My Learned friend wrote a piece at Pure Poison that has earned him lots of “Hail fellow well met!” electronic back slapping that is entirely unjustified because what he has written is actually an example of his bigotry when it comes to Catholics like the author of the piece that he critiques. Find over the fold a point by point rebuttal of his argument that I originally tried to post as a comment only to have it almost edited out of existence. He also tries to promote that same bigotry here.
I presume there’s a limit to what the Herald Sun will publish. I choose to believe that they’d reject some racist rant submitted by a white power group, or a vicious diatribe declaring that people of a particular religious background make inadequate parents.
As an opening gambit he begins by proving that he is going to bang his usual drums rather than actually calmly addressing the issues raised by the piece in question.
So why on Earth did they print this nasty and bigoted screed by Catherine Sheehan?
Reading all of the piece in question shows that it is not in fact as Jeremy describes it there is no derision or disparagement of homosexuals at all in the piece It merely makes the argument that the natural thing is for a man and a women to raise the children that they create together.She dares to suggest that following nature’s plan might actually be the best for children.
Yeah, dads are inadequate at picking kids up from school, or cooking favourite meals, or listening to problems. How could a man do these things? Wouldn’t he always be tripping over his penis? How could he listen to problems without a pair of breasts? Catherine undoubtedly can’t define what this “feminine approach” specifically entails, because any aspect she could name could promptly be shown to be able to be done just as well by a parent of either gender. Can anyone name any specific thing, after breastfeeding, that one gender of parent can do that another can’t? She couldn’t.
Straight into hyperbole is not unusual for Sear. But Sheehan’s argument is not about the mechanistic meeting a child’s needs and in fact she concedes that a man is perfectly capable of doing that. She is arguing that the bond between a mother and her child something special and something that can not easily be replaced by a child “having two daddies” For the life of me I can’t see how this argument is either “nasty or bigoted” Sheehan is not saying that it is impossible for a Gay man to do an adequate job of parenting nor is she attacking those who do this , she is just saying that he will not be able to provide that unique thing which is the mother child bond.
Sheehan, who the end of the article reveals that she “is employed by the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne” – presumably their Crushing Equality For Gays Department – is using the following construction to attempt to use parents’ love for their own children to encourage them to support discrimination against other people’s:
For a writer who seeks to denounce the bigotry he is sure is out there in the world Sear does a very nice line of hateful bigotry himself. He wants to argue that being a Catholic means that you are automatically evil (from the progressive point of view) He draws on a very broad and derisive stereotype of Catholicism and uses it to demonise Sheehan.
The difference between men and women is biologically evident not only in the way that their genitals are shaped but also in the way that their brains are “wired”.
She does not say this at all this is just more hyperbole from Seer.
Hyperbole in overdrive adds nothing to Seer’s argument it just shows his ignorance of both biology and of the child rearing process.
Of course, every parent is special regardless of their gender, and what any particular mother brings is different to what any particular father brings not because of her gender but because she’s an individual adult with a unique approach to raising her own children.
Here is where Sear totally departs from the biological reality there is a distinct difference in the way that men and women approach the parenting task and while it is possible for a man to be a very adequate primary carer for his children that does not lessen the special bond between a child and its mother.
What is insulting is Sear insisting that parenting is an entirely intellectually driven process rather than one that is substantially driven by instincts that present differently depending upon a parents gender.
But Catherine’s appeal isn’t to those thinking rationally – it’s to those who have never actually known a gay couple (one of the reasons this Modern Family show so angers the Catholic Archdiocese, I suspect) and therefore can only approach the issue by reference to the heterosexual families they know.
Sheehan is not the one being irrational, Sear is, he has no evidence that Modern Family Angers anyone in the Catholic archdiocese and he is being presumptuous to assume that they as an organization feel anything about the program. Given that writing at Pure Poison is a paid gig you would expect that Sear is obliged to do some primary research and actually ring either Sheehan or someone else at Catholic Archdiocese to see if they are in fact angry about the show.
Taking any parent out of a family would hurt it: but, of course, that’s not what gay parents would be doing. And there’s no reason why two dads couldn’t have as varied and valuable approaches to raising children as any heterosexual couple.
This claim by Sear is of course superficially correct but what he says here begs the question about the feelings of the woman who must by definition have carried that designer accessory for the fictional Gay couple and who provided half the DNA for the child. It also ignores the profound distress that so many children of unknown or legally obscured parentage have so often experienced
It is in fact the necessity of some form of artificial intervention that makes Gay couples having children problematic and of course if the practice were to become more common then Sear’s argument that the difficulty makes Gay parents try harder becomes invalid anyway
More of Sear’s anti-Catholic bigotry in evidence in this misrepresentation of the the Catholic position of when a human life starts.
This is precisely why Mother’s Day is so special. Why do we shower our mums with presents and flowers? If a man can be a substitute for a mum, then Mother’s Day would be meaningless.
If you support treating gay couples equally, you hate Mother’s Day, you monster. Why won’t anyone think of the Hallmark corporation?
Of course according to Sear we are not allowed to hold our mothers in any sort of special esteem because he thinks that gender is a social construct rather than a biological reality.
Catherine obviously doesn’t care that her article is hurtful to any children being raised by single fathers who are being told that their parental relationships are second-rate, just because of the gender of their remaining parent. Listen, you little snots, you are lesser people and your parents are RUINING YOUR LIFE. Classmates? Make sure you let all the kids of single parents know how much their families suck. She claims to be concerned about the rights of the children affected, but she doesn’t care about smearing them and their families through arrogant, empty assumptions and stereotypes.
This is just another bigoted cavort from Sear were he wrongly assumes that if you believe that there is any sort of ideal for a family structure that you are automatically arguing that anything other than that is entirely inadequate. The thing is that Sheehan does not make this argument at all.
I wonder if we’ll see a similar article next week as to why kids raised by two mums are missing out. Prepare for some empty – and unspecified – assertions about what a father brings to parenting that a mother cannot, simply because he has a penis.
This is just a straw-man argument from Sear that just gives him another excuse to exhibit his own bigotry about anyone who is heterosexual and thinks that being in sympathy with nature and our own biology is in some sense abhorrent.
Sheehan just wrote a rather innocuous piece that just happened to criticize an aspect of modern life; Gay men who create children and seek to raise them alienated from their natural mothers. She asks the questions and and puts forward a reasoned argument about why she thinks this is less than ideal. Sear has used it as an excuse to give his anti Catholic bigotry a thorough workout. For all of his pretencions of openness and a oft claimed support for diversity he just can’t respect the notion that someone like Sheehan may question the desire of Gay activists to use modern science to get around the reality of biology: that it takes a man and a woman to make children.