“If we let gays and lesbians have civil rights, then everyone will want them!”

In the process of avoiding what may eventually become Newspeak, I am resolute in maintaining the meaning of the word “parent.”

Biological parents are “parents.” No one else is a parent in the literal sense of the word.

Adoptive parents and foster parents and others do something that our society highly values, and so we honor them by calling them “parents” even though they are not the biological parents. The granting of this honorific is a special rule that is justified because of the specially valuable service they render to the children in question, and to our society in general. Furthermore, every child deserves to be raised by his two parents, and so when the biological parents are not raising the child for whatever reason, we bestow upon the child’s caretakers the title parent in hopes that the child will be seen as he is, a normal child, and not be stigmatized.

Those special rules do not change the biological fact that only the biological parents are parents in the literal sense.

Thus, to answer your question as it is literally put, a child can have only a mother and a father, and no other parents. Discrimination based on type of belly button is not insidious or greatly harmful today. Both innies and outies can be either male or female.

To answer the non-literal aspect of your question, only classical marriage should be recognized as matrimony because the vast majority of children do better when raised by their married (biological) parents. All other children face special difficulties that require the expenditure of enormous societal resources. It is best to keep the percentage as high as possible of children raised by their parents living together in classical marriage. That means encouraging classical marriage, and not encouraging any alternative to classical marriage, except in the rare cases of abuse, etc.

(Classical marriage = the marriage of one woman and one man.)

There is a question about when should sub-optimal be illegal. There is a different question about when, if ever, sub-optimal should be elevated as a social institution to be “equal” with optimal — the only way they can be equal is if the optimal is reduced.

No-fault divorce is prolly worse for marriage the institution than is gay marriage.

Kathy K’s problems with adoption are an example of, inevitable, sub-optimality. Despite her knowing that her adopted parents wanted her, and even chose her, she is still unsatisfied about being adopted (instead of being aborted? instead of living with single mother?)

Unfortunately, I don’t exactly understand what she’s trying to say; some questions that are prolly rhetorical that I actually don’t know her expected answers to. And then an accusation of Andrew denying some state protections to adopted children — I don’t understand what protections.

I’m really interested in this, because I far prefer women to choose to give their babies up for adoption, rather than aborting them. If that was Kathy’s bio-mother’s reason, I’m wondering if Kathy would be happier knowing it?

Back in college I had a friend who was adopted. She was in every respect a remarkable, wonderful human being. One thing that troubled her—and it really troubled her—was her being adopted and not having received any explanation why. That’s why I am a bit skeptical of adoption, even though it must be recognized that some children are tremendously helped by it.

I would far rather have been brought up by one parent that was mine and another of the same sex, than to have been rejected at birth and never allowed to know why.

That is already possible without gay marriage.

The only family structure that should be an institution is the matrimonial bond between a man and a woman. Even as many children do end up in other arrangements, we must do everything we can for the sake of children to encourage and facilitate fathers and mothers to be married whenever possible.