Is Romantic Involvement Necessary for Good Parenting?

There's a big hullabaloo in SF about broadcaster Pete Wilson making disparaging remarks about (gay) SF Supervisor Bevan Dufty's decision to have and raise a child with his good (lesbian) friend Rebecca Goldfader. They plan to live together and parent as partners but not lovers. Wilson is outraged and spent an hour on his radio show commenting on the situation. I wrote about it on my blog,


">That's Empress to You, but would love to know what other readers think. Especially those outside SF. Opinions here vary a lot, but there seems to be some idea floating around that this city is somehow outside the norm when it comes to public opinion about these matters.

‹ Any body else notice "first wave" bloggers moving on? I NEED SOME HELP LADIES! WHAT ATTRACTS YOU TO A DEALERSHIP??? ›
Submitted by Lisa Okuhn (view blog) on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 18:47
Posted In
Comments (4)

Comments

 

I think the issue is what

I think the issue is what boundaries should be set in regards to having/raising children.

This situation may seem to these people as a perfectly logical solution to them. However, I think that it is shortsighted.

Is this truly a living arrangment that is going to last 18 years? Without a sense of love and commitment to each other, how will they handle possibly huge disagreements about parenting the child? What happens to this "family" when one, or both, of the parents begins to become romantically involved with other people? While this happens in divorce I think that's a different situation. Children of divorce, even with all the baggage we carry, know that at some point their parents loved each other. They know that the beginning of their life began happily, even if it didn't end that way. I have to ask myself what a child would think when they ponder that their parents never felt that love for each other. That somehow their existence was birthed out of a practical arrangement would seem a little unsettling.

I think it's a bad idea, putting too many hurdles in front of a child.

Terri

Wheat Among Tares

Submitted by Terri987 on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 17:02
 

Terri,I see what you're

Terri,
I see what you're saying, but I wonder how you define "love and commitment." Does having or once having had a sexual relationship solidify that love or commitment? And do you think a child makes a distinction between romantic love and the sort of love one feels for someone one trusts and respects well enough to start a family with? I also think that many supposedly romantic arrangements are as "practical" as this one. Not just arranged marriages but those entered with many different criteria in mind.

That said, I suppose it would be wonderful if every child could consider him or herself to be a child of idealized romantic love in its most perfect form. It would be better yet if that were true. But it rarely is. I know my son has plenty of hurdles set before him, by his once "in love" parents. I don't see that they are any easier than those set before his friend who has been raised in circumstances similar to those of Sidney, the child in question.

Lisa from That's Empress to You

Submitted by Lisa Okuhn on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 18:23
 

Comments welcome!

Hello. FYI, we’ve blogged about the Pete Wilson “controversy” on RightLinx and mentioned this blog in the process. Your comments are welcome even though we may not agree.

Intolerance in San Francisco

Submitted by McCain on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 19:23
 

dependability

I'm a child of arranged marriage, so I don't think romantic love is necessary. But LOVE IS NECESSARY. I would not want to ever feel as though the possibility was there that my parents would just go away from each other. Sure, a child can get used to it, children of divorced couples get used to it, but that's not something that should be created purposefully. There's an emotional cost, a penalty. To start with it is to put the child at a loss.

www.shan.ca.tf

Submitted by Shan on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 20:43
BlogHer

© Copyright 2008 BlogHer | Terms of Service