One of the standard arguments against gay parents is that "children need a mother and father in their lives." Taking out the percentage of kids raised by single parents, I realized the other night that this still doesn't make sense.
I may be totally off in my chain of logic, but this is how it sounds to me:
Children need a mother and father, as in, they need one parent of each gender in order to give them proper role models and input into their lives. This implies that there aren't any other significant people in their child's life. Doesn't it? The old saying that it takes a village to raise a child seems to fly out the window. If a village were involved, would it matter so much whether the child was living with two women or two men, since he or she would have an entire village of people at his or her disposal?
I'm confused. When V and I have a baby, or more than one, we want men in her life just like she'll have us. We want strong "uncles," or whatever we decide to call them. (Side note: I always use "her" when talking about our future baby. Power of positive thinking?) She'll have lots of close relationships with men, in a way having more than one father (just without the title and living arrangements, which frequently don't exist anyway), just as she'll have more than one mother. She'll have other women beyond us, too, because everyone knows sometimes you need someone other than your mother(s) to talk to.
Am I anywhere near right in thinking that the idea of raising a child with one mother and one father as the only way is exclusionary to everyone else in the child's life? Yes, our baby will live with us, and we will pick her name and her school and her first Halloween costume. But she will be surrounded by other adults, of any and all genders, who love her (almost) as much as we do, and are just as invested in her life.