Should Adopted Children be Allowed to Say "Mommy" and "Daddy?"
My wife and I are expecting our first child any day now. A beautiful, natural, biological child - just the way God intended children to be.
Impending fatherhood, plus the fact that my home state of California has proven that civil rights are subject to voter approval, has emboldened me to raise an issue that's been overlooked for years: the issue of adopted (or "unnatural") children's rights.
As a parent-to-be, I find it insulting that my biological son will be forced to share words like "mommy" and "daddy" with unnatural children. I feel that sharing cheapens those words, and weakens our natural father/son bond.
After all, if anybody can throw around words like "son" or "daughter" to describe someone they share absolutely no DNA with, where does it end? As far as I know, Kobe Bryant and I aren't related. So what's to stop me from calling Kobe my "son?" Or for that matter, my "daughter?" If unnatural advocates had their way, Kobe Bryant would, for all intents and purposes, be my daughter.
See what a slippery slope we're on here?
In order to protect the sanctity of natural parent/child relationships, I propose a ballot measure requiring unnatural children and parents to use the following terms: "Female Adopted Parent," "Male Adopted Parent," "Adopted Male Child," and "Adopted Female Child."
If you ask me, they're every bit as good as "mommy," daddy," "son," and "daughter." And what's more - those parents and children would still have most of the rights as natural families under my proposal.
Look, I have nothing against adoption. Some of my closest friends chose to be adopted as children, and I respect their right to reject the biological lifestyle. All I'm saying is, keep it away from my kid. Don't go teaching him that it's the same as his natural, God-approved union with his real mommy and daddy.
Besides, we all know that parents don't love adopted children as much as natural ones.
Just ask my daughter Kobe.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Brilliant! Well done. :-) This is a great way to illustrate that what one group thinks is sacrosanct might be another group's civil rights infringement. For that reason, it is best to be as expansive as possible where civil rights are concerned and let adults be full, equal participants in society.
While we're talking civil rights and since you used adoption to illustrate your point, let's not forget the civil rights of adoptees! For instance, did you know that in many states, even adult adoptees are not entitled to their original birth certificates or ANY factual information about themselves or their kin. Yep, it's true. The state tells them that everyone else is allowed to know about themselves and their ancestry, except adoptees -- and laws are enacted to uphold that outdated discrimination. Outrageous! To those who feel warm and fuzzy about the sale or adoption of children who are not allowed to give consent: sorry, but there is no substitute for DNA.
There's nothing quite as exquisite as having no clue about your medical history, your name, your siblings, parents, grandparents, etc. and to be told to forget about your original family. Adoption keeps one class of people separate and definitely not equal. It's our culture's dirty little secret that there are many thousands upon thousands of adult adoptees whose identities are closely guarded state secrets – against their will. Adoption aborts the mother.
So true. I suspect the Indian Assimilation Program that the US government ran up until 1960 has something to do with these laws that deny adoptees their biological lineage. What about hereditary diseases? They get no information about that either so when they have children of their own, those children wonder about their lineage too. People who recommend adoption as a panacea to end all abortion have no clue about the complications of identity due to adoption and how many generations those complications will persist before it is finally overcome.
Lots of tongue in that cheek; funny stuff.
Well, funny if it weren't based on beliefs by some "insane-people-who-are-allowed-to-vote". If only we required a license to vote; skills like critical thinking and rational though would be prerequisites, with periodic updates in case stupidity sets in.
My own mother was raised in an orphanage. She was in a family of 9 who had to make the decision (?!) to give 2 daughters up for adoption ( I think they were the youngest siblings; not certain).
I know many, many Q couples who are raising children; biological AND adopted (sometimes both). How sick that there is a tug-o-war in FLA between loving, stable homes who simply want to raise abandoned children as their own.....and the state which thinks these FAMILIES are UNFIT because of their LOVE. Just WHOM is sick, vile, perverted, and disgusting? Certainly not the loving Q homes I've witnessed.
"Mom" and "Dad" are the ones who make you feel safe at night.
Are you being serious, or is this a piece intended for The Onion?
Why punish the child for finding themselves in the position of needing adopted, when it probably was caused by one or both of their parents?
If an adult isn't prepared to REALLY absorb a child into their life and their existing family, I recommend they don't adopt.
Ok...so people will say, "wouldn't the child be better off adopted in any circumstances?"
Well...I guess. But that is no excuse for treating them like a "red headed step child" on purpose.
Ok...I get it now.
It's about how absurd people can get about words.
Sort of like how the gays think they're being shortchanged just because they don't have "marriages".
I mean...Civil Unions written to provide all the rights as marriage would work, but they're stuck on the the word "marriage".
I get it now.
If you think that domestic partnerships (we don't have civil unions in CA) afford same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of marriage, then you obviously have not done your homework.
um, wrong RL9632, it's actually making the opposite point about gay marriage. It's pointing out how ridiculous it is to say that calling a gay marriage a "marraige" infringes on "real" or "traditional" marriage or whatever BS term is in vogue these days.
Hear, hear!
And in keeping with Biblical tradition, we should pass a law making it illegal for any man to touch a menstruating woman.
E.U. ~ Add my name to that one.
But if women create their own legislation as pay back for......I dunno.......things like childbirth or ESPN....men are soooo screwed.
I am an adoptive parent and knew right away what the point was. I think it is great and am not offended by it.
I am a parent to two children I have given birth to and two children I have adopted and not only do I get the point- I too thought it was a brilliant analogy. I found it in no way hurtful or offensive. I am surprised at the adoptees/adoptive parents here who have found it offensive-
I'm expecting a male baby. I know that these beings have always been known as "boys" throughout our civilization's history, but I have a new idea. I think that girls get more affection than boys and I don't think that that is fair, so I demand that you call baby males "girls," too.
I don't care that they don't look like your girls, that they have different parts, that they have a different chromosomal make-up, or that they will not grow up to be women. And I do not care if this offends your sense of logic, or if it goes against the so-called "traditional" definition of "girl". And I certainly don't care if in your religion, male babies are known as "boys" and not "girls". That doesn't give you the right to impose your religion on me--separation of church and state!
You know, there was a time in our country's history when baby females that were black were not given the same benefits and affection that baby females that were white were given. This is exactly the same.
Further, many young females have not been living up to the title. Many of them abuse the privileges of being known as "girls," so why shouldn't young males get a crack at it?
From now on you must refer to all female babies as well as all male babies as "girls". This is what I say is fair and right, and if you think otherwise, you're bigoted.
Actually, my great aunt had this stupid idea that boys only had uncles and girls only had aunts. So my dad and I always called her Uncle Peg, and my aunt (dad's sister) always called her husband Aunt Kep......
"We are born naked. Everything else is drag."
-- RuPaul
We can't use the term "parent" in an adoption situation because God intended for parents to be the biological progenitors of the children in question. "Civil guardian" would be more appropriate.
Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant. I want to bring forward a ballot measure in my state to criminalize adultery. The bible expressly forbids it, and it destroys the sanctity of marriage!!! If marriage is SO precious that only certain people can participate in it, then let's make sure that we protect it to the Nth degree.
My state doesn't allow citizens to bring forth ballot measures - we have to find a state legislator to do it. So, I am starting conversations with my state Rep. and Senator.
You have heard the saying "Be careful what you wish for" haven't you?
I agree it is a noteworthy exemption (thus far) from the agenda of the right, but I could also see A LOT of people "getting behind" this kind of proposal.
We already have one of the worlds largest (per capita) prison populations. I would hate to see even more people who are "basically decent" locked up because of a single incident of "bad judgment" or a moment of "moral weakness".
Especially with the "righteous" tendency to impose these kinds of rules on the "under 30" demographic. There have been enough of our youth subjected to the reality of PRISON for just such a crime!
omg, did you take that literally? and by the way, adultery laws were on the books in most states until a relatively short time ago.
That might be difficult if you live in a red state: Republicans so love traditional marriage that they tend to do it two or three times.
Crazy examples used to convey a brilliant post-
Maybe we are all a little "thin skinned", as this 8 year American disaster grudgingly comes to an end. We have all witnessed too many instances of our Government making "logical extrapolations" from our stated beliefs, that MANY of us have ultimately found outrageous. Now we find ourselves unable to distinguish between the use of an "absurd rationalization for effect" and an "authentic proposal."
I think our reaction says more about us, than it does about the author!
Wow! It is kind of stunning to see the level of angst, belligerence, and hypersensitivity that is displayed here. I wonder if a part of the conflict might reside in those who might "get it" under normal circumstance, but failed to because the "irony" and "satire" was aimed at a class of beliefs that lends itself to "selective acceptance".
My point, specifically, is that "Religious belief" is ALWAYS a slippery slope! Which I also believe was Seth's point. How many, who believe certain of the Christian Dogma they were taught, alternatively reject specific aspects that they feel "no longer apply" or "don't fit in our "modern understanding" of the world around us?
I think Seth's post is brilliant, because this is exactly what he is targeting. I don't believe he was aiming ONLY at Proposition 8, I think that is a part of the larger target of CHALLENGING us to see beyond our INDIVIDUAL beliefs of traditional Right and Wrong, and see how embracing a notion that hits us as INSTINCTUALLY correct, can fairly easily be extrapolated into something we never intended it to be.
Pure brilliance. Can you please expand?
I have already signed one proposition for banning Divorce using the same grounds as those used to support Prop H8. I would gladly sign the one you propose. Which reminds me there are a whole raft of biblical injunctions that need to be enforced. I understand a number of the men who proposed the Prop are uncircumcised and some of the women have dared to speak in church. All fitting for a good Prop if you ask me. Perhaps this is the best way to fight back. Put every wacko idea advocated in scripture on the ballot until we either all die of laughter or they run in horror at what they wrought. Lets take extremism to an extreme.
Paul01..I think that is actually a great Idea! Put Religious hypocrisy to the Constitutional TEST in the Supreme Court, once and for all.
So, my partner should no longer refer to my apopted female sibling's daughter as his neice?
I'm glad we are getting all this unnaturalness out into the open. But what should she call him? Mom's adopted male sibling's partner is beginning to sound a little wordy ...
We could use MAMSP or DAFSP
I would read this but I am on my way to the seafood section of my grocery store to throw rocks at anyone buying shellfish.
Thanks...and throw a rock for me as well. Damned to hell...that's what all those eaters of shrimp and lobsters should be...they are abominations...it says so in the Bible, so it must be the word of the Lord.
Can someone explain how you always can find a Red Lobster in Bible Belt cities? Seems so wrong, on so many levels.
The argument that what Christian's believe is an extremely literal translation of all parts of the Bible and nothing else is absurd and a waste of time.
Why are people not getting this?
The same reasons they don't get why it's wrong to deny civil rights and equal protection under the law to all people: failures to think due to inability or unwillingness; inability or unwillingness to empathize; inability or unwillingness to make cross-associations that don't fit in their narrowed existing paradigms... Oh, and no bloody sense of humour, bless 'em.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
