The questions regarding same sex parenting are nearly as varied and vocal as those surrounding abortion. Well, that may be an exaggeration, but it seems that the quality of life and one’s ability to parent is somehow linked to sexual orientation. As with a great many things in the BLGT community, there is a focus on the homosexual side of the spectrum. In the realm of the parenting question, bisexuality is, at worst completely glossed over, and at best the victim of the dreaded “or” equation-presenting the case as gay or bisexual. A quick “Google” search, however, will yield a host of questions on the topic of bisexual fathers. Amongst the more interesting are variations of “my dad dates another man and I hate it, please help?” Or “I love my bisexual dad but how can I get people to realize it’s not a big deal?” The fact that the questions exist would seem to provide proof that bisexual fathers exist as well. Being a bisexual father myself, the question of how to raise my son in an openly bisexual environment is a pretty important one to answer.
On the path to finding this answer, there are many stops. When a child is born, every parent asks themselves a host of questions: What color will his eyes be? Will he be healthy? The unasked and often unvoiced question is “What if he’s bisexual?” “What if he’s gay?” Thankfully, for a lot of parents, this isn’t a concern beyond the worry of how such a thing will affect their child’s life (after all, no parent wants their child to have a “hard” life). For the bisexual parent though, especially one that is in a “heterosexual” relationship when the child is conceived and born, there’s another layer here: “What if he’s bisexual because I am?” While there is no scientific evidence to support a conclusion there one way or the other; the nature vs. nurture debate gives us at least this:
“Some scientists think that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even “animal instincts.” This is known as the “nature” theory of human behavior. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the “nurture theory of human behavior.”
Even this explanation is problematic, because the implication is that we can “make” our children bisexual by “nurturing” them that way. Would this be such a terrible thing, though? If I am proud of my own bisexuality and if I am happily open being who I am, then shouldn’t I be that for my son? Isn’t it a father’s job to be the model of “manhood” for his son? On the other hand, if it is a “nature” issue, then it is quite simply beyond our control.
The pros and cons on the issue of bisexual (or even homosexual) parenting are somewhat daunting. The “pros” would of course be encouragement from father to son to be proud of who you are. Encouragement to be honest and accepting of others as well as yourself and most of all to love indiscriminately. While all of these are very laudable qualities to emulate as a parent, and excellent things to impart to a child, they aren’t quite . . . tangible. The “cons” unfortunately, are. The “cons” include, exposing yourself (as a father) to the risk of “gay bashing” or other hate crimes-crimes that could take you away from your family. The risk of an nonaccepting society deeming you unworthy of raising a child, as you lead a deviant lifestyle-this again could separate you from your son. These types of risks are what we see in our media and our society. Stories of hate crimes, of intolerance and loss like those of Alec Clayton feed our respective fears and uncertainties about how to raise our children as bisexual fathers.
Every father wants what’s best for his son. No father, straight, gay or bisexual really knows what that is at the birth of their child. Every father, every parent must simply do their best to live their lives according to who they are, and what they believe, and most of all, they must love their children unconditionally. That is the defintion of being a parent, of being a father. Its interesting to note that sexual orientation is conspicuously absent from this definition, as it should be.