I am going to be honest: I remain unconvinced that gay couples are equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to raising emotionally healthy children. I think kids ideally have 1) a female mother in their lives; 2) a biological father in their lives, both of whom care for them, model how to live for them, protect them, and teach them right from wrong.
Two women bother me much less than two men. Children need a mother, first and foremost, and two mothers is probably not a bad thing. But two fathers, neither of whom is particularly masculine in any traditional sense, is to my mind not healthy. I thought the movie Birdcage was hilarious, but it also seemed obvious that one of their reasons their son wanted to marry so young was his profound confusion about nearly everything.
Granted, MOST families in this country are screwed up. Not one kid in ten, as far as I can tell, gets what they need, and yes two loving men are better than two indifferent parents who are male and female.
But my goodness these things are worthy of discussion. Or is the de facto motto we all need to hew to "to hell with any children too young to speak for themselves"?
There is a lot of awfulness in this story. A lot of pain. I get that. But one person speaking of their pain does not automatically become incapable of rendering it to others. We all need to remember that the world is large, broad pictures include more, and what we can't discuss cannot be improved.
Some may hate me for saying this but there is a difference between men and women. Women tend to be more nurturing (not all) but most and I believe children need the kind of nurture a mother gives.
Agreed. I’m not trying to pick a fight but simply represent what was the nearly universal view on all this around the world for all of human history until about ten years ago. Its astonishing how effective left wing bullying tactics have been, and it apoears here I am one of the only readers willing to state the obvious.
I wish the author and child well, but felt I needed to say something.
We should, as a society, aspire to what’s in the BEST interest of children and that’s a mom and a dad. Now if they had adopted foster children, I’d be praising them as heroes rescuing children. But to create a child only to take that child from its mother? Evil. I know that’s a strong word but it’s how I feel.
It's generational narcissism. The men in the article feel entitled to create a child to connect to THEIR genetic material. At the same time, they are denying the CHILD's connection to the other half of his/her gene pool. It's amazingly selfish and one-sided. Yes, adopt, yes, foster, but to INTENTIONALLY create a child and deny that child his mother (or father) is just wrong.
There is actually very strong data speaking against this, though specifically on the side of having a father. Many studies had suggested that kids without a father in the home had poorer outcomes on average. Raj Chetty and his team studied down to the census and tax return level data, though (meaning near-perfect data covering most of the actual US population rather than a sample). What they found is that what mattered most is the proportion of fathers in the home in the zip code. I.e. if you were in a zip code with a high percentage of fathers, it mattered much less if you had one in your home or not. The logical suggestion is that you can find a surrogate male role model as long as there are enough around to find.
They did not take a child away from its mother. At least with the twins, he specifically says that there were 2 women involved, the egg donor and the surrogate, who carried the fetus to term. So the biological mother was the egg donor, and she did not carry the child. The woman who carried the child was not the biological mother. These 2 women agreed to do this. For all you know, one or both of them was a friend of the two dads. Or maybe they just needed the money. My daughter knows a woman she went to school with who lives in California who’s been the surrogate for more than one gay couple. They pay her a LOT of money and she is happy to help them have a family. She doesn’t want kids herself. The men are not denying her anything.
Why are a mother and father in the best interests of children? A huge number of fathers are abusive, violent, or just indifferent. And for most of history in most parts of the world, children were raised mostly by mothers, aunts, grandmothers (this is still the case in many places) while fathers were out working or playing
They did not take a child away from its mother. At least with the twins, he specifically says that there were 2 women involved, the egg donor and the surrogate, who carried the fetus to term. So the biological mother was the egg donor, and she did not carry the child. The woman who carried the child was not the biological mother.
Hon, the children don’t need a mother. They have two married parents who love them very very much. I did not have a father. He died before I was born. I was raised by a single mom, not her choice, and had a loving family. My grandfather died when I was a year old. My mom’s mom lived with us, so you could say I was raised by two women. I turned out fine. My neighbor had a traditional set of parents. Their marriage was a mess. They had separate bedrooms and didn’t speak to each other. They didn’t divorce because they were Catholic. Their daughter killed herself when she was 18. Save your sermon for church.
I think is a pretty funny argument to have in the US where 50% of couples divorce and then the children are shuttling between two homes and multiple "parents." Reading these comments, one would think that the vast majority of kids are being raised in some sort of ideal nuclear family. That's far from the case
Actually the near universal rule round the world was that men married more than one woman (read the Hebrew Bible) and even if they married one woman that woman and her female relatives raised the children while the men worked or went to war or just had fun with other men. The idea that a nuclear family raises kids and the father participates as much as the mother is a very new one, and the results are clear for all to see - a very high divorce rate
The relevant comparison would be with two men raising a child together. If you can find somewhere in the world at any point in history that was the norm, I would love to hear about it.
Read Boswell's "The Kindness of Strangers." You will find plenty of examples. It was not the norm but it happened. Everything that we think we invented actually has happened before. "There is nothing new under the sun." Norms keep changing. Most men have been polygamous through most of history and many heterosexuals in supposedly monogamous marriages are far from monogamous in reality. So much for the "norm".
There are plenty of children whose mothers die young. Fathers may remarry (in which case a stepmother is not always loving) or may raise children by themselves. I know of several widowed fathers who did a fantastic job raising children (in one case, all daughters).
Of course you're right, on average women tend to be more nurturing. But even you must admit some women are not nurturing at all, and some men are more nurturing than many women. I'm happy to leave the decision to start a family to individuals such as this beautiful couple above, because I sure as heck don't think the government should make decisions about who is allowed to reproduce. I know a few gay couples with kids and if anything they put more effort into raising their families than most because they are aware of the stigma.
They didnt reproduce, did they? They adopted, although it is possible one is the father.
I’m not saying this is bad. I am saying we have no basis for knowing how this arrangement differs in its outcomes from the way we have done it for the past 3,000 years or so.
And I said, government should not make decisions about who is allowed to reproduce. This way tyranny lies. The article states one of them is the father, so yes he did indeed reproduce, as did the women who agree to donate her eggs and give birth to these children.
I'm not one for unnecessary social experiments but it is an oversimplification to reduce the manifold ways children have been raised of the past 3000 years to 'the way we have done it'. We have done it in many different ways in many different contexts, including within the US. You yourself acknowledge that the most recent manifestations of child raising have a lot of flaws.
Please don't think I'm being sarcastic here, but I would genuinely like to know when you say "I remain unconvinced that gay couples are equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to raising emotionally healthy children", what is the evidence that would convince you? There are studies out there already.
Who said anything about government? If there is research; link it. Show us the money; or you have nothing. Your opinion counts no more and no les than Finbar's, and no one died to make you god. Selection finds alloparents a good idea, (See Hrady); finds other reasons (See 'Theban Sacred Band', etc.) to keep t' Gays around; and I can see this keeping the population numbers up; but this comes poor third to the extended and nuclear families. Finbar already conceded a lot of other objections. Your 'feels' don't make right, son.
I must agree w/ you on this. Putting sexuality aside, there are so many cases of widowers (and widows) raising families on their own. Even in the "heteronormative" 50's, 60's and 70's we had popular TV shows depicting male run households; Batchelor Father, My 3 Sons, Bonanza and Family Affair. of course this wasn't "real life", but reflected (albeit through rosy lenses) real life scenarios.
This said- I do think that "contriving" to create a biologically related child is different from adopting a child in need. One needs to examine one's motivation and to look at the motivation of the surrogate mother. This is a different ethical discussion. Paris Hilton just had a child via surrogate. Will she be a better parent than the author?
I already said in my comment that not all women but most are more nurturing. And since they are gay men they had to use a woman's body to procreate their "biological" children. And BTW I am not anti gay. So let's get that cleared up.
We can't have an ordered society if we make rules that cater to the exceptions. We have to generalize in order to deal with the majority. Sure, women are in general more nurturing, but some are suicidal maniacs who kill their children. Most men are responsible fathers, to the best of their abilities, but some are mass shooters and criminals. So, what does THAT prove? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Natural male and female coupling is the way nature has worked out, and how humanity has prospered. We need not suppress that fact in order to make the exceptions feel better. But ANY two adults are capable of raising a child, and competently, at that!
What is being suppressed? This is the story of a man who lived through a brutal time and is now raising children. No heterosexual couples are stopped from having kids. Nowhere in the article did he say that he and his husband were superior, or better, or even compare his family situation to others beyond saying he didn't initially think it was possible. So many people are trying to turn a story of how one man found love and started a family into something political when it's just a well written human interest story about one man's experience.
So long as children are not being abused, and someone can provide for them, it's not the government's role to say who can and can't have kids, how many kids they can or can't have, etc.?
What are you using 'biological' in quotes? One of the men in the couple above is in fact their biological father. Surrogacy is a personal matter between consenting adults, and quite often involves a willing relative of one party. It is worth noting surrogacy is far more common among male/female couples than gay couples, where one party is infertile or the woman is unable to carry children to term for whatever reason.
Didn’t think you were anti gay. We are each entitled to our opinions without being pigeon holed into a negative category. Also, there are a lot of people that disagree about surrogacy. I just happen to think that sometimes it can work.
Jeez- that is what I said- that just because you believe a certain way-you should not be pigeon holed. You are welcome to your opinion-no argument from me.
That's absolute correct. The other component is the man's role. I'm hardwired to provide and defend. Fuck around with my people or larder and find out.
Thanks for this comment. I think it is sad that people would intentionally deprive children of their mothers or fathers, just to satisfy their own desires to be a parent.
This is 100% my view. The concept of renting a woman for nine months and ripping a child away from it's mother so that men who cannot naturally have children can experience parenthood seems so abhorrent.
Here's the fact, at birth a child is not very self aware, and certainly has no emotional connection to WHO gave it birth. Maybe a vestigial impression of the body that produced it, but nothing more. What bonds a child is the closeness, the feeling of comfort, THE FOOD, and its immediate surroundings. If two men, or two women can fill that role then fine. But it DOES take two! This is not a slam on single moms, but I am living with TWO single moms, my adult adopted daughter and her bio sister, and their children, two boys, and two girls, and I have seen the disrespect that they show their mothers, so I take the lead and reprove them, and amazingly they respond. In essence, I am the father substitute, but it has worked so far. It's driving ME crazy because I am supposed to be retired, but it is still better for the children overall.
Clearly you have never given birth or breastfed. When you have a baby, your body STAYS connected to that baby for at least a year. When my babies were hungry, my breasts leaked (I didn't even have to be in the same room or state). When they had a fever, MY body could physically regulate their temperature with skin-to-skin contact. There were SO many instances of connection that ONLY I had with my children. Science cannot replace or replicate the natural bond of mother and child. Parenting is a different story, but biology is still biology. When you live it, you KNOW it. A baby's cells LITERALLY cross the placenta and impact the mothers (even if the woman has an abortion and possibly for the rest of her life). https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/babys-cells-can-manipulate-moms-body-decades-180956493/
There is simply no denying the real and true bond a mother and her child have. It simply CANNOT be replaced.
Yes, but we are not discussing MOTHERS here, we are discussing the ideal of parenthood itself and how the child reacts to it. The things you are mentioning are true, but a newborn will generally take any convenient breast, including wet nurses which were used by the privileged class, or by women who couldn't produce sufficient lactation. And it also doesn't make one bit of difference to the infant WHICH warm body is nurturing it, jt that it needs to feel the connection. If all of this were not so, the ALL adoptions would produce detached and damaged children. Clearly, they have NOT.
As late as the turn of the last century wealthy women gave birth and handed the babies over to a nurse. Who literally nursed the babies. You may have had some innate and seemingly mystical
connection to your infants but for many thousands of years rearing children was a group activity.
The idea that a woman has a psychic connection with an aborted fetus because of placental cell transfer is not what the article you posted is suggesting.
To clarify, I was referring to physiological connection, not "Psychic". My basic argument was simply that biology matters and has downstream effects that we can't fully understand. I'm not sure what the literature says vis-a-vis "psychic" connections (or if that is even a field of inquiry per se), but there are plenty of studies affirming the cellular transfer even with terminated pregnancies. It's a genuinely fascinating field of research and shows just how little we understand human connection. In the event you wanted to dig into the data, this is a good place to start:
That reddit stream is fascinating. We have SO much to learn when it comes to understanding human connection. There is truly a biological component to the parent-child connection. While I believe adoption is a beautiful life-giving act, it's far from the ideal scenario. "Creating" children in a lab and implanting these babies in rented wombs, is so far from how our bodies have evolved to be. There just seems to be so much potential for real and true damage on so many levels. It's all so narcissistic.
Look, my wife and I were unable to conceive, so we adopted an infant girl whose mother had an affair while her Marine husband was in Dessert Shield. We had a book of pictures of the birth mother and grandparents, and we never hid this from her. As she grew older it became more than apparent that she was nothing like us (so much for the nurture crowd) and at 14 she began a search for her birth mother and found her. SO, long story short, her reaction to meeting her was "Thank God she didn't keep me!". She appreciates where she came from but is thankful for the life and love we gave her. So, unless YOU have adopted and have a first-hand account, all you can do is read anecdotal accounts of others' experiences. Research? ANYONE can do research and produce a report that confirms their own bias. Real life is what matters.
What's interesting is that if you do a search for "I was adopted by gay parents/fathers/mothers" you mostly get positive feedback, like, I love my parents, they were great, etc., but if you search for "My father was a sperm donor" or "my mother was a surrogate" you find a lot of upset and anger - the most common, from my memory being, "If having a genetic connection to your child was so important, then why is my genetic connection to my other parent so unimportant?" Adoption is the best of a bad situation, but sperm donor and surrogacy are, I agree, really cold, narcissistic, painful.
"Here's the fact, at birth a child is not very self aware, and certainly has no emotional connection to WHO gave it birth. Maybe a vestigial impression of the body that produced it, but nothing more."
Newborn babies can distinguish their mothers' voices, which they've been listening to every day for months.
Whoop dee doop! You've discovered the extended family and why it beats the nuclear family. You've also discovered why it takes two sexes to bring up a child properly. TWO SEXES. That the children have a MUM and DAD. Capiche? In later comments you are largely going off on one uneccessarily and arguing about the wallpaper while the house subsides. Cut it out.
All this happened five minutes ago and society and the individuals that form it are having to sort out the "New Normal" on the the fly. There will be discussion for a good while, some of it heated, before we settle on what that New Normal should be and what society will frown upon. "My way or the highway" won't help us determine that; we have to be able to talk to one another when we come out the otherside of threshing this out.
We all need to calm the fuck down and take the ire out of such dicussions; as meanwhile our enemies are falling about laughing.
The nuclear family also happened ten minutes ago, and the divorce rate in the West (among all these wonderful heterosexual ideal families) certainly happened five minutes ago.
I can’t countenance any of this. At least I understand the desires of the men but as for the women involved - the surrogate and the egg donor, I find their behaviour inexplicable.
They need the money. That’s why egg donor organizations advertise to college students, and military wives who can’t always work regular jobs have a disproportionate amount of surrogates among them.
Plus it gets talked up as, “Oh, it’s such a wonderful, kind, selfless way to help a couple.”
The entire enterprise is exploitative. Literally wealthy people renting and buying pieces of lower-class women - using their bodies and commodifying their genetics. I don't care if it's Paris Hilton or the men in this article, it's morally bankrupt.
I also don’t like the use of the word “marriage” which rightly implies the union of a man and a woman. If two gay men or two lesbians want to live with each other, then they should have their own word for this kind of union. I also do not feel that it’s appropriate to adopt or have surrogate children. Their lifestyle is not normal, and bringing up children in an abnormal environment is not healthy for their wellbeing. I feel that it’s a selfish desire, ignoring what would be best for the child.
I get your point but marriage started as a religious rite but was incorporated into civil law centuries ago. That cat is not going back in the bag. Same-sex unions are legal and participants therein deserve the legal rights, remedies and protections associated with marriage.
They can have the same legal rights as a traditional marriage, but just call it something else. A husband is defined as a man, and a wife is defined as a woman. Children of such a union understand this. What I’m saying is that for other types of unions they need to come up with their own language and definitions.
I think that you have it backwards in one respect. Historically, marriage was of no concern to the State, and the marriages didn't have to be religious. It was more of a social contract or just an admission of basic biological need. The reason that government got involved was to keep track of lineage for inheritance and property transmission. It is easy to determine the mother, but, as we see in nature, the male can spread his seed near and far. Just look at the NBA! 😂
Yes and no. Historically it was a personal matter. Marriage. No marriage. Religious rite. Pagan nuptials. And everything in between. But at some point, at least in Western civilizations, The Church reigned supreme on all things birth, death and marriage. (I think one of the significant things about the Jewish tradition is their faithful adherence to various rites long before others; I think it binds them.together and maintains their identity as Jews.) Wars were fought over it. England's Henry VIII needed a divorce so bad he formed the Anglican Church. The churches and synagogues kept the marriage,.birth and death records until fairly modern times. There are still people in the US who were born without a certificate of birth being issued. Gradually though, with the demise of religious institutions the government has taken over the record-keeping. Paternity suits are something else. As for the NBA it is my belief that most talented athletes these days are schooled young and often about the perils of spreading their seed. Lastly my husband practices real.estate law here in Texas. Texas became a state in 1846. There are families here that have passed family tracts down since then. When a formal title becomes necessary it is quite the undertaking. Most lawyers would say not no, but hell no. But he does them.and he is so good about it.
I was not but such things were not uncommon in insular societies. But my point was that before marriage involved civil legal rights it was a religious rite.
I disagree. Religion has been around almost as long as man has existed. Egyptians had religion. Native Americans had religion. Greeks and Romans had religion. Japanese and Chinese had religion. Africans had religion. The aborigines of New Zealand have one of the oldest known religions. The Maya, Inca and Aztecs had religion. . . .
Adoption, though, involves the rights of a third party, the child.
Its a lit like abortion in this respect, in that apparent busybodies are in reality trying to orovide voices and representation to the mute and helpless.
That is always true of minor children though. The parent is usually their legal.representative. In adoptions a lawyer to represent the child's interest is appointed independently of the adults' lawyers and the social study.
I get it. I have a lesbian coworker whom I love and respect dearly. But every time she mentions her wife, my internal reaction is...well...let’s just say it’s not what she might wish it to be. I’m very happy for her and wish her all happiness but I agree there should be another name besides marriage. What that might be I have no earthly idea.
I have never understood the DEMAND for the use of the term marriage. Pick a different word, you’re not the same. You cannot reproduce which means the laws (ie divorce) are going to have to be different so just use a different word.
It's ALWAYS been described the union of a man and a woman. Do you know that if a woman has a baby while married the husband is PRESUMED to be the father even if he's not? That law is inapplicable to same sex marriages, like many other laws. The structure of our statutes is based on marriage being the union of a man and a woman. Just have a different word and statutes because they don't apply to same sex unions. Tell me why the word "marriage" must be used? Why can't it be "union" for example? Don't get it.
Actually it has not. It has very widely been described as a union of a man with several women, and in some societies a woman with several men. And believe it or not, there were male-male marriages in ancient Greece and Rome
That’s the exact position of the Catholic Church, fwiw. When my high school friend went to get married after college, she and her fiancé admitted to the priest during pre-Cana counseling that they did not intend to have children. They just didn’t want any. The priest refused to marry them. He said the Church required a couple to “be open to accepting children” if God allowed them to get pregnant. This meant that an infertile couple could still be married in the Church because you never know, God might let them get pregnant even if they have been told they’re infertile. BUT the Church doesn’t accept a decision to never get pregnant. SO, having been honest with the priest (she could have lied) my friend left the RC church and became an Episcopalian. The Catholic Church’s objection to birth control is also linked to the idea that sex is for procreation only. Yes, it’s fun, but the PURPOSE is procreation. Pleasure is just the icing on the cake, and you must eat the cake.
And yet you subscribe to a news outlet owned and operated by two married lesbians with a child one of them conceived with the help of a sperm donor she didn’t have sex with.
Thanks. The disconnect between what these subscribers do and what they say here quite often blows my mind. I mean, what a way to insult Bari and Nellie. If this is what you believe, why are you even reading TFP, much less paying for it. I just can’t wrap my head around it.
Hardly a thousand - maybe as routine a century, the fact being that motherhood or parenthood - is not as narrowly defined as you claim. Demonstrably. There are women who have been unable to nurse who have close and loving ties to them.
Oh my God. I thought the Free Press was a refuge from the NYT but here I find I am isolated in a different way. My marriage and my parenthood are not "normal." Goodbye to this thread
I have no idea what NYT stands for. I love The Free Press because we can express ourselves freely, and discussion of all subjects can be interesting and respectful.
Pondering this a bit more, I am going to speculate that on the psychometric assessments oriented around the Big 5--Extroversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness--adult children of male homosexual couples probably would test higher on Neuroticism and lower on Conscientiousness en masse, and do so in statistically significant ways, controlled as well as possible for other variables.
In important respects, this COULD be a scientific question, but we all know the reality is that studies like that cannot be done in the current environment. Everyone is supposed to have the right to demand whatever they want whenever they want it and damn anyone who asks inconvenient questions. That's more or less the bluntly stated, literal truth.
I don't wish anyone ill. I simply reserve the right to honor the child as much as the parent in considering what is best for all, with Society writ large certainly part of "all", it being both the beneficiary of good ideas, and victim of bad ones.
That is an odd speculation. I don't see how you're 'honoring the child' by making bold unscientific, untested claims about the psychometric test results of children. You appear to be starting from a set position then working backwards.
I’m guessing, aren’t I? Would you agree it is POSSIBLE that having two gay men for parents—neither of whom obviously COULD be the biological mother— is less optimal than equally loving traditional parents?
What is the alternative? Scientific research? Not on this topic.
I don't know you but your posted "speculations" are all working from the same premise, which suggests you care about defending that position, if only passively. And, no, one study is not a strong basis for these claims (not even FIRE expressed that position). And I do note that you jumped in to defend a piece of research when it aligned with your priors at the same time as claiming research on the topic cannot be done in 'the current environment'. I believe 'concern trolling' is the term.
I was raised by a female mother and a male father and I do not wish anyone to go through the hell I had to go through. It doesn't matter whether Your parents are of different genders or of one gender, all that counts is that they are loving parents and yes there are people who were raised by parents of the same gender who I can only envy. No matter what Your parents are You can be lucky or You can be without luck. Heterosexuals can make life a living hell for their kids as well as homosexuals can and both can also provide a caring loving home to give their kids a great start in life. It all depends on the individuals who are involved. Anything else is ideology or religious mumbo jumbo.
I had horrible traditional parents, but having lived through it, I still feel that a child having traditional parents of a normally loving mother and a loving father will have the best chance of growing up normal and well adjusted adults.
I'm sorry for your having to go through that during childhood. I agree that the best situation is having 2 wonderfully loving parents of each gender etc. That ideal is often not available.
I love the author's story-and the idea of bringing new lives into this world as a redemption in a sense- for the lives lost in the AIDS crisis (I believe this is similar to the reasoning of Ultra-Orthodox Jews in having as many children as possible to make up for those lost in the holocaust.)
I think a lot of commenters are conflating the issue of Gay/Straight parenting (is it OK or objectionable?) w/ surrogacy. There is a lot to discuss on both these topics. I'm glad w/ have this forum to share opinions on.
I appreciate your thoughts, but you’re comparing apples to oranges. Orthodox Jews have a lot of children, not because of the Holocaust, but because it’s G-d’s word to multiply. It was intended to be by a man and a woman. I don’t think it’s morally right for two men to hire a woman to have a child, so that their need to be a father can be satisfied. I don’t think it’s fair to that newborn, searching for its mother’s breast to be denied. They’re even being denied health benefits.
I'm reminded to always avoid a false comparison fallacy, which leads me to agree with the spirit and tone of your post. We must compare best cases against best cases, not best cases to less than best cases. Nothing beats a traditional male husband - female wife traditionally moral pair of parents raising children in a best case community. Man and women are wonderfully different and complementary, and non-substitutionary. Daughters, especially, need devoted, affirming dads. Sons need civilizing moms. And so on. These ancient patterns are hard wired into our biology. Same sex unions cannot possibly replace the opposite sex influence organically -- they will need to include the opposite sex in their children's orbit, and the wise understand this. The obvious example, in this essay's case is who explains -- really explains female coming of age things physically. Dad's? Really? Fat chance. This is mom's business, best case.
Concomitantly, the best case same-sex parent pair is certainly better than the less than best case traditional male-female married pair. Again, avoiding the false comparison fallacy.
"I am going to be honest: I remain unconvinced that gay couples are equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to raising emotionally healthy children. I think kids ideally have 1) a female mother in their lives; 2) a biological father in their lives, both of whom care for them, model how to live for them, protect them, and teach them right from wrong."
Dave Rubin was asked about this the other day. (if memory serves) he admitted it was not the perfect situation, but there were female family/friends in their an the children's life.
If you look at the statistics you'll find that drastically increase the chances of that child ending up In poverty or in jail.
A boy learns how to treat women by watching his father. Girls look at the man to see how one cares for the family and makes her marriage choice accordingly. That's called modeling. I am not competent to explain the mother's influence on each gender, so I'll leave that to others.
I don't really get your point. Are you saying that family structure has no bearing? Or are you saying that men are just naturally prone to be violent toward those they supposedly love?
💯 I’ll go even further to say that purposefully denying a child a mother or father is evil (don’t ban me Bari and Nellie.) It’s a selfish act...I want, I want. Then adopt. I’d be lost without my husband to help me parent our children. We balance each other. I can’t fathom two moms raising our son...he needs his DAD and vice versa for our daughters. I wish surrogacy were illegal. It’s not healthy for women or the children that are produced.
"I thought the movie Birdcage was hilarious, but it also seemed obvious that one of their reasons their son wanted to marry so young was his profound confusion about nearly everything."
He was, what, 21 or 22? Not particularly young by historical standards, and the same age as the daughter in "Father of the Bride" (released five years previously).
"But two fathers, neither of whom is particularly masculine in any traditional sense, is to my mind not healthy."
What is your definition of masculinity?
I don't have issues with every single situation of same-sex couples raising kids. But I do think it's unethical to purposely create a baby with the intention that the baby will be taken away from the woman who gave birth to her.
Considering the horror stories about foster care, state health services, homeless children, children in homes with violent and cruel parents, usually one male and one female, I cannot agree. I have the blessing, or curse, of knowing several same sex marriages, and couples, all of whom are compassionate, empathetic, decent people. The idea of limiting children's access to loving family and care, is abhorrent. Unsaint Finbar, your comment indicates some empathy and some degree of love, do you really believe your idea of perfection should be protected to the harm of other people? I believe your position requires some additional consideration. Surely, you cannot believe 'children' are able to 'speak for themselves'. It is very cynical to believe the prevailing attitude is "to hell with any children too young to speak for themselves"
These comments and (high numbers of likes) surprised me. I thought this was a great article. I remember the horrors of AIDS in SF. And, I had a beloved cousin die of AIDS. By writing this article, the author helped me understand the time in SF and what it felt like for the people experiencing it. I loved the picture of all the men -- free at last -- to live authentically, and then the tragedy of an epidemic that took that peace away so quickly.
There are definitely benefits to growing up with a male and a female parent. But, just this morning, I realized how hard is is to parent two teenage daughters that are determined to destroy me and wondering how to parent them with grace and boundaries. I think two non-perimenopausal men would be MUCH better at raising my two daughters for the next 5 years. And, I say that simply to underscore that there is no perfect way. I am so happy for the author, for his survival, and his creating a home of (presumably) love out of decades of inauthenticity, death and lonliness.
(And, let's be honest, many of us would have done the same thing if we were in his shoes and wanted to start a family). Cheers to you, sir!
A great reply. We are born as we are. I don't believe anyone chooses homosexuality. I have several close relatives who are homosexual both men and women. Some are living with HIV. One succumbed to the effects. I don't care what anyone does with their lives. That's their business. I maintain working friendships with more than one homosexual and am fine with them as they are. The caveat is if you tell me you're gay I might tell you you're delusional. Look at what the word means. Many homosexuals are maladjusted and destructive. These folks are not within a country mile of being defined as gay. Keep that information to yourself. I'm told by those that know me best that I have a terrible gaydar. That might be because I have a first cousin that I grew up very close to who is effete. A man who is a complete limp wrist yet is not a homosexual. I make no assumptions about anyone except in the most extremely obvious cases. Even then I'm nonplussed by their whatever. Live your life. Don't look for external approval. I'm glad the author has found joy. Since he's put his experience out here he's fair game. I think he's amazingly selfish and is doing those children a huge disservice. I hope I'm totally wrong.
If you are going to ask questions about the “healthfulness” of a family dynamic, I feel you’d best have even the smallest shred of evidence to back that up. It sounds like you are comparing the couple featured in this article to a 1950s fantasy. Are you saying children need mothers for biological reasons? As a staunch breastfeeding advocate, for example, even I can acknowledge how gaps linked to this area can be overcome with increased emphasis on other aspects of health. Are you saying that a masculine energy is necessary for child-rearing? How about when that energy turns violent? Maybe focus your concerns on less prejudiced social issues that affect families of all backgrounds - the ever decreasing emphasis on extended family relationships and child-rearing in close-knit, playful communities.
Gosh what this essay really needed was your stereotyped prejudice. I've known bad gay parents, good hetero parents, vice versa and all in between. I prefer to judge people on their own actions and words, not their group membership. This does lad me to the conclusion, based on your words, that your opinion is void.
Unsaint, mostly agree with your comment but would add one thing. The male influence is very important for young boys growing up. I think one of the reasons we have too many soy boys out there is because they’re being raised with only female role models in their lives.
This story has a messy end for me and its normalizing surrogacy. I know these tend to be well thought out planned scenario where there is payment for services. For me the payment doesn’t erase the need for scrutiny. Here women are once again being commodified for someone else’s pleasure. I know the reasoning suggests that both sides benefit. But for me this is not a logical extension of the gay lifestyle or even feminism . I am happy that they are able to have a good relationship with their kids. But i am not satisfied that this is a uniquely normalizing experience. Being well off cures a lot of ills and can be a blessing but at what price to women’s spaces. Is this all that far from transgendered athletes in women’s locker rooms. I am not saying this to upset anyone. It’s just how did we get here and is it a particularly benevolently way to live..as is suggested..by escaping our biology at the expense of women.
God designed men to lead families and provide material support and strength for families. God designed women to bear and nurture children and build a home that is safe and secure for their family. Together, everything is better. When those things work properly, the child has a wonderful environment to thrive. 5000 years of history is not wrong. These modern experiments toy with the long term future of the children. I don’t think it is good to live like this. It is an act of selfishness by the adults. What is marriage? Genesis 2:24-25.
Many folks here may disagree with my views, which are ancient. You can hold your own views. Don’t expect people to support these experimental lifestyles. We never will.
My neighbor was a lesbian couple with a 10 year old boy. I tried to help him and encourage him. I gave him a garden box to grow strawberries and vegetables in and provided the plants, fertilizer, and help. I had a rabbit hutch and converted it into a butterfly garden and we grew caterpillars and milkweed to feed them. We watched the crysalis grow and change, and watched the butterflies emerge. The little boy was my friend. His mom and the other lady were pleasant and I was very kind to them. Good neighbors. We didn’t agree on some things but we were very civil with each other.
That is your opinion, fine. Yahweh created nature and continues to sustain it every single moment. YHWH controls the orbits of every individual quark in the universe simultanouesly. And when human beings discover something much smaller or much larger, they will discover that YHWH controls that as well.
Please check out Stop Surrogacy Now, they also have a podcast called Venus Rising where they have interviewed former surrogates and children born to surrogacy.
I wish this male couple all the happiness they can find - but I agree that surrogacy is not good. It is farming women. It doesn't matter to me whether the people paying women to produce a child for them are gay or straight. How is it good for women or children? Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
I am old enough to remember when gay men fought for the right to adopt and it made sense that kids needed someone... Now, increasingly, people cannot foster children if they are not on board with the Ideology surrounding a concept of "gender".
I wish all the best to the blended family of this article. But, what happens if they separate? Will they feel differently about the child genetically being of one of them - 50% and not of the other?
There's a 10/28/23 WSJ article called "What if Men Could Make Their Own Egg Cells?
Skin cells from male mice have been turned into mouse eggs and used to make baby mice. "Krisiloff, who is gay, says the technology, known as in vitro gametogenisis or IVG, could also help male couples have biological children without anyone else's genes".
"People will still have sex," says Hank Greely, a law professor and director of the Center for Law and Biosciences at Stanford University. "They just won't have sex to make babies as often."
I absolutely understand the desire to have one's own genetically related children, but at some point I think that if one cannot and does not like adoption it is best to enjoy being a lovely uncle. The intent of these scientists must be to plant a "male egg" into a woman. No doubt, the first experiments on humans won't go well. What of the woman and child? When it does work, is this good for women and children? There are so many risks to mother and child even when it is natural.
I have such mixed feelings about this article. On one hand I’m thrilled that the author survived being HIV positive and found redemption and deep love through parenthood. Parenthood is a thoroughly transformative experience and it sounds like he’s a great, nurturing father. On the other hand, I am developing strong issues against surrogacy. I’ve known people on both sides and it went very well, but I can’t shake the feeling that women’s bodies should never ever be commodified. Donating an egg is extremely hard a woman’s body. In vitro fertilization is VERY hard on a woman’s body. The high risks and side effects for women are rarely discussed. Slowly, slowly, slowly, I’m coming to the view that surrogacy should never be used. Period. As wonderful and transformative the experience of parenting is, I don’t think anyone has the “right” to be a parent.
Having kids of my own turned me against surrogacy. I can't imagine paying someone to risk her own death just so I could have a baby. And even if everything goes well physically, it's still a major medical event for a woman's body.
States are doing this ALL THE TIME now that women are being forced to carry kids to term even at the risk to their own health. Voluntary surrogacy is leagues better than forced birth.
This is a sincere question. In which states is abortion currently banned completely, even in the event of the mother's risk of death? I researched this thoroughly after Dobbs, but I'm not sure of the current legislation. Thanks!
I feel this... it’s a conversation I am hearing more frequently in women’s circles. There are serious consequences to these things and I’m not so sure we understand the full picture .. what is being lost.
It's interesting, though, how these high risk side effects never factor into states that ban abortion, which is statistically far safer than pregnancy. Pregnancy is VERY hard on a woman's body--not just in vitro fertilization.
I view this as a personal choice. No woman is forced to be a surrogate. Some may want to have children but don't want to raise those children. Some do it to help people they love. Gay people are not the only ones who use surrogates. Heterosexual couples who can't have children do also.
I strongly believe ever person has the right over their own body, and, other than abortion bans, this is generally respected in both society and law. For example, if my blood can save someone's life at zero harm to me, I still can't be forced by law to give it. I would, but no one can make me. If my corneas can help someone see, I can't be forced to donate them when I'm dead and they are of no use to me. The law protects my right to do what I choose with my body, even after death.
We talk a lot about the mother, but what about the baby? I have a mix of biological and adopted children and removing an infant from its mother is traumatic and has life long consequences. The book " the Primal Wound" describes it well. Life happens and sometimes it is unavoidable that a child cannot remain with his or her mother, but to intentionally plan it seems callous and cruel to me.
Congratulation on fatherhood. We should have more children in this world. I live in an older neighborhood where home prices are comparatively lower and thus there are a lot more younger families than other pricey areas. There are always children riding bike on the street, shooting hoops, and sometime experiment with their limits. I also think neighborhoods with younger children seems to be more alive than the manicured ritzy neighborhoods that you never see anyone out about in the middle of the day.
“and my personal rule of needing to know the names of any sexual partners cast me as almost a prude.”
———————————————-
This reminds me of how Democrats assert that everything good and decent, like working hard and delaying gratification, is ‘White Supremacy’. It’s an astonishingly racist claim.
It’s almost like they are possessed by Satan and trying to destroy people because this makes them more powerful. And by ‘almost’ I mean precisely.
Kev, I haven't seen compro lucking around in the last few days. He's back today. I figure he wasn't here he was busy leading a pro-Palestinian riot at his university, Moron U and plotting to burn down a synagogue.
150+ conservatives voted against the last of the pre-COVID Trump spending because it was excessive. If those same conservatives proposed returning to the excessive pre-COVID spending levels, which they opposed, that would be a huge compromise on their part and Democrats would immediately return the favor by calling them terrorist hostage takers who don’t want to govern and who are attacking women and children and the elderly and the vulnerable etc etc etc.
So yes, it is true that the abstract concept of ‘compromise’ can be good/necessary in some circumstances.
When you are dealing with evil dishonest perverts who are using extortionate tactics and fraud to bankrupt the country and destroy the lives of your children then obviously compromise is off the table because you’re just putting your prints on the murder weapon and enabling the worst sacks of shit on the planet.
Fauci was the evil party. He created the virus and then the vaccine to kill Americans. He belongs in a federal prison. And should be mandated to disgorge his evil fortune, blood money.
These are the people who funded Hamas and staffed our permanent government with terrorist sympathizers and communists and their plan to overthrow the government of Russia in pursuit of a globalist eurotrash utopia run by UN people will create human suffering beyond anything Putin can dream of.
In college, I knew PLENTY of straight men and women who also slept around. I'd say it is most common among gay men, followed by straight men with lesbians the least likely to do so.
I'll get my negativity out of the way first - I have major ethical objections to surrogacy. You paid women to literally risk death so you could be the father to a baby, and I don't think that's something one can pay enough money for. Reading about Julia's C-section really struck hard with me, because I've had two. If Julia has another baby of her own and needs a C-section because she can't get a doctor to do a VBAC, are you going to pay for that? Did you pay for her to get help at a gym restrengthening her abdominal muscles? (Does she get so much as a nickel every time something presses hard against her incision and it hurts? Mine is five years old and it still happens.) I doubt that Julia, age 24 with two children, had a lot of money in the bank; I suspect that if she'd been expected to be a surrogate for free, she would have been gone in the blink of an eye.
Your daughter spent her time in the womb hearing Julia's voice and listening to Julia's heartbeat. Then you paid up and took her away from the person to whom she was most intimately bonded. All babies are a blessing, but not every way to create a baby is ethical.
Having said that, I was touched by your description of living "in the valley of the shadow of death" with HIV. My heart hurt for Terry - what a horrible family situation. I'm glad your health is about as good as it can be, and I wish you many happy years with your husband and children.
This reminds me of a friends of mine in high school (early 70s) -- Duff P. -- who was openly gay at a time when doing so was not very popular. But Duff wasn't fazed. I didn't care. He was a good guy, a good friend, and I liked him immensely.
It was sad to learn in the early 80s that Duff had contracted HIV, and fought a good fight before he succumbed. I believe I might have been the only high school friend at his funeral.
Anyway, Ralph ... children need good fathers. Sounds like you're a great father.
Two things can be equally true: TRUE: This is a beautiful story, and most readers I suspect are touched by the warmth of Ralph's zeal for life, and love for his children. He sounds like a great father and person. Also TRUE: All things being equal, it’s critically important for a child to be raised by a man and women. To ignore the benefits of having a male and female figure in one’s life, while growing up, is to deny the obvious.
I don't think you should assume there are no women in their children's lives. Mothers are not the only female figures that can influence children. Kids also have grandmothers, aunts, cousins, teachers, friends.
I'm an only child. (Which was fine with me, because I'm very introverted and have some sensory issues.) To me, saying that kids can get anything close to the experience of having a mother through knowing other influential women is like claiming that I could have had something close to the experience of having siblings by knowing other kids.
Your assumption is that a mother is "motherly". Many biological mothers are not. Some children living in 2 (male/female) parent homes need to get maternal (or paternal) sustenance from extended family, school or neighbors.
Sorry for assuming. I still feel there are some kids who get more and better mothering from their grandma's, aunties, neighbors (and perhaps one of their dads!) than their biological mothers.
I have a friend who had a schizophrenic mom. She def. would have been better off w/ a number of more stable figures (of either gender!)
Exactly. I know plenty of people who were raised by straight parents and didn't have positive results, either. Crass as it is to say, money seems to generally be the defining factor for kids to turn out well. Not that everyone needs to be wealthy to have kids, but at least a lower middle class income is needed otherwise the kids won't have the same opportunities (of course there are exceptions like in any case).
"Redemption" is such an odd word here. Usually it involves an acknowledgement of past failings, and a determination to change - being redeemed or saved from evil, making the best of a terrible situation. But the author doesn't actually seem to have any regrets of his hedonistic past, and has continued in his self-centered ways, buying women's eggs and bodies, creating children to fulfill HIS need to have a biological connection to his offspring, while ignoring THEIR far greater need to have a biological mother. How can he not see how cruel it is to intentionally create a child who will endure that kind of loss? Lots of kids are born into less-than-ideal circumstances, but to go out of your way to ensure it via surrogacy seems to me a profoundly selfish act.
The use of the word 'redemption' is jarring and potentially places a load on his children who have been acquired at great expense and scientific know-how to fulfill his need to be 'forgiven' for the errors of his past life. Not a great reason to have children.
A more redemptive act, perhaps, would have been to help, foster or adopt children from deprived homes needing second chances to make something of their lives.
A very beautiful story! I am happy for you and your family!
It amazes me, how far we/I have come in this regard from growing up in the fifties and sixties. Maybe seventies, eighties and nineties? Please excuse my reference to illustrate my point. Recess in elementary school oftentimes included playing "smear the queer". How wrong we were!
We played “smear the queer”. When my mom found out she went ape shit on my ass, thinking we were picking on other kids. As it turns out, it’s just a game of touch football where you are “the queer” if you have the ball. Once you’re tagged (smeared) you have to pass it to someone else. Nothing to do w homosexuality.
I understand the rules, but I think it’s a little disingenuous to claim that it had “nothing to do with homosexuality.” That’s like arguing, “Oh, it was called ‘grab the Yid,’ but it had absolutely NOTHING to do with Judaism.”
A beautiful essay. I'm old enough to remember the devastation of the AIDS epidemic in the 80's and 90's. So glad you made it, Ralph.
I am going to be honest: I remain unconvinced that gay couples are equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to raising emotionally healthy children. I think kids ideally have 1) a female mother in their lives; 2) a biological father in their lives, both of whom care for them, model how to live for them, protect them, and teach them right from wrong.
Two women bother me much less than two men. Children need a mother, first and foremost, and two mothers is probably not a bad thing. But two fathers, neither of whom is particularly masculine in any traditional sense, is to my mind not healthy. I thought the movie Birdcage was hilarious, but it also seemed obvious that one of their reasons their son wanted to marry so young was his profound confusion about nearly everything.
Granted, MOST families in this country are screwed up. Not one kid in ten, as far as I can tell, gets what they need, and yes two loving men are better than two indifferent parents who are male and female.
But my goodness these things are worthy of discussion. Or is the de facto motto we all need to hew to "to hell with any children too young to speak for themselves"?
There is a lot of awfulness in this story. A lot of pain. I get that. But one person speaking of their pain does not automatically become incapable of rendering it to others. We all need to remember that the world is large, broad pictures include more, and what we can't discuss cannot be improved.
Some may hate me for saying this but there is a difference between men and women. Women tend to be more nurturing (not all) but most and I believe children need the kind of nurture a mother gives.
Agreed. I’m not trying to pick a fight but simply represent what was the nearly universal view on all this around the world for all of human history until about ten years ago. Its astonishing how effective left wing bullying tactics have been, and it apoears here I am one of the only readers willing to state the obvious.
I wish the author and child well, but felt I needed to say something.
We should, as a society, aspire to what’s in the BEST interest of children and that’s a mom and a dad. Now if they had adopted foster children, I’d be praising them as heroes rescuing children. But to create a child only to take that child from its mother? Evil. I know that’s a strong word but it’s how I feel.
It's generational narcissism. The men in the article feel entitled to create a child to connect to THEIR genetic material. At the same time, they are denying the CHILD's connection to the other half of his/her gene pool. It's amazingly selfish and one-sided. Yes, adopt, yes, foster, but to INTENTIONALLY create a child and deny that child his mother (or father) is just wrong.
Why do you even think this?
There is actually very strong data speaking against this, though specifically on the side of having a father. Many studies had suggested that kids without a father in the home had poorer outcomes on average. Raj Chetty and his team studied down to the census and tax return level data, though (meaning near-perfect data covering most of the actual US population rather than a sample). What they found is that what mattered most is the proportion of fathers in the home in the zip code. I.e. if you were in a zip code with a high percentage of fathers, it mattered much less if you had one in your home or not. The logical suggestion is that you can find a surrogate male role model as long as there are enough around to find.
They did not take a child away from its mother. At least with the twins, he specifically says that there were 2 women involved, the egg donor and the surrogate, who carried the fetus to term. So the biological mother was the egg donor, and she did not carry the child. The woman who carried the child was not the biological mother. These 2 women agreed to do this. For all you know, one or both of them was a friend of the two dads. Or maybe they just needed the money. My daughter knows a woman she went to school with who lives in California who’s been the surrogate for more than one gay couple. They pay her a LOT of money and she is happy to help them have a family. She doesn’t want kids herself. The men are not denying her anything.
Wrong
Clearly you don’t put children first. Go listen to a few episodes of Venus Rising.
Yes I do and I prefer to judge based on my experiences.
Why are a mother and father in the best interests of children? A huge number of fathers are abusive, violent, or just indifferent. And for most of history in most parts of the world, children were raised mostly by mothers, aunts, grandmothers (this is still the case in many places) while fathers were out working or playing
I don't know why I should have to explain the obvious.
They did not take a child away from its mother. At least with the twins, he specifically says that there were 2 women involved, the egg donor and the surrogate, who carried the fetus to term. So the biological mother was the egg donor, and she did not carry the child. The woman who carried the child was not the biological mother.
Hon, the children don’t have a mother.
Hon, the children don’t need a mother. They have two married parents who love them very very much. I did not have a father. He died before I was born. I was raised by a single mom, not her choice, and had a loving family. My grandfather died when I was a year old. My mom’s mom lived with us, so you could say I was raised by two women. I turned out fine. My neighbor had a traditional set of parents. Their marriage was a mess. They had separate bedrooms and didn’t speak to each other. They didn’t divorce because they were Catholic. Their daughter killed herself when she was 18. Save your sermon for church.
I think is a pretty funny argument to have in the US where 50% of couples divorce and then the children are shuttling between two homes and multiple "parents." Reading these comments, one would think that the vast majority of kids are being raised in some sort of ideal nuclear family. That's far from the case
Just wish them well. Making others wrong serves no one.
Actually the near universal rule round the world was that men married more than one woman (read the Hebrew Bible) and even if they married one woman that woman and her female relatives raised the children while the men worked or went to war or just had fun with other men. The idea that a nuclear family raises kids and the father participates as much as the mother is a very new one, and the results are clear for all to see - a very high divorce rate
The relevant comparison would be with two men raising a child together. If you can find somewhere in the world at any point in history that was the norm, I would love to hear about it.
Read Boswell's "The Kindness of Strangers." You will find plenty of examples. It was not the norm but it happened. Everything that we think we invented actually has happened before. "There is nothing new under the sun." Norms keep changing. Most men have been polygamous through most of history and many heterosexuals in supposedly monogamous marriages are far from monogamous in reality. So much for the "norm".
There are plenty of children whose mothers die young. Fathers may remarry (in which case a stepmother is not always loving) or may raise children by themselves. I know of several widowed fathers who did a fantastic job raising children (in one case, all daughters).
Of course you're right, on average women tend to be more nurturing. But even you must admit some women are not nurturing at all, and some men are more nurturing than many women. I'm happy to leave the decision to start a family to individuals such as this beautiful couple above, because I sure as heck don't think the government should make decisions about who is allowed to reproduce. I know a few gay couples with kids and if anything they put more effort into raising their families than most because they are aware of the stigma.
They didnt reproduce, did they? They adopted, although it is possible one is the father.
I’m not saying this is bad. I am saying we have no basis for knowing how this arrangement differs in its outcomes from the way we have done it for the past 3,000 years or so.
And I said, government should not make decisions about who is allowed to reproduce. This way tyranny lies. The article states one of them is the father, so yes he did indeed reproduce, as did the women who agree to donate her eggs and give birth to these children.
I'm not one for unnecessary social experiments but it is an oversimplification to reduce the manifold ways children have been raised of the past 3000 years to 'the way we have done it'. We have done it in many different ways in many different contexts, including within the US. You yourself acknowledge that the most recent manifestations of child raising have a lot of flaws.
Please don't think I'm being sarcastic here, but I would genuinely like to know when you say "I remain unconvinced that gay couples are equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to raising emotionally healthy children", what is the evidence that would convince you? There are studies out there already.
Who said anything about government? If there is research; link it. Show us the money; or you have nothing. Your opinion counts no more and no les than Finbar's, and no one died to make you god. Selection finds alloparents a good idea, (See Hrady); finds other reasons (See 'Theban Sacred Band', etc.) to keep t' Gays around; and I can see this keeping the population numbers up; but this comes poor third to the extended and nuclear families. Finbar already conceded a lot of other objections. Your 'feels' don't make right, son.
All opinion. All negative criticism with nothing to offer.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X12000610
I must agree w/ you on this. Putting sexuality aside, there are so many cases of widowers (and widows) raising families on their own. Even in the "heteronormative" 50's, 60's and 70's we had popular TV shows depicting male run households; Batchelor Father, My 3 Sons, Bonanza and Family Affair. of course this wasn't "real life", but reflected (albeit through rosy lenses) real life scenarios.
This said- I do think that "contriving" to create a biologically related child is different from adopting a child in need. One needs to examine one's motivation and to look at the motivation of the surrogate mother. This is a different ethical discussion. Paris Hilton just had a child via surrogate. Will she be a better parent than the author?
I already said in my comment that not all women but most are more nurturing. And since they are gay men they had to use a woman's body to procreate their "biological" children. And BTW I am not anti gay. So let's get that cleared up.
We can't have an ordered society if we make rules that cater to the exceptions. We have to generalize in order to deal with the majority. Sure, women are in general more nurturing, but some are suicidal maniacs who kill their children. Most men are responsible fathers, to the best of their abilities, but some are mass shooters and criminals. So, what does THAT prove? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Natural male and female coupling is the way nature has worked out, and how humanity has prospered. We need not suppress that fact in order to make the exceptions feel better. But ANY two adults are capable of raising a child, and competently, at that!
What is being suppressed? This is the story of a man who lived through a brutal time and is now raising children. No heterosexual couples are stopped from having kids. Nowhere in the article did he say that he and his husband were superior, or better, or even compare his family situation to others beyond saying he didn't initially think it was possible. So many people are trying to turn a story of how one man found love and started a family into something political when it's just a well written human interest story about one man's experience.
So long as children are not being abused, and someone can provide for them, it's not the government's role to say who can and can't have kids, how many kids they can or can't have, etc.?
Girls and boys need a mother. Especially girls.
Wonder why you said especially. I think boys need a mom just as much and seem even more damaged by a bad one.
What are you using 'biological' in quotes? One of the men in the couple above is in fact their biological father. Surrogacy is a personal matter between consenting adults, and quite often involves a willing relative of one party. It is worth noting surrogacy is far more common among male/female couples than gay couples, where one party is infertile or the woman is unable to carry children to term for whatever reason.
I’m well aware of what couples do. I don’t need your information.
Didn’t think you were anti gay. We are each entitled to our opinions without being pigeon holed into a negative category. Also, there are a lot of people that disagree about surrogacy. I just happen to think that sometimes it can work.
Not pigeon holing anyone. I am entitled to my opinion as well and I have reservations about two gay men raising children especially girls.
Jeez- that is what I said- that just because you believe a certain way-you should not be pigeon holed. You are welcome to your opinion-no argument from me.
Absolutely agree!
So you’re OK with incest?
That's absolute correct. The other component is the man's role. I'm hardwired to provide and defend. Fuck around with my people or larder and find out.
Thanks for this comment. I think it is sad that people would intentionally deprive children of their mothers or fathers, just to satisfy their own desires to be a parent.
This is 100% my view. The concept of renting a woman for nine months and ripping a child away from it's mother so that men who cannot naturally have children can experience parenthood seems so abhorrent.
Here's the fact, at birth a child is not very self aware, and certainly has no emotional connection to WHO gave it birth. Maybe a vestigial impression of the body that produced it, but nothing more. What bonds a child is the closeness, the feeling of comfort, THE FOOD, and its immediate surroundings. If two men, or two women can fill that role then fine. But it DOES take two! This is not a slam on single moms, but I am living with TWO single moms, my adult adopted daughter and her bio sister, and their children, two boys, and two girls, and I have seen the disrespect that they show their mothers, so I take the lead and reprove them, and amazingly they respond. In essence, I am the father substitute, but it has worked so far. It's driving ME crazy because I am supposed to be retired, but it is still better for the children overall.
Clearly you have never given birth or breastfed. When you have a baby, your body STAYS connected to that baby for at least a year. When my babies were hungry, my breasts leaked (I didn't even have to be in the same room or state). When they had a fever, MY body could physically regulate their temperature with skin-to-skin contact. There were SO many instances of connection that ONLY I had with my children. Science cannot replace or replicate the natural bond of mother and child. Parenting is a different story, but biology is still biology. When you live it, you KNOW it. A baby's cells LITERALLY cross the placenta and impact the mothers (even if the woman has an abortion and possibly for the rest of her life). https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/babys-cells-can-manipulate-moms-body-decades-180956493/
There is simply no denying the real and true bond a mother and her child have. It simply CANNOT be replaced.
Yes, but we are not discussing MOTHERS here, we are discussing the ideal of parenthood itself and how the child reacts to it. The things you are mentioning are true, but a newborn will generally take any convenient breast, including wet nurses which were used by the privileged class, or by women who couldn't produce sufficient lactation. And it also doesn't make one bit of difference to the infant WHICH warm body is nurturing it, jt that it needs to feel the connection. If all of this were not so, the ALL adoptions would produce detached and damaged children. Clearly, they have NOT.
When you talk about creating new life, if you are not talking about Mothers, you've lost the plot.
As late as the turn of the last century wealthy women gave birth and handed the babies over to a nurse. Who literally nursed the babies. You may have had some innate and seemingly mystical
connection to your infants but for many thousands of years rearing children was a group activity.
Exactly. Most people know nothing about history or about other societies and write as if their little moment in time is somehow a universal ideal.
The idea that a woman has a psychic connection with an aborted fetus because of placental cell transfer is not what the article you posted is suggesting.
To clarify, I was referring to physiological connection, not "Psychic". My basic argument was simply that biology matters and has downstream effects that we can't fully understand. I'm not sure what the literature says vis-a-vis "psychic" connections (or if that is even a field of inquiry per se), but there are plenty of studies affirming the cellular transfer even with terminated pregnancies. It's a genuinely fascinating field of research and shows just how little we understand human connection. In the event you wanted to dig into the data, this is a good place to start:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23723084/
It might be an idea to stop looking for fights where there are none. Stupid spatting is being the death of us.
You clearly haven't met or read about any mothers who reproduced by accident or who dislike children or who neglect and abuse children
Sounds like quite a delusional justification for the practice of buying and selling human life.
Who is selling??
Many people given up for adoption at birth would disagree with you, and so would some researchers who study the impact of surrogacy:https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2023/07/17/a-psychologist-explores-the-complex-emotional-costs-of-surrogacy/?sh=717d202f7394 The practice purposefully brings a child into the world with the intention of separating him from his birth mother. Here's more:https://www.reddit.com/r/donorconceived/comments/17ojs5k/meeting_my_donor_for_the_first_timeany_advice/
That reddit stream is fascinating. We have SO much to learn when it comes to understanding human connection. There is truly a biological component to the parent-child connection. While I believe adoption is a beautiful life-giving act, it's far from the ideal scenario. "Creating" children in a lab and implanting these babies in rented wombs, is so far from how our bodies have evolved to be. There just seems to be so much potential for real and true damage on so many levels. It's all so narcissistic.
Look, my wife and I were unable to conceive, so we adopted an infant girl whose mother had an affair while her Marine husband was in Dessert Shield. We had a book of pictures of the birth mother and grandparents, and we never hid this from her. As she grew older it became more than apparent that she was nothing like us (so much for the nurture crowd) and at 14 she began a search for her birth mother and found her. SO, long story short, her reaction to meeting her was "Thank God she didn't keep me!". She appreciates where she came from but is thankful for the life and love we gave her. So, unless YOU have adopted and have a first-hand account, all you can do is read anecdotal accounts of others' experiences. Research? ANYONE can do research and produce a report that confirms their own bias. Real life is what matters.
What's interesting is that if you do a search for "I was adopted by gay parents/fathers/mothers" you mostly get positive feedback, like, I love my parents, they were great, etc., but if you search for "My father was a sperm donor" or "my mother was a surrogate" you find a lot of upset and anger - the most common, from my memory being, "If having a genetic connection to your child was so important, then why is my genetic connection to my other parent so unimportant?" Adoption is the best of a bad situation, but sperm donor and surrogacy are, I agree, really cold, narcissistic, painful.
"Here's the fact, at birth a child is not very self aware, and certainly has no emotional connection to WHO gave it birth. Maybe a vestigial impression of the body that produced it, but nothing more."
Newborn babies can distinguish their mothers' voices, which they've been listening to every day for months.
Any that doesn't invalidate anything that I mentioned. Do you remember your own birth? Probably not.
Whoop dee doop! You've discovered the extended family and why it beats the nuclear family. You've also discovered why it takes two sexes to bring up a child properly. TWO SEXES. That the children have a MUM and DAD. Capiche? In later comments you are largely going off on one uneccessarily and arguing about the wallpaper while the house subsides. Cut it out.
All this happened five minutes ago and society and the individuals that form it are having to sort out the "New Normal" on the the fly. There will be discussion for a good while, some of it heated, before we settle on what that New Normal should be and what society will frown upon. "My way or the highway" won't help us determine that; we have to be able to talk to one another when we come out the otherside of threshing this out.
We all need to calm the fuck down and take the ire out of such dicussions; as meanwhile our enemies are falling about laughing.
The nuclear family also happened ten minutes ago, and the divorce rate in the West (among all these wonderful heterosexual ideal families) certainly happened five minutes ago.
Not very far removed from The Handmaid's Tale.
💯
Have you known someone who has done this? I have. She was glad to do it. She had her own family. No one ripped anything from her.
I can’t countenance any of this. At least I understand the desires of the men but as for the women involved - the surrogate and the egg donor, I find their behaviour inexplicable.
They need the money. That’s why egg donor organizations advertise to college students, and military wives who can’t always work regular jobs have a disproportionate amount of surrogates among them.
Plus it gets talked up as, “Oh, it’s such a wonderful, kind, selfless way to help a couple.”
The entire enterprise is exploitative. Literally wealthy people renting and buying pieces of lower-class women - using their bodies and commodifying their genetics. I don't care if it's Paris Hilton or the men in this article, it's morally bankrupt.
Yep. Some surrogates say stuff like, "I feel a calling to help other families," but somehow, it's never multi-millionaires who "feel a calling."
Funny how that works
They are generous people.
I also don’t like the use of the word “marriage” which rightly implies the union of a man and a woman. If two gay men or two lesbians want to live with each other, then they should have their own word for this kind of union. I also do not feel that it’s appropriate to adopt or have surrogate children. Their lifestyle is not normal, and bringing up children in an abnormal environment is not healthy for their wellbeing. I feel that it’s a selfish desire, ignoring what would be best for the child.
I get your point but marriage started as a religious rite but was incorporated into civil law centuries ago. That cat is not going back in the bag. Same-sex unions are legal and participants therein deserve the legal rights, remedies and protections associated with marriage.
They can have the same legal rights as a traditional marriage, but just call it something else. A husband is defined as a man, and a wife is defined as a woman. Children of such a union understand this. What I’m saying is that for other types of unions they need to come up with their own language and definitions.
I think we agree on this. Government should recognize civil unions and stay out of the religion aspect.
There was a "South Park" episode like this. "Instead of being 'MAIR-eed,' you can be, 'butt-BUH-dees."
"The same legal rights as a traditional marriage, but called something else" reeks of "separate but equal" to me.
"A husband is defined as a man, and a wife is defined as a woman." That's legally true now, yes?
I don't think it is true. Two men can't be a husband and a wife. Divorce pleadings get tricky I suppose.
A husband is a man and a wife is a woman. But not every legal marriage consists of a husband and a wife.
I think that you have it backwards in one respect. Historically, marriage was of no concern to the State, and the marriages didn't have to be religious. It was more of a social contract or just an admission of basic biological need. The reason that government got involved was to keep track of lineage for inheritance and property transmission. It is easy to determine the mother, but, as we see in nature, the male can spread his seed near and far. Just look at the NBA! 😂
Yes and no. Historically it was a personal matter. Marriage. No marriage. Religious rite. Pagan nuptials. And everything in between. But at some point, at least in Western civilizations, The Church reigned supreme on all things birth, death and marriage. (I think one of the significant things about the Jewish tradition is their faithful adherence to various rites long before others; I think it binds them.together and maintains their identity as Jews.) Wars were fought over it. England's Henry VIII needed a divorce so bad he formed the Anglican Church. The churches and synagogues kept the marriage,.birth and death records until fairly modern times. There are still people in the US who were born without a certificate of birth being issued. Gradually though, with the demise of religious institutions the government has taken over the record-keeping. Paternity suits are something else. As for the NBA it is my belief that most talented athletes these days are schooled young and often about the perils of spreading their seed. Lastly my husband practices real.estate law here in Texas. Texas became a state in 1846. There are families here that have passed family tracts down since then. When a formal title becomes necessary it is quite the undertaking. Most lawyers would say not no, but hell no. But he does them.and he is so good about it.
Are you aware that Sarah was Abraham's half-sister? Jews haven't always been doing everything exactly the same way nor has any community.
I was not but such things were not uncommon in insular societies. But my point was that before marriage involved civil legal rights it was a religious rite.
I think you have it arse about Lynne. "Sacred rite" possibly; but religion as we understand it is a Xtian invention and marriage looong precedes it.
I disagree. Religion has been around almost as long as man has existed. Egyptians had religion. Native Americans had religion. Greeks and Romans had religion. Japanese and Chinese had religion. Africans had religion. The aborigines of New Zealand have one of the oldest known religions. The Maya, Inca and Aztecs had religion. . . .
Adoption, though, involves the rights of a third party, the child.
Its a lit like abortion in this respect, in that apparent busybodies are in reality trying to orovide voices and representation to the mute and helpless.
That is always true of minor children though. The parent is usually their legal.representative. In adoptions a lawyer to represent the child's interest is appointed independently of the adults' lawyers and the social study.
I get it. I have a lesbian coworker whom I love and respect dearly. But every time she mentions her wife, my internal reaction is...well...let’s just say it’s not what she might wish it to be. I’m very happy for her and wish her all happiness but I agree there should be another name besides marriage. What that might be I have no earthly idea.
I have never understood the DEMAND for the use of the term marriage. Pick a different word, you’re not the same. You cannot reproduce which means the laws (ie divorce) are going to have to be different so just use a different word.
so what of heterosexual couples who marry w/out any chance of procreation? Is that not a marriage?
It's ALWAYS been described the union of a man and a woman. Do you know that if a woman has a baby while married the husband is PRESUMED to be the father even if he's not? That law is inapplicable to same sex marriages, like many other laws. The structure of our statutes is based on marriage being the union of a man and a woman. Just have a different word and statutes because they don't apply to same sex unions. Tell me why the word "marriage" must be used? Why can't it be "union" for example? Don't get it.
Actually it has not. It has very widely been described as a union of a man with several women, and in some societies a woman with several men. And believe it or not, there were male-male marriages in ancient Greece and Rome
Definitely worth discussing in depth. My objection is the implication that marriage must be between a man and a woman and for procreation.
That’s the exact position of the Catholic Church, fwiw. When my high school friend went to get married after college, she and her fiancé admitted to the priest during pre-Cana counseling that they did not intend to have children. They just didn’t want any. The priest refused to marry them. He said the Church required a couple to “be open to accepting children” if God allowed them to get pregnant. This meant that an infertile couple could still be married in the Church because you never know, God might let them get pregnant even if they have been told they’re infertile. BUT the Church doesn’t accept a decision to never get pregnant. SO, having been honest with the priest (she could have lied) my friend left the RC church and became an Episcopalian. The Catholic Church’s objection to birth control is also linked to the idea that sex is for procreation only. Yes, it’s fun, but the PURPOSE is procreation. Pleasure is just the icing on the cake, and you must eat the cake.
Are you a cyclist? Cycling isn't a sport!
OK?
A marriage is a union between a woman and a man, whether they have children or not. Having children makes a marriage a family.
A group hug is the beast with n backs, so long as n is greater than 2.
And yet you subscribe to a news outlet owned and operated by two married lesbians with a child one of them conceived with the help of a sperm donor she didn’t have sex with.
The best comment here!
Thanks. The disconnect between what these subscribers do and what they say here quite often blows my mind. I mean, what a way to insult Bari and Nellie. If this is what you believe, why are you even reading TFP, much less paying for it. I just can’t wrap my head around it.
True
I completely agree with you.
That’s some medieval level judging.
Patris, you just referred to thousand years back practices earlier in the comments as something benevolent. How come “medieval” is deranged now?
Hardly a thousand - maybe as routine a century, the fact being that motherhood or parenthood - is not as narrowly defined as you claim. Demonstrably. There are women who have been unable to nurse who have close and loving ties to them.
My claim? And what was MY claim, Patris?
I’m not your enemy here.
Just stating facts and logical thinking.
?
Oh my God. I thought the Free Press was a refuge from the NYT but here I find I am isolated in a different way. My marriage and my parenthood are not "normal." Goodbye to this thread
I have no idea what NYT stands for. I love The Free Press because we can express ourselves freely, and discussion of all subjects can be interesting and respectful.
Pondering this a bit more, I am going to speculate that on the psychometric assessments oriented around the Big 5--Extroversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness--adult children of male homosexual couples probably would test higher on Neuroticism and lower on Conscientiousness en masse, and do so in statistically significant ways, controlled as well as possible for other variables.
In important respects, this COULD be a scientific question, but we all know the reality is that studies like that cannot be done in the current environment. Everyone is supposed to have the right to demand whatever they want whenever they want it and damn anyone who asks inconvenient questions. That's more or less the bluntly stated, literal truth.
I don't wish anyone ill. I simply reserve the right to honor the child as much as the parent in considering what is best for all, with Society writ large certainly part of "all", it being both the beneficiary of good ideas, and victim of bad ones.
That is an odd speculation. I don't see how you're 'honoring the child' by making bold unscientific, untested claims about the psychometric test results of children. You appear to be starting from a set position then working backwards.
I’m guessing, aren’t I? Would you agree it is POSSIBLE that having two gay men for parents—neither of whom obviously COULD be the biological mother— is less optimal than equally loving traditional parents?
What is the alternative? Scientific research? Not on this topic.
It's also "POSSIBLE" that two gay men is more optimal. I'm just guessing.
When someone does study this issue, they are attacked as Professor Regnerus at UT-Austin was: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/ut-austin-finishes-inquiry-same-sex-parenting-paper-no-wrongdoing
His study is fascinating because he asked the adult children raised in a home with same-sex relationships about their well-being.
You have cited one paper. And one 'attack'. That is not a strong basis for your claims.
Yet it is a starting point for debate. That's all it was meant to be.
And yet it is still stronger than the basis for your claims.
For myself, I care what is true. I don't really care what should be true.
I don't know you but your posted "speculations" are all working from the same premise, which suggests you care about defending that position, if only passively. And, no, one study is not a strong basis for these claims (not even FIRE expressed that position). And I do note that you jumped in to defend a piece of research when it aligned with your priors at the same time as claiming research on the topic cannot be done in 'the current environment'. I believe 'concern trolling' is the term.
I was raised by a female mother and a male father and I do not wish anyone to go through the hell I had to go through. It doesn't matter whether Your parents are of different genders or of one gender, all that counts is that they are loving parents and yes there are people who were raised by parents of the same gender who I can only envy. No matter what Your parents are You can be lucky or You can be without luck. Heterosexuals can make life a living hell for their kids as well as homosexuals can and both can also provide a caring loving home to give their kids a great start in life. It all depends on the individuals who are involved. Anything else is ideology or religious mumbo jumbo.
Perfect. And based on common sense. But people's prejudices obstruct their access to common sense
AMEN!!!!
I had horrible traditional parents, but having lived through it, I still feel that a child having traditional parents of a normally loving mother and a loving father will have the best chance of growing up normal and well adjusted adults.
I'm sorry for your having to go through that during childhood. I agree that the best situation is having 2 wonderfully loving parents of each gender etc. That ideal is often not available.
I love the author's story-and the idea of bringing new lives into this world as a redemption in a sense- for the lives lost in the AIDS crisis (I believe this is similar to the reasoning of Ultra-Orthodox Jews in having as many children as possible to make up for those lost in the holocaust.)
I think a lot of commenters are conflating the issue of Gay/Straight parenting (is it OK or objectionable?) w/ surrogacy. There is a lot to discuss on both these topics. I'm glad w/ have this forum to share opinions on.
I appreciate your thoughts, but you’re comparing apples to oranges. Orthodox Jews have a lot of children, not because of the Holocaust, but because it’s G-d’s word to multiply. It was intended to be by a man and a woman. I don’t think it’s morally right for two men to hire a woman to have a child, so that their need to be a father can be satisfied. I don’t think it’s fair to that newborn, searching for its mother’s breast to be denied. They’re even being denied health benefits.
I'm reminded to always avoid a false comparison fallacy, which leads me to agree with the spirit and tone of your post. We must compare best cases against best cases, not best cases to less than best cases. Nothing beats a traditional male husband - female wife traditionally moral pair of parents raising children in a best case community. Man and women are wonderfully different and complementary, and non-substitutionary. Daughters, especially, need devoted, affirming dads. Sons need civilizing moms. And so on. These ancient patterns are hard wired into our biology. Same sex unions cannot possibly replace the opposite sex influence organically -- they will need to include the opposite sex in their children's orbit, and the wise understand this. The obvious example, in this essay's case is who explains -- really explains female coming of age things physically. Dad's? Really? Fat chance. This is mom's business, best case.
Concomitantly, the best case same-sex parent pair is certainly better than the less than best case traditional male-female married pair. Again, avoiding the false comparison fallacy.
"I am going to be honest: I remain unconvinced that gay couples are equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to raising emotionally healthy children. I think kids ideally have 1) a female mother in their lives; 2) a biological father in their lives, both of whom care for them, model how to live for them, protect them, and teach them right from wrong."
Dave Rubin was asked about this the other day. (if memory serves) he admitted it was not the perfect situation, but there were female family/friends in their an the children's life.
If you look at the statistics you'll find that drastically increase the chances of that child ending up In poverty or in jail.
A boy learns how to treat women by watching his father. Girls look at the man to see how one cares for the family and makes her marriage choice accordingly. That's called modeling. I am not competent to explain the mother's influence on each gender, so I'll leave that to others.
Nailed it!
And boys & girls learn what from mothers?
And that's why we have so many wife-beaters and abusers and drunks. Not to mention divorces. Look at the statistics. Great models!
I don't really get your point. Are you saying that family structure has no bearing? Or are you saying that men are just naturally prone to be violent toward those they supposedly love?
💯 I’ll go even further to say that purposefully denying a child a mother or father is evil (don’t ban me Bari and Nellie.) It’s a selfish act...I want, I want. Then adopt. I’d be lost without my husband to help me parent our children. We balance each other. I can’t fathom two moms raising our son...he needs his DAD and vice versa for our daughters. I wish surrogacy were illegal. It’s not healthy for women or the children that are produced.
I’ve read most of the responses, but will say no more. I intended to communicate a coherent and defensible understanding and in my view succeeded.
You did well.
And were courageous in raising the matter.
"I thought the movie Birdcage was hilarious, but it also seemed obvious that one of their reasons their son wanted to marry so young was his profound confusion about nearly everything."
He was, what, 21 or 22? Not particularly young by historical standards, and the same age as the daughter in "Father of the Bride" (released five years previously).
"But two fathers, neither of whom is particularly masculine in any traditional sense, is to my mind not healthy."
What is your definition of masculinity?
I don't have issues with every single situation of same-sex couples raising kids. But I do think it's unethical to purposely create a baby with the intention that the baby will be taken away from the woman who gave birth to her.
(Edit: typo)
Considering the horror stories about foster care, state health services, homeless children, children in homes with violent and cruel parents, usually one male and one female, I cannot agree. I have the blessing, or curse, of knowing several same sex marriages, and couples, all of whom are compassionate, empathetic, decent people. The idea of limiting children's access to loving family and care, is abhorrent. Unsaint Finbar, your comment indicates some empathy and some degree of love, do you really believe your idea of perfection should be protected to the harm of other people? I believe your position requires some additional consideration. Surely, you cannot believe 'children' are able to 'speak for themselves'. It is very cynical to believe the prevailing attitude is "to hell with any children too young to speak for themselves"
These comments and (high numbers of likes) surprised me. I thought this was a great article. I remember the horrors of AIDS in SF. And, I had a beloved cousin die of AIDS. By writing this article, the author helped me understand the time in SF and what it felt like for the people experiencing it. I loved the picture of all the men -- free at last -- to live authentically, and then the tragedy of an epidemic that took that peace away so quickly.
There are definitely benefits to growing up with a male and a female parent. But, just this morning, I realized how hard is is to parent two teenage daughters that are determined to destroy me and wondering how to parent them with grace and boundaries. I think two non-perimenopausal men would be MUCH better at raising my two daughters for the next 5 years. And, I say that simply to underscore that there is no perfect way. I am so happy for the author, for his survival, and his creating a home of (presumably) love out of decades of inauthenticity, death and lonliness.
(And, let's be honest, many of us would have done the same thing if we were in his shoes and wanted to start a family). Cheers to you, sir!
A great reply. We are born as we are. I don't believe anyone chooses homosexuality. I have several close relatives who are homosexual both men and women. Some are living with HIV. One succumbed to the effects. I don't care what anyone does with their lives. That's their business. I maintain working friendships with more than one homosexual and am fine with them as they are. The caveat is if you tell me you're gay I might tell you you're delusional. Look at what the word means. Many homosexuals are maladjusted and destructive. These folks are not within a country mile of being defined as gay. Keep that information to yourself. I'm told by those that know me best that I have a terrible gaydar. That might be because I have a first cousin that I grew up very close to who is effete. A man who is a complete limp wrist yet is not a homosexual. I make no assumptions about anyone except in the most extremely obvious cases. Even then I'm nonplussed by their whatever. Live your life. Don't look for external approval. I'm glad the author has found joy. Since he's put his experience out here he's fair game. I think he's amazingly selfish and is doing those children a huge disservice. I hope I'm totally wrong.
If you are going to ask questions about the “healthfulness” of a family dynamic, I feel you’d best have even the smallest shred of evidence to back that up. It sounds like you are comparing the couple featured in this article to a 1950s fantasy. Are you saying children need mothers for biological reasons? As a staunch breastfeeding advocate, for example, even I can acknowledge how gaps linked to this area can be overcome with increased emphasis on other aspects of health. Are you saying that a masculine energy is necessary for child-rearing? How about when that energy turns violent? Maybe focus your concerns on less prejudiced social issues that affect families of all backgrounds - the ever decreasing emphasis on extended family relationships and child-rearing in close-knit, playful communities.
Gosh what this essay really needed was your stereotyped prejudice. I've known bad gay parents, good hetero parents, vice versa and all in between. I prefer to judge people on their own actions and words, not their group membership. This does lad me to the conclusion, based on your words, that your opinion is void.
Unsaint, mostly agree with your comment but would add one thing. The male influence is very important for young boys growing up. I think one of the reasons we have too many soy boys out there is because they’re being raised with only female role models in their lives.
This story has a messy end for me and its normalizing surrogacy. I know these tend to be well thought out planned scenario where there is payment for services. For me the payment doesn’t erase the need for scrutiny. Here women are once again being commodified for someone else’s pleasure. I know the reasoning suggests that both sides benefit. But for me this is not a logical extension of the gay lifestyle or even feminism . I am happy that they are able to have a good relationship with their kids. But i am not satisfied that this is a uniquely normalizing experience. Being well off cures a lot of ills and can be a blessing but at what price to women’s spaces. Is this all that far from transgendered athletes in women’s locker rooms. I am not saying this to upset anyone. It’s just how did we get here and is it a particularly benevolently way to live..as is suggested..by escaping our biology at the expense of women.
God designed men to lead families and provide material support and strength for families. God designed women to bear and nurture children and build a home that is safe and secure for their family. Together, everything is better. When those things work properly, the child has a wonderful environment to thrive. 5000 years of history is not wrong. These modern experiments toy with the long term future of the children. I don’t think it is good to live like this. It is an act of selfishness by the adults. What is marriage? Genesis 2:24-25.
Many folks here may disagree with my views, which are ancient. You can hold your own views. Don’t expect people to support these experimental lifestyles. We never will.
My neighbor was a lesbian couple with a 10 year old boy. I tried to help him and encourage him. I gave him a garden box to grow strawberries and vegetables in and provided the plants, fertilizer, and help. I had a rabbit hutch and converted it into a butterfly garden and we grew caterpillars and milkweed to feed them. We watched the crysalis grow and change, and watched the butterflies emerge. The little boy was my friend. His mom and the other lady were pleasant and I was very kind to them. Good neighbors. We didn’t agree on some things but we were very civil with each other.
I agree with your very well written post. Thanks for sharing.
That's great that you were in his life!
Thank you for being a male role model for him.
I’ll go further and replace God with Nature.
That is your opinion, fine. Yahweh created nature and continues to sustain it every single moment. YHWH controls the orbits of every individual quark in the universe simultanouesly. And when human beings discover something much smaller or much larger, they will discover that YHWH controls that as well.
I’m Catholic, I made that comment for the secular.
Please check out Stop Surrogacy Now, they also have a podcast called Venus Rising where they have interviewed former surrogates and children born to surrogacy.
Some of the stuff I have read about foreign surrogacy is chilling.
I wish this male couple all the happiness they can find - but I agree that surrogacy is not good. It is farming women. It doesn't matter to me whether the people paying women to produce a child for them are gay or straight. How is it good for women or children? Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
I am old enough to remember when gay men fought for the right to adopt and it made sense that kids needed someone... Now, increasingly, people cannot foster children if they are not on board with the Ideology surrounding a concept of "gender".
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/23/new-biden-rule-reveals-transgender-movements-endgame-no-dissenting-parents-allowed
Since you mentioned "transgendered" athletes I want to recommend a wonderful parody I watched called "Lady Ballers".
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30216176/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/1/lady-ballers-transgender-activists-not-laughing-at/
I wish all the best to the blended family of this article. But, what happens if they separate? Will they feel differently about the child genetically being of one of them - 50% and not of the other?
Surrogacy should be banned, it’s not legal in many counties. It’s exploitive.
That is a good point to bring up, knowing that there are so many kids in need of adoption and caregiving. No easy answers.... Beautiful story, though.
There's a 10/28/23 WSJ article called "What if Men Could Make Their Own Egg Cells?
Skin cells from male mice have been turned into mouse eggs and used to make baby mice. "Krisiloff, who is gay, says the technology, known as in vitro gametogenisis or IVG, could also help male couples have biological children without anyone else's genes".
"People will still have sex," says Hank Greely, a law professor and director of the Center for Law and Biosciences at Stanford University. "They just won't have sex to make babies as often."
I absolutely understand the desire to have one's own genetically related children, but at some point I think that if one cannot and does not like adoption it is best to enjoy being a lovely uncle. The intent of these scientists must be to plant a "male egg" into a woman. No doubt, the first experiments on humans won't go well. What of the woman and child? When it does work, is this good for women and children? There are so many risks to mother and child even when it is natural.
Again, lots of good reasons not to like surrogacy, but this has nothing to do with Ralph’s article.
It is a lovely article. But, surrogacy is being discussed because that is how they decided to create their family. So, I think it's fair.
I have such mixed feelings about this article. On one hand I’m thrilled that the author survived being HIV positive and found redemption and deep love through parenthood. Parenthood is a thoroughly transformative experience and it sounds like he’s a great, nurturing father. On the other hand, I am developing strong issues against surrogacy. I’ve known people on both sides and it went very well, but I can’t shake the feeling that women’s bodies should never ever be commodified. Donating an egg is extremely hard a woman’s body. In vitro fertilization is VERY hard on a woman’s body. The high risks and side effects for women are rarely discussed. Slowly, slowly, slowly, I’m coming to the view that surrogacy should never be used. Period. As wonderful and transformative the experience of parenting is, I don’t think anyone has the “right” to be a parent.
Having kids of my own turned me against surrogacy. I can't imagine paying someone to risk her own death just so I could have a baby. And even if everything goes well physically, it's still a major medical event for a woman's body.
That’s true and it’s even worse for her soul; unless she is doing it as a genuine altruistic act for her sister or brother.
States are doing this ALL THE TIME now that women are being forced to carry kids to term even at the risk to their own health. Voluntary surrogacy is leagues better than forced birth.
This is a sincere question. In which states is abortion currently banned completely, even in the event of the mother's risk of death? I researched this thoroughly after Dobbs, but I'm not sure of the current legislation. Thanks!
15 states (https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/a-review-of-exceptions-in-state-abortions-bans-implications-for-the-provision-of-abortion-services/) have no exception for fatal female anomalies, meaning women must carry to term even when the fetus / embryo has no chance of survival. Also, while many states technically have life of the mother exceptions, doctors are afraid to use them, as in a recent court case in Texas to this point. Additionally, OB/GYNs are leaving states with severe abortion restrictions/bans out of an abundance of caution.
I feel this... it’s a conversation I am hearing more frequently in women’s circles. There are serious consequences to these things and I’m not so sure we understand the full picture .. what is being lost.
Most people think it’s all unicorns and butterflies and don’t know the ugly facts of surrogacy.
It's interesting, though, how these high risk side effects never factor into states that ban abortion, which is statistically far safer than pregnancy. Pregnancy is VERY hard on a woman's body--not just in vitro fertilization.
I view this as a personal choice. No woman is forced to be a surrogate. Some may want to have children but don't want to raise those children. Some do it to help people they love. Gay people are not the only ones who use surrogates. Heterosexual couples who can't have children do also.
I strongly believe ever person has the right over their own body, and, other than abortion bans, this is generally respected in both society and law. For example, if my blood can save someone's life at zero harm to me, I still can't be forced by law to give it. I would, but no one can make me. If my corneas can help someone see, I can't be forced to donate them when I'm dead and they are of no use to me. The law protects my right to do what I choose with my body, even after death.
“No woman is forced to be a surrogate”
I would be very cautious about making such a statement.
We talk a lot about the mother, but what about the baby? I have a mix of biological and adopted children and removing an infant from its mother is traumatic and has life long consequences. The book " the Primal Wound" describes it well. Life happens and sometimes it is unavoidable that a child cannot remain with his or her mother, but to intentionally plan it seems callous and cruel to me.
Congratulation on fatherhood. We should have more children in this world. I live in an older neighborhood where home prices are comparatively lower and thus there are a lot more younger families than other pricey areas. There are always children riding bike on the street, shooting hoops, and sometime experiment with their limits. I also think neighborhoods with younger children seems to be more alive than the manicured ritzy neighborhoods that you never see anyone out about in the middle of the day.
This is a true yet quaint take on the existence and rearing of children.
“and my personal rule of needing to know the names of any sexual partners cast me as almost a prude.”
———————————————-
This reminds me of how Democrats assert that everything good and decent, like working hard and delaying gratification, is ‘White Supremacy’. It’s an astonishingly racist claim.
It’s almost like they are possessed by Satan and trying to destroy people because this makes them more powerful. And by ‘almost’ I mean precisely.
Do you think about anything other than Democrats? It must be exhausting to focus on them constantly.
I also think about Eastern European women and golf.
If it helps, when I say ‘Democrats’ I am also picturing the Republicans who compromise with them.
Kev, I haven't seen compro lucking around in the last few days. He's back today. I figure he wasn't here he was busy leading a pro-Palestinian riot at his university, Moron U and plotting to burn down a synagogue.
I can understand the about Eastern European women, I don't know anything about golf.
Compromise can be necessary to accomplish what's needed. Not of, course, going over the line to the other side.
150+ conservatives voted against the last of the pre-COVID Trump spending because it was excessive. If those same conservatives proposed returning to the excessive pre-COVID spending levels, which they opposed, that would be a huge compromise on their part and Democrats would immediately return the favor by calling them terrorist hostage takers who don’t want to govern and who are attacking women and children and the elderly and the vulnerable etc etc etc.
So yes, it is true that the abstract concept of ‘compromise’ can be good/necessary in some circumstances.
When you are dealing with evil dishonest perverts who are using extortionate tactics and fraud to bankrupt the country and destroy the lives of your children then obviously compromise is off the table because you’re just putting your prints on the murder weapon and enabling the worst sacks of shit on the planet.
Fauci was the evil party. He created the virus and then the vaccine to kill Americans. He belongs in a federal prison. And should be mandated to disgorge his evil fortune, blood money.
He was just the figurehead. He did not operate in a vaccuum.
Prison is too good for him.
No arguement about that, except the "the worst sacks of shit on the planet." Hamas and Putin get my vote for that.
These are the people who funded Hamas and staffed our permanent government with terrorist sympathizers and communists and their plan to overthrow the government of Russia in pursuit of a globalist eurotrash utopia run by UN people will create human suffering beyond anything Putin can dream of.
They are the worst sacks of shit on the planet.
You have to admit they provide great comedic material.
Especially in Kevin's hands.
In college, I knew PLENTY of straight men and women who also slept around. I'd say it is most common among gay men, followed by straight men with lesbians the least likely to do so.
What?????
Kinda why men need women, to civilize you guys when it comes to your sexual proclivities. You’re not rabbits.
But not as bad as "Black poll workers are stealing elections."
666
This is his dumbest most irrelevant post ever.
Why do you always reply 666 to Comp's posts? I just completely ignore him because I'm convinced he's a 12yo living in a basement.
I do it to piss him off.
How do you know it pisses him off? Because if it does then I may have to join in LOL
A couple of times he has addressed the 666 post so I figure it must bother him. He'll deny it of course.
Several people on this BBS click on like so it gives the sane some pleasure.
I'll get my negativity out of the way first - I have major ethical objections to surrogacy. You paid women to literally risk death so you could be the father to a baby, and I don't think that's something one can pay enough money for. Reading about Julia's C-section really struck hard with me, because I've had two. If Julia has another baby of her own and needs a C-section because she can't get a doctor to do a VBAC, are you going to pay for that? Did you pay for her to get help at a gym restrengthening her abdominal muscles? (Does she get so much as a nickel every time something presses hard against her incision and it hurts? Mine is five years old and it still happens.) I doubt that Julia, age 24 with two children, had a lot of money in the bank; I suspect that if she'd been expected to be a surrogate for free, she would have been gone in the blink of an eye.
Your daughter spent her time in the womb hearing Julia's voice and listening to Julia's heartbeat. Then you paid up and took her away from the person to whom she was most intimately bonded. All babies are a blessing, but not every way to create a baby is ethical.
Having said that, I was touched by your description of living "in the valley of the shadow of death" with HIV. My heart hurt for Terry - what a horrible family situation. I'm glad your health is about as good as it can be, and I wish you many happy years with your husband and children.
| You paid women to literally risk death so you could be the father to a baby |
States like Texas now require women to literally risk death to have babies and then the women get stuck with the bill and aren't even paid.
The absolute love of Life that Ralph has chosen to embrace made my day. Thank you.
Thank you for this magnificent story
Wonderful piece, Ralph. It moved me greatly.
This reminds me of a friends of mine in high school (early 70s) -- Duff P. -- who was openly gay at a time when doing so was not very popular. But Duff wasn't fazed. I didn't care. He was a good guy, a good friend, and I liked him immensely.
It was sad to learn in the early 80s that Duff had contracted HIV, and fought a good fight before he succumbed. I believe I might have been the only high school friend at his funeral.
Anyway, Ralph ... children need good fathers. Sounds like you're a great father.
Children are a blessing
and a gift from the Lord.
-Psalm 127:3
Every child has a mother and a father.
Two things can be equally true: TRUE: This is a beautiful story, and most readers I suspect are touched by the warmth of Ralph's zeal for life, and love for his children. He sounds like a great father and person. Also TRUE: All things being equal, it’s critically important for a child to be raised by a man and women. To ignore the benefits of having a male and female figure in one’s life, while growing up, is to deny the obvious.
I don't think you should assume there are no women in their children's lives. Mothers are not the only female figures that can influence children. Kids also have grandmothers, aunts, cousins, teachers, friends.
I'm an only child. (Which was fine with me, because I'm very introverted and have some sensory issues.) To me, saying that kids can get anything close to the experience of having a mother through knowing other influential women is like claiming that I could have had something close to the experience of having siblings by knowing other kids.
Edit: Which, to clarify, I did not.
Your assumption is that a mother is "motherly". Many biological mothers are not. Some children living in 2 (male/female) parent homes need to get maternal (or paternal) sustenance from extended family, school or neighbors.
What makes you think I assume that?
There are lots of great things that kids can get from adults other than their parents, but a kid’s grandma or teacher isn’t that kid’s mom.
Sorry for assuming. I still feel there are some kids who get more and better mothering from their grandma's, aunties, neighbors (and perhaps one of their dads!) than their biological mothers.
I have a friend who had a schizophrenic mom. She def. would have been better off w/ a number of more stable figures (of either gender!)
There are testimonials of adults reared by same-sex couples. They are not positive.
Some are positive and some are not. Like a lot of things in life.
Exactly. I know plenty of people who were raised by straight parents and didn't have positive results, either. Crass as it is to say, money seems to generally be the defining factor for kids to turn out well. Not that everyone needs to be wealthy to have kids, but at least a lower middle class income is needed otherwise the kids won't have the same opportunities (of course there are exceptions like in any case).
Dr. Mark Regnerus' research at UT-Austin, for example.
Wait... are you believing there are no females in the child’s life? There will be many role models.
What a sweet, heartfelt story. Thank you for sharing this.
"Redemption" is such an odd word here. Usually it involves an acknowledgement of past failings, and a determination to change - being redeemed or saved from evil, making the best of a terrible situation. But the author doesn't actually seem to have any regrets of his hedonistic past, and has continued in his self-centered ways, buying women's eggs and bodies, creating children to fulfill HIS need to have a biological connection to his offspring, while ignoring THEIR far greater need to have a biological mother. How can he not see how cruel it is to intentionally create a child who will endure that kind of loss? Lots of kids are born into less-than-ideal circumstances, but to go out of your way to ensure it via surrogacy seems to me a profoundly selfish act.
I agree Emily S.
The use of the word 'redemption' is jarring and potentially places a load on his children who have been acquired at great expense and scientific know-how to fulfill his need to be 'forgiven' for the errors of his past life. Not a great reason to have children.
A more redemptive act, perhaps, would have been to help, foster or adopt children from deprived homes needing second chances to make something of their lives.
A very beautiful story! I am happy for you and your family!
It amazes me, how far we/I have come in this regard from growing up in the fifties and sixties. Maybe seventies, eighties and nineties? Please excuse my reference to illustrate my point. Recess in elementary school oftentimes included playing "smear the queer". How wrong we were!
We played “smear the queer”. When my mom found out she went ape shit on my ass, thinking we were picking on other kids. As it turns out, it’s just a game of touch football where you are “the queer” if you have the ball. Once you’re tagged (smeared) you have to pass it to someone else. Nothing to do w homosexuality.
I understand the rules, but I think it’s a little disingenuous to claim that it had “nothing to do with homosexuality.” That’s like arguing, “Oh, it was called ‘grab the Yid,’ but it had absolutely NOTHING to do with Judaism.”
This story brought a tear to my eye x