I really don’t get this Indiana journalist’s slant in this article: I saw Mommy — or Progenitor A — kissing Santa Claus. She seems to be concerned with ridiculing legal systems for adjusting to changing family structures by replacing “Mother” and “Father” with “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” or the like. She refers to situations in which there are both adoptive and biological parents as a “battleground,” but I still don’t see the point of lamenting that the legal nomenclature is catching up with the way the world actually works instead of always assuming two heterosexual parents.
And this bit would explain why the article came up in my Google alert:
Polyamorists (meaning “many loves”) are also being heard. The Heartland Polyamory Conference was held this fall in French Lick. I’m not sure how successful it was. Their Web site featured a four-day schedule grid that listed only two events — lunch and dinner. In any case, polyamorists also are clamoring for recognition in the redefinition of family. Meet the fam — progenitors A, B, C, D, E, ad infinitum.
Again, why is it a bad thing that kids have multiple parents and extended family that care about them? Why is it bad that instead of creepy Uncle Bob, we now have an additional loving coparent to take the kids to soccer practice when another coparent is working late?
This seems to be the dah dah DUHHHHH [threatening music] of the article:
The desire to procreate, reproduce and have children is one of the strongest desires known to mankind. The heartbreak of infertility, the ache of yearning for a child is enormous. But the desires and aches of adults are only one part of the story. There is something gravely disturbing when we deliberately create families with multiple parents, anonymous donors, and the ability to opt in, before the babies are even born.
Why is that “gravely disturbing”? Why is it upsetting that SO MANY people care about a child that the family makes conscious choices about how to care for the child? Sounds like a good thing to me, not “gravely disturbing” in the least.
Once again, this seems to be a journalist saying “this isn’t how I thought the world worked; therefore it is bad, evil and to be lamented” without actually giving a REASON for assuming that the phenomenon is a bad one.