ideal, but it is not abusive because it is not a situation
which deliberately deprives a child of a major theme of development.
(5) Same-sex couples adopting. This is a case of
"secondary-intentional deprivation." It deliberately deprives the child
after he or she already has been deprived on the primary level. This is
not a healthy situation. The government knows that a child up for
adoption has already lost its biological parents. Nonetheless it permits
even more deprivation – of gender complementarity and possibly of
marital stability.
Once again, I conclude that a government which
permits a child to be deprived of a major theme of development is
engaging in state-sanctioned child abuse.
Anne, what you are doing is heroic. Are you now willing to take another courageous stand: to say Yes
to traditional view of marriage as the union of a man and a woman? For
the sake of the next generation, I hope your answer is, “Yes.”
Richard Fitzgibbons is the director of Comprehensive Counseling
Services in West Conshohocken, PA. He has practiced psychiatry for 34
years with a specialty in the treatment of excessive anger. He
co-authored Helping Clients Forgive: An Empirical Guide for Resolving
Anger and Restoring Hope, 2000, for American Psychological Association
Books.
