Those who argue that same-sex parenting "deprives" a child of
its mother or father sometimes ask, "How would you feel if your
mother or father were taken away?"
My answer to that question is, of course, "I'd feel terrible."
But that fact scarcely settles the matter.
I'd feel terrible if anyone close to me were taken away. But
that presupposes that the person "taken away" is already a part of
my life. It doesn't follow that their not being present in the
first place would "deprive" me.
My grandparents were all an important part of my life, but
suppose they had all died before I was born. Would anyone have
accused my parents of "depriving" me of grandparents, simply by
bringing me into existence? Of course not.
I grant that the cases are not exactly parallel. If my
grandparents had died before I was born, my parents could hardly be
held responsible for their absence (barring matricide or
patricide).
By contrast, the lesbian who visits a sperm bank-just like
straight women who visit sperm banks-may consciously intend to
raise a child in its biological father's absence, and thus has some
responsibility for that absence (as does the father).
It is this fact that bothers our opponents. In their view, the
lesbian and others in this (hypothetical but common) case are
conspiring to deprive the child of its biological father. If we
care to answer their concerns, we need to address this case.
Before doing so, however, it is worth pointing out several
things. First, the objection doesn't touch those who become parents
by adoption. In such cases, opponents might still object that the
lesbian is depriving the child of SOME father. But they can't
coherently claim that she is depriving it of ITS OWN father-and
that is the objection I wish to focus on here. (Presumably, its own
father is no longer in the picture-hence the adoption.)
Second, the objection applies equally to heterosexual women who
seek anonymous sperm donors. Most people who use sperm banks are
heterosexual, and most gays and lesbians never use sperm banks. So
this is not an objection to gay parenting or gay marriage per
se.
Third, and related, when applied to same-sex marriage the
objection involves a blatant non-sequitur. It is one thing to argue
against anonymous sperm donation. It is quite another to use that
argument to oppose marriage for gays and lesbians. For even if one
accepts the "no sperm banks" argument, it seems unfair to punish
those gays and lesbians who do not use them. It is also unfair to
punish those children whose parents did use them: such children
exist, after all, and forbidding marriage to their parents (i.e.
the ones that care for them) makes their lives less stable.
With these caveats in mind, we can return to the question at
hand: is the lesbian (or for that matter, the straight woman) who
uses an anonymous sperm donor "depriving" the child of its
biological father?
The problem with answering this question is that the word
"depriving" is so loaded that any response is likely to have
unintended (and unpalatable) side effects. Answer "yes," and you
insult the many good mothers who have used anonymous sperm donors
and have provided wonderful lives for their resulting children. You
also potentially hurt the children, by suggesting to them that they
lead "deprived" lives.
Answer "no," and you seem to ignore the research that says that
children do better, on average, with their own biological parents
than in other family forms. You also suggest that there's nothing
special about growing up with one's own biological father.
I for one wouldn't want to make the latter claim. That's partly
because I am moved by the firsthand stories of people who have
grown up not knowing one or more of their biological parents and
feel a genuine sense of loss as a result. Their longing is real and
should not be lightly dismissed.
But it's also because I myself feel that there's something
special about the biological bond I have with my parents. The fact
that I am literally flesh of their flesh moves me, for reasons that
go beyond sentimentality.
The question is whether we can acknowledge this significance
without casting aspersions on those whose parent-child bonds are
non-biological.
I think we can. To say that the biological bond is special is
not to say that it's the only significant bond, or that those who
lack it are deprived of something necessary (much less sufficient)
for a strong and healthy parent-child relationship.
More to the point, to say that the biological bond is special is
hardly justification for "depriving" an entire group of people of
the opportunity to marry.