Monday, July 7, 2014

Offending the Innocents - Gay Adoption and the Destruction of the Family


BJ and Frankie, two homosexual men wanted to reproduce so badly that they arranged for a woman to be implanted with a fertilized egg (it wasn't her own), then waited nine months for their baby to pop out so they could claim him as their own. They named him Milo.

The gay community has gone viral over the publicity photos, showing how loving / caring / unselfish / happy / joyful / beautiful / hopeful / whatever / these two men are for really, really, really wanting a baby to prove that homosexual men can raise children.

As the men put it:
This is a moment of pure love and acceptance. Milo is surrounded by unconditional love and he will grow up knowing many different types of families and accept everyone (intolerant people included).
Because, of course, tolerance for homosexuality is the highest priority that parents can possibly teach a child. Just ask BJ and Frankie.

Most of the people who commented on the story about this unfortunate child go out of their way to gush over how beautiful the whole thing is. They go out of their way to express that two homosexual men buying a baby from a surrogate mother is possibly the most precious thing that has ever happened. (Of course they don't quite put it in those terms.)

All the positive comments talk about unconditional love or expressions of beauty, as if by the repetition they try to convince themselves that the immoral and the unethical are somehow good and right and beautiful.

The first thing that struck me with this whole promotion of "gay as the ultimate good," was the woman in the photo who had just given birth to her son. Yes, her son. We as a society have tried so hard to detach the woman from the responsibilities and care of our offspring, that we've invented medical procedures to ensure that adults, not the children, are the focus of procreation.

This woman had so little regard for children that she offered her body to be impregnated with someone else's fertilized egg, thus bypassing the entire sexual reproduction aspect of our biology as humans. She became an incubator for some other woman's egg.

How loving! How beautiful!

Then, with perhaps unselfish determination (helped along a bit by the hefty fee she can charge as a surrogate) she carried a child within her, only to send the little money maker along his way to his photo op, two dads, and a lifetime of indoctrination into the wisdom of homosexuality.

How amazing!

One of the dads donated some of his sperm to make the whole project come to fruition. It took modern medical procedures, scraping an egg from one woman, fertilizing it outside of the human body, and implanting it into a different woman, to produce a baby in order to hand it over to a couple of men to raise.

How caring!

It seems like a lot of effort to bypass biology in order to promote homosexuality.

The next thing that struck me was the absolute conviction among the gay community that children don't really need a mother and a father. In fact, comment after comment to this story included vitriolic hatred of heterosexual pairing and parenting.

Here's a quick example:
Before people start hating gay/lesbian parents, they should take a look at all the terrible straight parents that exist in this world. Fathers who leave their pregnant girlfriends, fathers who leave their family (with children) and to never talk to them again, mothers who leave their unwanted children, parents who mutually agree to leave their children, parents who beat up or even kill their own kids.
Basically, what these people argue is that because we have succeeded in destroying the family, the very foundations of our society, we should not judge others who want to live as homosexuals and have others make babies for them.

In other words, since the system's already broken, we have no right to criticize anyone for breaking the system even more.

How loving! How wonderful!

I realize only too well that in our modern society we have no choice but to accept families without moms or dads. But that should be the exception, rather than the rule. Single moms struggling to make ends meet should be uncommon, not the status quo. Fathers who run away from their responsibilities should be rare, and excoriated when they do abdicate responsibility. Parents who abuse their children will earn a special place in hell.

We have developed a selfish system, based not on the needs of the children in true acts of selflessness, but on the needs of the adults.

All who praised BJ and Frankie for their "unconditional love" praised them, not the child. The story was a story about the adults, not the child. The gushing attitude of these men's admirers spoke of goodness and lovingness, as if two men deciding to make someone else have a baby for them was the height of human endeavor.

That these two men and their photographer made this a public statement praising homosexuality proves that their actions were dictated by the selfish desire to promote themselves with no regard to the innocent child.

How sweet!

When BJ and Frankie decided to have someone else make a baby for them, they made the conscious decision to exclude a mother. Oh, I'm certain they'll try to make amends for that lack with one or the other (or both) pretending to replace the mother. They'll try everything they can to fill the void they know is there, simply because they decided to deny this innocent child the benefit of having a mother.

And that is at the heart of the big lies of leftwing dogma regarding homosexuality. We, as a people, must ignore our very natures as men and women in order to validate the selfish desires of men and women who willingly deny children a mother or a father.

Is this really in the best interests of our society, or is this a publicity stunt to once again attempt to convince people that adult selfish desires trump the wellbeing and consideration of future generations?

The truth is that children who are raised by both a mother and a father have a better chance to produce and nurture the next generation of children. Leftwing dogmas would preach that the opposite is true.

Families that lose a mother or father or both, rather than being the norm, should be the exception. The extended family can assist. Christian churches used to provide many social structures to help raise children to become part of a functioning society.

Rather than convincing ourselves by repeating overbearing and gushing platitudes that two dads and a surrogate woman give a child the best chance at becoming a good person, we should consider that perhaps, just perhaps, biology and thousands of years of social mores actually has something to do with producing the next generation of children.