Subscribe via RSS Feed

Is This Love? Surrogates, Same-Sex Couples, and Motherless Babies

July 22, AD2014 191 Comments

The story of two homosexual men in Texas who became fathers of twin boys via a surrogate appeared in my Facebook feed a couple of weeks ago, posted by a woman voicing her support for the men and her anger over their legal predicament.

Each man is the biological father of one twin, and each wants to legally adopt the biological son of the other. Because Texas does not recognize same-sex “marriage”, the law will not allow the adoption or for the birth certificates to reflect the two fathers as parents of both boys.

So began the cry of discrimination toward these men, and the injustice of the law.

I decided to jump in with quite the opposite perspective. I wasn’t expecting my comments to be well-received, but even so, I was stunned at how the thread developed.

What was truly maddening, I said, was that two babies had been manufactured and sold, and now were being denied their mother. It is wrong, I argued, to create by design a home for those babies that intentionally deprives them of their mother. They have a right to know and be cared for by their mother.

I went even further and said that what the two men had done was not love. The adults have gotten what they wanted, but the babies have not been given what they need nor what they deserve and are truly entitled to, which is their mother. Whatever emotions or longings motivated the decision to conceive the babies, it was not love.

For that, I got the usual: Hateful, judgmental, critical, heartless bigot. No surprise. I was also informed that what I really meant was that homosexuals are not even capable of love.

The only moral outrage to be found was that two homosexual men were being prevented from legally adopting the other’s child. Not one other person in the thread was the least bit concerned about two babies being purposely denied their mother. The boys will have two dads, and that’s good enough.

I don’t think it is. Not at all. Not even close.

I couldn’t believe I was actually having to argue for the necessity of a mother in a child’s life! How is it that we’ve convinced ourselves that mothers are not really needed beyond giving birth? How can we seriously believe that children do not require a mother? Yet that was the argument. The boys have two dads, so they’ll be just fine. They are lucky to be so wanted, so loved. Lucky?!?

To be so loved…Except that love doesn’t do that. Love doesn’t amputate the mother from the baby’s life immediately after birth in order to accommodate the sexual preferences of the adult. Love doesn’t require the child to sacrifice for the lifestyle of the adult. Love does not tell the child, “You don’t really need a mother. You don’t get to have your mother.” Love does not presume that the child won’t feel the loss, and won’t suffer because of it.

“Love wills the good of the other,” I said. (Actually, St. Thomas Aquinas said.) “Love puts the other first. None of the adults involved in creating these babies put them first.”

Sound harsh? It should. I think it’s pretty harsh that kids are being made to order, to satisfy the wants of specialty couples who think it’s their prerogative to deprive a child of either mother or father, depending on their own sexual inclination. It’s extremely harsh that children are being required to forfeit their natural, healthy, undeniable need for both parents, mother AND father.

Frankly, it isn’t good enough that children are “wanted.” That’s the lingo and the philosophy of our contraception and abortion culture. ‘Every child a wanted child,’ and all that bull. That just means that children are things we acquire when we want to, and dispose of when we don’t want them. It’s centered only on the desires of the adults, without regard for the inherent worth of the child or his inviolable rights.

That’s not love. That’s not how children are to be treated. Wanting a child isn’t the standard. Clearly, these two men wanted a baby. They went to the trouble and expense to find a surrogate, and manufacture some embryos, and they were blessed with two healthy boys. They got what they wanted.

The real mother in Solomon’s court proved her love and her authenticity by choosing to suffer the pain of losing her baby, rather than let any harm come to him. She sought his good over her own, fully expecting terrible heartache for herself. That’s how love wills the good of the other.

Anyone truly devoted to the good of a child will not create by design a motherless or fatherless home for that child. Doing so causes great harm. And we’re not talking about harm brought about by unavoidable, unforeseen tragedy. This is planned and inflicted on purpose.

What about their mother? She’s not a victim here. In fact, she may not even be only one person! She’s what is now being called a “gestational carrier” and she may be carrying an embryo(s) created with a donor egg(s). Ugh — can we possibly find a more degrading way to treat a woman? The battle for equality for women has led us to this? Women being used for their wombs and their biological functions?

That’s the best case we can make for motherhood anymore? It’s just the physical process of gestation and childbirth? But beyond that, well, moms aren’t really necessary? How horrifying! And how ironic — decades ago the fight was to be valued for more than only mothering; now the battle has to be for the irreplaceable, pricelessness of a mother!

Assuming the mother is even mentioned on the child’s birth certificate, how will she be named? “Donor egg, incubated and grown by gestational carrier”? She’s nameless, faceless, and entirely missing.

And of course, the one who suffers the most is the child. Always the child. The child is ordered up, the product of a contract, bought and sold, and delivered like a piece of property. But it’s all dressed up in the language of wants and wishes and emotions, with a lovely baby shower and breathless oohs and ahhs, so surely it’s all wonderful.

No one is entitled to a child. Even married couples are not entitled to children. They have no right to expect that they will be given the gift of a child. They pray for children, and remain open to them in their marriage, but there’s no entitlement. You don’t walk up to the Giver of Life and insist He give you what you want. You don’t demand a gift. It’s a gift.

Children are the fruit of marriage for a reason. It’s God’s wise and perfect design that the love of husband and wife is ordered toward the creation of new life. He certainly could have designed it differently, but He obviously felt that both mother and father are necessary, and that children require the presence of both their parents.

The increasing frequency of babies being manufactured through surrogacy and then delivered to same-sex couples is alarming and heartbreaking. I can think of nothing more selfish than for adults to deliberately deprive a child they claim to love of her fundamental need and genuine right to be raised by her own mother and father because their sexual preference precludes it. It is a perversion of the family unit. It’s an injustice to the child.

Take a look at this photo.

toronto dads It shows a homosexual couple in Toronto as the son they’d had conceived through surrogacy was born. This beautiful little boy will also be denied his mother. The photographer captured the moment the two men held the baby to their bare chests.

Yes, I can clearly see the raw emotion, the tears, the joy of the father holding the baby. I do not doubt that he was overwhelmed with love in that precious moment. It is plainly obvious.

Now look at this photo.

baby Milo born to gay coupleI recognize something crucial in this picture, something else that is plainly obvious. That baby was searching for his mother. A newborn baby has only one real need, and that is to be put to mother’s breast and smell and feel her skin and suckle. That’s it. Sorry, guys, but that’s reality. Babies are born with a built-in homing device that drives them toward Mom.

I saw the baby’s face, and my heart ached and broke for him. He wanted his mother. No baby would gladly do without his mother.

Fathers are not mothers, and mothers are not fathers. They are not interchangeable. They are both essential for the well-being of a child, far beyond pregnancy and birth. That’s not just idealistic or old-fashioned dreaming. It’s common-sense reality; it’s moral truth; it’s natural law; it’s justice.

But it requires thinking, not merely acting on feelings. It requires considering the needs of another ahead of your own sometimes. It requires sacrificing what you may want in order to give the other what is truly right and just.

Our culture is so obsessed with making the case for same-sex “marriage” that now, astonishingly, sane people have to actually make the case for mothers and fathers.  We’ve elevated sexual activity and preferences high above the needs of our children. Whatever else you may call it, it’s not love.

About the Author:

Jennifer Hartline is grateful to be Catholic, and becoming more grateful by the day. She's a proud Army wife and homeschooling mother of three children. #4 coming soon! She runs on dark chocolate and mochas (better yet, dark chocolate mochas), loves to bake, and remains fairly stunned that she gets to write for awesome Catholic websites like Catholic Online and Catholic Stand. Only by the grace of God! She is a present-day abolitionist, praying (and writing loudly) for the day when we will abolish the evil of abortion in our nation and protect the child in the womb. She knows that the only thing that will save Western civilization from utter implosion is the Catholic Church. She and her husband and crew make their home wherever the Army sends them. You can visit Jennifer at her blog, Wake Up, Deborah! Now, go get some chocolate.

If you enjoyed this essay, subscribe below to receive a daily digest of all our essays.

Thank you for supporting us!

  • Shari Loback

    Once again, it is only about what the adults want and not what the baby needs. It is a selfish world and getting worse by the minute.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, because of people like you.

  • James

    Fantastic piece.

  • Pingback: ESPN Blasts Team Hiring Traditional Marriage Supporter - BigPulpit.com

  • Jessica

    I started a debate and I think lost a friend over reposting this article, but some one has got to say it…and I refuse to be steamrolled by this movement of “love.”

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      Your response is less loving than these men. And your friend was probably upset to realize that (s)he was friends with someone who operated with such prejudice.

    • RocketRodCub

      Your response proves the point of the article. You are guilty of reverse bigotry. And usually reverse bigotry is the most pompous bigotry, while being both unloving and unrecognizable by the practitioner. Does a newborn baby both need and want its mother? I don’t think you can answer that question without personal prejudicial motivations. And that is reverse bigotry. You are also guilty of judging Jessica but that is another irony that is blindly overlooked in your post.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      Because I don’t agree with you doesn’t make me bigoted. Because I look at the findings of all research (as opposed to indoctrinated but unfounded teachings) does not make me bigoted. I am not bigoted against Jessica because I DIDN’T WRITE AN ARTICLE PUTTING DOWN HER FAMILY. She did, unprompted, write and article putting down MY family. If a white person lynches a black person, they are racist. If a black person hates the white person for doing it, they aren’t racist, they are targeted. By the way, notice that only one of us has the courage to post our thoughts and comments under our actual name, so you may ask yourself why you’re doing that as well.

    • asmondius

      Homosexuality is not a race or gender.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      But it is scientifically proven to be a genetic variant, which, like race or gender, makes a person genetically different than the ruling majority. Sorry to get all sciency on you.

    • asmondius

      Knowing the difference between right and wrong is indeed prejudicial.

  • steverdb

    An absolutely powerful and true opinion piece. Thank-you for sharing it!!!!

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      Opinion pieces, by definition, cannot be “true.”

    • steverdb

      Opinion pieces don’t necessarily offer specific facts and or sources for those facts. This doesn’t automatically relegate them true or false but open to further scrutiny. They are generally a subjective opinion on a subject and that opinion can be unverifiable (emotion) or it can be based on a presupposition that can be investigated and either confirmed or dismissed. I agree with what is stated.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      Well, except in this case several scientific studies have been done on the effectiveness of same-sex parenting and all (except for the one from University of Texas which has been discounted by EVERY major health and wellness organization for biased research tactics) have found that same-sex parents are as effective as opposite-sex parents. You are welcome to agree with this article, but according to EVERYONE WHO HAS STUDIED IT, you are wrong.

    • asmondius

      ‘EVERYONE WHO HAS STUDIED IT’

      =

      fits in an elevator

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      @asmondius You might want to Google things before you type them. It would be an enormous elevator.

  • William

    Wow, look at the baby’s face. I agree, he/she was looking at the other man, as if to ask “are you my mother, please speak and let me hear your voice, I know my mother’s voice”

  • Jonas

    I can see where this is coming from, but I don’t entirely agree.
    First of all, single parent families can raise amazing children who have good lives. Although this isn’t an ideal situation, children can have a good life without a mother or a father.
    The next thing that I think should be pointed out is that those children would not have been born had the mother not been hired for this. The mothers are probably not in a position to raise a child if they were willing to give up those babies to their fathers, and had the babies not been the result of surrogacy they may have been given for adoption or aborted (I know that is merely speculation).
    Lastly, heterosexual couples choose when to “make” a baby often, by observing the woman’s cycles., and the church finds no problem with this.

    • Guest

      To the first statement, yes, children can have a fine life without a mother or a father. But to as why you would openly choose that is being unfair to your child. If you had the choice, wouldn’t you want to give them both?

      The comment on when heterosexual couples ‘choose’ to make a baby is a little off and misguided. Couples have a time frame of when it’s best to conceive a baby, but it doesn’t mean that they’ll actually become pregnant. They go about natural methods of when to do this and it’s based on virtue (meaning they’re not just using each others bodies and they give more meaning to their marriage). However, like anything, it can be used for harm. If a couple is avoiding children there should be serious reasons as to why like health, finance, etc because the sacrament of Marriage must be open to having children. That’s basically what it is designed for.

      This is a good article to address that comment more in depth if anyone would like to read it: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/sexuality-contraception/birth-control-and-nfp-whats-the-difference/

    • Jonas

      @another guest… That is a good point that you have made, and the article you pointed me to also made a good point. I am not personally a Catholic and disagree with some of the teachings, and so although I found the article to make a good distinction I find no moral problem with either.
      And in answer to your rhetorical question of wanting to give a child both types of parents, in my opinion these children would not have either had the men decided to not use another person’s womb to have a child. In other words there was the option of not being born or only having fathers for those children. I think that is overly simplifying it, but I can’t think of another way to express my thoughts.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Jonas, as to your last sentence there, please tell me you can understand the difference between a natural conception resulting from marital intercourse between husband and wife, and manufacturing babies with donor embryos, in a lab and petri dish, and then using a borrowed womb.

    • Jonas

      @Jennifer Hartline-yes I can see the difference, I just found that the article has a very strong sentiment, without much evidence to back it up. It doesn’t really use the Bible as a reference and also doesn’t have much hard data. It appeals (very strongly and arguably correctly) to emotions, and so I hoped to use some (flawed) analogies to back up what I thought. I don’t do very well with appealing to emotion, so that is all I had.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Jonas, I have to disagree that the article appeals to emotions. It is the natural law that children need and are entitled to BOTH parents. It is simply the observable, completely knowable moral and natural law, and has nothing to do with mere feelings. At least not the feelings of the adults. I’m much more concerned with the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of the children, who are given no choice and no voice.

      People of reason and sound logic — who are not basing their decisions on emotions — do not need studies or committees to tell them that children need both their mother and father, and that to deliberately deprive a child of one parent simply because of someone’s sexual inclinations is the height of selfishness and abuse. Such an action satisfies only the wants and feelings of the adults while ignoring and dismissing the genuine needs of the child.

    • Nick

      Jennifer. You are indeed basing your decision on your emotions. All data that has purported to show children need both a mother and father in order to live harmoniously was assessed by comparing children being raised by a mother and father to children raised by SINGLE parents, not same-sex parents. Your genitals do not make you a parent — your dedication to your child does. Every major academy of science and child welfare: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and the Canadian Psychological Association all unanimously agree that children raised by parents of the same-sex are at no disadvantage to parents raised by opposite-sex couples.

      But you don’t need “studies or committees” to see what is painfully clear? When you look at the empirical data and still say you are still using “reason and sound logic” to decide that same-sex couples should not raise children, that doesn’t make sound or reasonable sense. You are completely being guided by your feelings and religious convictions, not reason and sound logic. Which is fine, but don’t cloak your FEELINGS under the false shroud of sanity.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      No, Nick, I am basing my decision on the Natural law. Two men cannot make a baby together. Two women cannot make a baby together. Male and female are both required. Mothers and fathers are both necessary for the well-being of children. If our sex-obsessed, immoral, politically-correct culture stands up and screams that same-sex “marriage” is real marriage, and kids raised by same-sex parents have no disadvantage whatsoever, and mothers aren’t really needed, and fathers aren’t really needed, and the kids will be just fine, it does not alter the truth one iota. The people operating on emotions here are the adults who insist that what they want is more important than what children need. The “rights” of the adults are sacrosanct, but the genuine rights of children? Who cares?

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      Sometimes one man and one woman can’t make a baby together. Are you against adoption in general? I mean, that’s actually rather Darwinian.

    • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

      Nick, you are defending your opinion with appeal to authoritative sources, and claiming that they have “data” to show that “children raised by parents of the same-sex are at no disadvantage to parents raised by opposite-sex couples.”

      And you are criticizing Jennifer for appealing to emotion when she says that it is a fact two men cannot make a baby.

      Can you explain, then, how the studies you cite are not appealing to any emotion or feeling?

    • Nick

      Stacy, I’m saying that I am not relying on my personal thoughts and emotions, but on the beliefs of experts in the field of child welfare. If we just say to hell with science and expertise when it is this unanimous in favor of an author’s belief on “natural law”, then I don’t think there’s a discussion to be had here.

      Jessica, why did you have children? Because you WANTED them. How would you feel if people criticized army families for having children when their husband will be absent for potentially years at a time and perhaps even in danger of being taken from them? I don’t think you and your husband are bad people at all for having children, even though the army life is not necessarily the most ideal for children (constant moving, absence of a parent, added stress on the parent who is present), I just think it’s important to be mindful before we throw stones from inside a glass house.

      Additionally, I would really like you to answer my other question: “Just out of curiosity, I wonder how the author would feel about same-sex couples jointly adopting children from orphanages.”

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Nick, I assume you’re talking to me (who’s Jessica?), so here’s the thing. Yes, my husband and I wanted children. That does not mean we were guaranteed to have them, or that we were entitled to them, or that we had any “right” to expect them. We were (are) open to life in our marriage, and we waited to see what God had in mind. We received our children as gifts. God is the giver and the creator of life.

      Wanting a child is simply not enough. Children are not accessories to our lives. They are not commodities. They do not belong to us, and we have no right to order them up on demand.

      There simply is no legitimate comparison between an Army family having children, and children being manufactured, bought, and sold to same-sex couples, deliberately denying the child either mother or father solely because of the “parents” sexual inclinations.

    • Nick

      Jennifer, I apologize for the name slip.

      Just because some parents have to pay in order to raise children, either through fertility treatments, adoption, surrogacy, etc. does not mean those individuals love their children any less than you love yours — get off your moral high ground and recognize your privilege.

      YOU ARE NOT THE MADONNA! God did not put those children into your womb, you and your husband had unprotected sex and got pregnant. You WANTED children, otherwise you wouldn’t have had sex or gotten married. Duh.

      Additionally, I am directing this to you personally. Get your shit together. You need to take a long hard look at the difficult situation you are putting your children through. Your husband’s work schedule is not conducive to fatherhood, and I would bet rarely sees his children (particularly if he does tours overseas). You have left YOUR children fatherless. I hope this keeps you up late at night. I hope you and your husband realize what an unnecessary emotional burden you have placed on your children by PURPOSEFULLY conceiving them when you knew their father would be unavailable to them and that they would be moved around so unceremoniously. I would bet this article was written primarily because of the guilt you feel everyday of robbing your children of normal life with a father. Revel in that guilt, may it haunt you always because of the muck that is in your heart. You do not love your children. You wanted them to show off and entertain you while your husband is away. You wanted to trap his so that he would not leave you for someone he met overseas.

      There is no sign of Christ in you. I hope he finds you for your children’s sake.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Watch out guys, we got a Sigmund Freud over here! Nick, calm the heck down, so you can’t have arguments with reason & logic? You have to revert to personal attacks? Nice. Since you seem to be playing Freud, let me play your game & say you’re angry at the Church because her holy teachings say we can’t do whatever the heck we want with sex (like disregarding nature) & babies (like killing them) so you’re pathetically Projecting your own angry feelings & guilt onto Jennifer through the Internet. Quit wasting your time with anger in the Internet, Nick. Read good books, learn more about Catholicism, live a little. Get out of your mom’s basement computer once in a while. Army families have absolutely nothing to do with Surrogacy & IVF. You should be thanking Army servicemen & their Army families (even the First Lady Obama has enough sense to do so). Get off your high horse, Nick, we can judge situations, actions & ideas But NEVER people. Only Christ is judge. Here, Nick, such as in your last sentence, you’re being a judge of others (instead of letting Christ our Lord be the Judge). It’s not good, man. Take some time off please

    • Nick2

      You and Jennifer are NOT attacking “situations, actions & ideas”, you are attacking people. If you are going to dish you better be willing to take it back. What you are spewing is personal — just as personal as my earlier sentiment. Your statements are so hypocritical — you are saying that only Christ can be a judge, yet this author and you are spewing some of the most judgmental sludge I have ever seen. What you are saying is an attack on every LGBT and allied person – me. You can bet I’m going to fight back. If I wrote an entire blog entry about how service families shouldn’t be able to raise families, would I expect Julie to sit back and take it? No! Because it’s not true, although the two (military families and same-sex parenting) are nearly identical in their circumstances.

      I don’t think that IVF and surrogacy are wrong — so you can keep posting that, but it means nothing to me.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Nick2, I was just using your game rules. You’re the one who responded to this article with personal attacks. Did you even read it? Instead of using logic & reason to make arguments, you resort to Ad Hominem & other fallacies & raw emotions. I don’t know whose mind you’re trying to change but it ain’t working. You do absolutely no service to the LGTB community, Nick2. I’ll pray for you & I shall waste no time reading your name-calling, non-sensical, hysterical comments. When you want to talk using logic & sound reasoning, let me know. Peace of Christ (which the world cannot give) be with you. PS- surrogacy & IVF remain morally wrong whether you like it or not. It’s not all about you, mister. The world does not revolve around you (shucks); the faster you learn it, the better your life will be.

    • Nick3

      Yeah, well, dude, you do no service to the Catholic community, which in all actuality needs more support than the LGBT community. Good luck, bud.

    • mary york

      Folks. Everyone is focused on the baby and the fathers here….why does nobody see the terrible evil of paying for the use of someone’s body and eggs (the surrogate and egg supplier) (I refuse to use the word “donor” as it is not a “donation” because there was a commercial transaction)? This is far worse than prostitution. It is so anti-woman that I cannot imagine how any progressive thinker could support it. This is exploitation in the extreme.

      Also, biology matters. People have a right to be raised by their biological mother and father unless tragic circumstances make that impossible. In this case, these children are PURPOSEFULLY being separated from their mother and father. This is an OUTRAGE.

    • Marlon

      You only say that because you have children and heterosexual. You would not say that otherwise.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      Because studies based in scientific, studied, unbiased, proven facts are not emotionally based. Jennifer has no scientific data to back up her arguments. That’s how it’s different.

    • fredx2

      Jonas – It has been my experience that when loads of “organizations” are trotted out to support an idea, that idea is usually rubbish. For example, in the global warming debate, they constantly trot out support for global warming by the NSF, various UN agencies etc. Organizations are not a substitute for science. If you have to argue based on how many organizations have approved something, it is a sign of weakness, not strength.

      Also, the social sciences are hopelessly mired in political correctness right now. If your science supports political correctness, it is allowed to flourish. If it challenges political correctness, they burn you at the stake, so to speak. Take a look at Jonathan Haidt’s experiences when addressing a large psychological association meeting. He found that out of about 1000 people at the meeting, only 3 were conservative.
      The bias in social science is very deep and destructive.

      Of those supposed studies that prove same sex marriages are the same, they only used small sample sizes, they used self selected participants etc. In other words, they are junk science, only allowed to exist because it reinforces a political movement.

      Organizations are inherently political organizations. They are easy to sway. It is now coming out that the American Psychological Asssociation only changed its mind about homosexuality as a disorder because of political pressure. Not because of science.

    • Catherine B

      “It has been my experience that when loads of “organizations” are trotted out to support an idea, that idea is usually rubbish.For example, in the global warming debate, they constantly trot out support for global warming by the NSF, various UN agencies etc. Organizations are not a substitute for science. And now we understand there has been no warming at all in the least 17 years, and the whole bizarre edifice of global warming is starting to fall apart.”

      I know this is off topic from article, but as a climate scholar (Masters degree and working towards PhD), I would like to point out that everything in the above statement is false. Pretty much every single word. The one concession I can make is that (all) organizations are not a substitute for science, but the National Science Foundation was a silly example for you to use there, because science is what they do, at that’s it. Claim that political groups in the UN are arbitrary all you want, but those organizations are also informed by scientific articles and journals. They cite their sources, so you can see that for yourself. I could also point you to some wonderful academic journals or specific articles, if you would prefer, but I don’t know how much good it will do if you take citing scientific sources as a sign that people are on the defensive.

      Back on topic, the sources and arguments that Nick make are logical, well-informed (go to those sites and read the studies they base their findings on! These are not organizations for gay-rights advocacy, people! These are groups that watch out for child welfare. They have no incentive to use false studies), and calm. Jennifer has also been calm and consistent in her responses, although has not provided any evidence for her opinion other than Natural Law, which, okay, gay couples cannot have kids naturally, but do you agree with heterosexual couples using fertility clinics (if you have already answered this question, I apologize)? Also, what about gay couples who adopt from an orphanage but do not “manufacture” their kids? Also, is this not a moot point in this case? The boys have been born and now it needs to be decided how they can live the best life possible. With a mother that doesnt want them or with two loving fathers? I think the choice is pretty clear myself…

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      Well, if that’s your logic then I guess that you must be right. Why would I possibly trust reasoned,trained, educated professionals who have dedicated years to the practice and study of their fields when I can take the word of a man that isn’t even posting under his real name. Liberals aren’t bad, we’re just nice to people and accept that our experiences aren’t the ONLY experiences or the RIGHT experiences. Now before you point out that I am a “reverse bigot” on this topic, please remember that I DIDN’T WRITE AN UNPROMPTED ARTICLE ATTACKING A FAMILY THAT IS NOT MINE AND THAT I AM IN NO WAY IMPACTED BY.

    • jerrod

      Are you kidding me? It is not emotion to say that a child has a natural need for their natural parents. You think that just because a child raised without both parents can turn out fine means that they weren’t missing a huge part of their life growing up? Just because you hear an occasional success story of someone who turned out fine without a parent doesn’t mean they went through a personal hell as a child, or even as an adult. NEEDING a parent means that there is something in a child that can only be mentally and emotionally satisfied by the biological parent. To deny that is completely illogical and unreasonable. My parents split up when I was almost 4 years old. Do you think I ran to any man I could to try to find a father? I wanted my biological father. And every man my mom ever dated I despised. I also see the same affects on my nephew, who never gets to see his father. So, if you want facts, I was once the little boy who had his father taken away, that was completely destroyed as a child. You are the person who is saying that there is nothing wrong with that. I still remember the emotions and torment I had as a child, and for you to say that that pain is justified, is completely inhumane, and quite devilish.

    • duh

      It seems like your difficulties because you come from a broken home. I don’t think single parent homes can be compared to having two parents of the same-sex.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      Unless you were raised by same-sex parents you really have no idea what they have been through. But I’m glad that you think you do. I’m sure that your judgement of families that are not yours makes Jesus proud. Why can nobody on here see the hypocrisy of your words?

    • SC

      “People of reason and sound logic — who are not basing their decisions on emotions — do not need studies or committees to tell them that children need both their mother and father”

      People of reason and sound logic — who are not basing their decision on emotions are also not afraid of studies or committees that state that the gender of the parent is far, far less important to socio-emotional, cognitive psychological, etc. growth than the quality of the parenting and home environment provided by these parents. (Which by the way, has been shown repeatedly. See psychologist Michael Lamb’s page for a list). I personally think that the ideal home is a Christian mother and father wholly dedicated to the children in their care (hopefully adopted as well as biological), but think of all the children taken out of heterosexual, Christian, married couples’ homes for abuse and neglect. And then consider the children flourishing in the loving care of single parents, relatives, or even same-gender couples. This is not merely an issue of gender or what you call “natural law” (which is actually culturally constructed…), it is an issue of what quality of care can be provided by a given parent or set of parents. I think it is safe to say that a child is put first when the quality of the home is considered above the gender, marital status, or sexual orientation of the parents.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Jonas, I have to disagree that the article appeals to emotions. It is the natural law that children need and are entitled to BOTH parents. It is simply the observable, completely knowable moral and natural law, and has nothing to do with mere feelings. At least not the feelings of the adults. I’m much more concerned with the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of the children, who are given no choice and no voice.

      People of reason and sound logic — who are not basing their decisions on emotions — do not need studies or committees to tell them that children need both their mother and father, and that to deliberately deprive a child of one parent simply because of someone’s sexual inclinations is the height of selfishness and abuse. Such an action satisfies only the wants and feelings of the adults while ignoring and dismissing the genuine needs of the child.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      @jenniferhartline:disqus my question is, “Who asked for your opinion, and why on Earth do you think that it’s valid?” And before you start spewing tepid lines like “That’s reverse bigotry,” please remember that I did not write an unprompted article attacking YOUR family. Simply by the act of writing this article, you became the aggressor in this situation, and your opinions (which are based in no scientific fact, in fact, they go AGAINST all scientific findings) are not asked for or merited when discussing other people’s families.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Um, surrogacy (like IVF & other morally wrong Artificial birth methods developed in science laboratories) involves conceiving multiple “embryos” (unique human lives) from which the genetically preferred embryo is chosen (by the lab technician, following the “parents’ preferences- like blue eyes) & guess what happens to the other unwanted embryos in the Petri dishes & test tubes? Either they’re destroyed or frozen. Jonas, don’t fall for these immoral artificial methods (that destroy unique human lives with unique human DNA). They essentially created a Build a Bear, but instead of stuffed bears it’s human life that’s being messed with. Jonas, please read the beginning of “Brave New World” by Huxley (written in the ’50s as a futuristic book) & see how his prediction of babies being born in or by test tubes & labs (instead of completely by natural means of man & woman in a mother’s womb) has become reality. Also, check out what happens to birth in Krypton on the new “Man of Steel” superman movie. Jennifer Hartline, thank you for article, I will save it & share it with others every time the issue comes up.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      Um, no it doesn’t. Surrogacy generally includes one or two embryos. But, I’m sure that you knew that based on research before posting.

    • ME

      The problem I see with the hypothetical questions you are asking about the role of the surrogate… Surrogacy or in vitro fertilization creates a child as a commodity. We are seeing more of the damaging consequences to children as these practices become more common. Children should never be available to those who wish to buy them. And yes, paying someone for the use of their eggs, sperm or womb to manufacture a child is a process. It is not natural, and is not fair to the child that will not be able in many cases even to know who their real parents are. There are lots of consequences that people don’t think of, until they have to deal with the situations… (how to properly care for their “frozen” children.) The extra fertilized eggs that are kept in cryopreservation is just one example. How is that respecting the dignity of that child by keeping them in a freezer for months/years in hopes that some day they may be “needed” or “wanted.”

  • Nancy

    Wow! This article really tugged at my heart!

  • Nick

    Just out of curiosity, I wonder how the author would feel about same-sex couples jointly adopting children from orphanages.

    • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

      I’ll answer. It would depend on whether or not there were married mother and father couples wanting to adopt.

      Your turn.

      All other things being equal, would you put a child with two women or two men if a married mother and father were willing to care for the child instead?

    • Nick

      Would I? If they were both equally fit homes? I would say they need to go to whomever was first in line… because they’re equal as you point out…

    • Guest

      No matter what is available we do not support moral evil.

    • Andy Edwards

      Out of curiosity, Stacy, which would make you feel more sad? Seeing a homosexual couple raise a child all the way to adulthood, paying for their child to go to college, or seeing a heterosexual couple who are drug addicts have a child and fail to support it financially?

    • Guest

      The Church, and all people of good will, are against such evil things.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      Says the person who won’t even post under his/her real name. Judgement is suddenly okay simply because it’s veiled by the anonymity of the internet.

  • Trish

    Sounds like a stay-at-home mom who really thinks highly of her role wrote this. Get a job!

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Judgemental much? You have something against stay-at-home mothers? Hater. I think you’re just jealous that your “man” can’t afford to provide the same to you or doesn’t have the smarts. I came from a poor lower middle class family with numerous siblings but my father although he was paid little was smart enough to manage what little money he made in a way that he didn’t need my mother to go looking for secular jobs, thus allowing her to do the best yet hardest & unpaid job: being a mother. Trish, your tiresome vitriol sounds of one who is jealous & has little life experience. I don’t know your circumstances but I know that you’re jealous. As a man, I wish we had fewer “day cares” (expensive places) & more mothers who actually mother.

    • Trish

      I am a stay-at-home mom. I’m just saying that this woman thinks VERY highly of her role as mother. So much so, she feels the need to belittle gays and lesbians who decide they want to raise kids — suggesting that they do not really love their kids. There is no magical joo joo that comes from being a mom. Some of the moms of the kids my kid goes to school with is are TERRIBLE mothers, and would probably do better in home like one of those pictured above. I don’t understand why most of the people here are asserting that there needs to be both a mother and father, like that is somehow way better than having two fathers or two mothers. If a straight couple did this because the woman was infertile would we say the same thing? Or is there something magical that happens from male and female influence? What if someone has a “masculine” mother or a “feminine” father — are those kids being raised in substandard conditions?

      While I agree it would make much more sense for these couples to adopt a child as opposed to going through the Herculian cost of in-vitro, I don’t think you can say that they are ruining these kids.

      Homosexuality is a victimless crime. so we can only assume that God wants us to kill gay people because God hates fags.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Trish, frankly your cynical, outrageous remarks should never see the light of day. Take your pathetic and evil “God hates fags” crap over to the Westboro Baptist loons. They’d love to have you join them. But don’t you dare dump that garbage here on a Catholic website and imply that that’s how Catholics feel or think or teach.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Trish, With all due respect, you don’t get the point. If your first comment was going to be an Ad Hominem attack against the author (Jennifer), then you should’ve not even wasted the time to comment. Secondly, if your second respond was a rant rather than an apology or something, please try considering some manners. Anyway, I only have time to address one of your concerns. You don’t seem to understand the moral evil of IVF. It’s more than just the cost concern, it’s the fact that unique human life with unique DNA are intentionally either destroyed or frozen in a fridge (never to fully develop into a normal human body). Secondly, IVF is not just completely artificial but many times superficial. People have scientists genetically design babies with blue eyes or with a longer height or blonde hair. The embryos formed are essentially (in the most essential sense of this word) Test Tube Babies. This IVF process is utterly divorced from nature & the natural act of sex. And for the married couples involved in IVF, it’s a form of Adultery. This is not only wrong but dangerous for the mentality of society. In my family the issue of infertility runs personally (1 dear aunt & 1 cousin), & in the case of my Italian aunt who still lives in Italy: Holy Church loved her enough to tell her the moral truth about IVF & surrogacy and she cared enough about unborn human life (which is always unique) & the intimacy & monogamy of her marriage to listen & follow the truth. And as for there Bible that you mentioned earlier, like with Abraham’s wife Sarah (mother of the Hebrew nation) & Zacharias’s wife Elizabeth (mother of the baptizing Prophet John who heralded Christ Jesus), between a faithfully married man & woman, God can bring children even from “infertility”. Today, there’s cases of elderly couples in India bearing children.

    • fredx2

      You really need to get a grip. That last comment was pretty outrageous, and quite frankly, makes you look very bad, while saying nothing about anyone else.

      “There is no magical joo joo that comes from being a mom.”

      Yes there is. Mothers are in fact, very special. Mothers act in ways that Fathers do not naturally act. If you believe that mothers are irrelevant, and if you believe that it is perfectly OK for a child to grow up never knowing what it is like to have a mother, you are in a very small minority. Most people realize the importance of a mother to a child. Otherwise, why do divorce courts usually agree that it is better for the child to be with its mother?

      All of your objections stem from the idea that not every mother is perfect. So what? We are talking about what is good for children on the whole. The fact that there are some bad mothers does not mean that motherhood is unimportant.

    • Trish

      I’m not in the minority, I’m in the majority http://www.gallup.com/poll/170801/americans-say-sex-couples-entitled-adopt.aspx

      Mothers act in a way that society expects them to act, it’s not innate. Gender is prescribed by cultural expectations, not by nature. We learn what manliness or womanliness is, through interactions and behavior that is reinforced by peers or authority.

    • Guest

      Only relativists and the simple minded believe such nonsense.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      THANK YOU, Trish! Many of the people participating in this discussion are operating under the delusion that their desire for something to be true and the actual truth of their point are the same thing. You want to say that same-sex parents are ineffective?

      Look here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/

      Or here: http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

      Or here: http://www.spring.org.uk/2014/02/same-sex-parenting-does-not-harm-children-research-review-finds.php

      Every major study proves (based on years of scientific research) that while gay and lesbian parents may parent DIFFERENTLY than their straigh counterparts, it is as effective (with a new study out from Melbourne U. saying that the kids of gays and lesbians are actually healthier than those of their straight counterparts.) But that’s just facts and science, right? Where has that ever gotten anyone?

      I know that many of you think that you are commenting on this from a good place, but the problem is your comments to not stem from a FACTUAL place. Your opinions do not trump scientific research, and your prejudices do not speak well of you

    • Trish
    • Andy Edwards

      So you think a mother is so important that any given mother, however well she parents, is at least as valuable as a father who parents better than her? Are there mothers you consider poor enough parents you would rather see their children be with their father?

    • Guest

      Sounds like a small-minded relativist wrote your post.

  • james

    The really sad thing about all of this is that it will take two generations before this group or that group can say ‘ We told you so.’

    • fredx2

      And the crippling of thousands of children’s lives. But, some want to experiment on the children, and no one seems to be willing to stand up for the children, so here we go. Read Oscar Robert Lopez’s articles, as well as the comments at Homovox to see what may happen.

  • Jerry Spencer

    This article is just plain wrong– the author says that gay people couldn’t possibly do anything out of love. That’s completely ignorant. Gay love is stronger than straight love; straight people have never had to fight for their love for each other like gay people have. Gay people love their children more; straight people don’t have to fight to have children like gay people have to, in the courts, for adoption, etc. Gay people have to go out of their way to make a family, whereas too many families in America are created on accident, with some of the worst, most unfit straight parents you can imagine, who even resent their children for being born.

    It is alarming, and even disgusting, for an author to suggest that the ONLY good parents for a child are the biological ones, when oftentimes those biological parents die, are imprisoned, disappear, or just flat don’t want the children. Families don’t have to be made through blood, they are made solely through love. And whether that’s grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends, guardians, social workers, foster parents, single mothers, and yes, gay people, they still love their children.

    To suggest otherwise is the highest form of sad ignorance.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Mr. Jerry (with all due respect) YOUR suggestions are the highest forms of ignorance. Man (father) & woman (mother) as parents has been the natural standard since the beginning of our human species. What do you have against Biology? Why are liberals, “progressives”, & secularists (aka Anti-Christians) so against Biology. Biological fact: human life with unique DNA begins at conception. Another bio fact: the man has sperm & the woman has the ovum. You need both.

    • Corey

      No one is arguing that you need a man and a woman to create life. What I’m saying is none of the “biology” information you have given also says that man and woman must also RAISE that child. You can explain basic biology all you want, that doesn’t change the fact that a man and man and a woman and a woman can raise a baby just as well as an opposite sex couple can.

    • Guest

      No they cannot. You have to redefine terms to get the result you claim. Absurd.

    • Jerry Spencer

      You didn’t read my comment. I don’t care who your biological parents are. Biological parents, beat, ignore, neglect, abuse, abandon and sell their children all the time. Families aren’t always biological. Sometimes they are created through love, or the court system, or through gay people willing to give shelter to a child in need.

      It is so narrow and weird that so many Catholics seem to hate children that don’t have both their biological parents, even if them not having those parents is the best thing for that child. Face it– the world is more complicated than your cookie-cutter interpretation of the world

    • Catholic pilgrim

      It looks like you didn’t read my comment either, Jerry. Why do you keep accusing Catholics of being “narrow” & “hating children”? The only hater here is you, I’m afraid to say. Your view is very narrow-minded & unrealistic. Embrace Catholicism. The Holy Catholic Church (which has lasted for 2000 years & continues) is much wiser than you. Be more open-minded, Jerry. You’re not the smartest person in the world, you know. May the Peace of Christ (that the world cannot give) be with you

    • Jerry Spencer

      The Catholic Church has changed it’s mind on so many things in it’s long history. Accepting gay people, who have been some of the greatest artists, scientists, and thinkers in it’s long history, is simply the next time towards Jesus’s love and acceptance.

      And you DO hate those children, since you think that if it’s not their biological parents, something is inherently wrong with their family. That’s ignorant, “pilgrim”.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      I hate no one, Mr. Jerry, not even Haters like you. Truth is eternal by nature, it never changes. This is not only Catholic teaching but is a self-evident observation rooted deep in philosophical thought. The Holy Catholic Church loves every human being, even those that hater her & her Bridegroom Christ- who commanded us to love our enemies. Our Lord Christ Jesus although he loves all sinners (aka us humans), He hates ALL Sin (including homosexuality) because sin hurts & destroys our inner core (soul) & offends God. He loves us, therefore He wants us to live free from sin, which is why in the Gospel Jesus tells the woman: “Your sins are forgiven, Go & SIN NO more.” If you knew how much homosexual sex harms individuals, how destructive it is, from personal experience, you would not promote & celebrate it (or any sin). Instead, like Christ, you would heal sinners & warn people against sin’s evil hold- this is love, you would preach them Christ Crucified for our Sins. Love is Never a celebration & promotion of sin; that is called cruelty, Mr. Jerry.

    • Jerry Spencer

      I am gay. I went through almost ten years of reparative “therapy” where a bunch of “good” “Christians” tried to “cure” me of my homosexuality. After a decade’s worth of treatment, intensive prayers, and everything else, you know what I found? You can’t hate love. Everyone is capable of love. Some people fall in love with men, some women. But all of their love is valid in the eyes of God.

      You haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about when you say that being gay is destructive. Inside those reparative therapy places, so many of my friends committed suicide, because of the torture and rape they were forced to undergo, all in the name of God. It’s the sickest thing in the world. You know why it’s sick? Because you’re telling a child, a CHILD, that his way of love, his method of showing his love, is hateful, and should be compressed into a tiny box, and tucked away into a deep pit in your heart. But what we found, as children, was that nobody can throw away their ability to love. Without love, all we had was sadness and suicide attempts.

      Now that I’m an out & proud gay Christian? I couldn’t be happier, or closer to God. I love churches that accept people as God made them, instead of telling people that God made mistakes that have to be corrected through torture. Gay people don’t commit suicide except for in places of oppression and depression, like in a conservative church or in the Deep South. Btw straight people do anal sex all the time, yet I don’t hear you crying from the rooftops about that.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Homosexuality like all sin blinds you, Jerry. You sound very angry & confused, in need of Christ’s healing touch- not more sin. You’re absolutely right we’re all called to Love, but homosexual sex is not love, it’s sin. Read St. Paul the Apostle, please, to learn truth. Love is not sex (a lie which our culture that commercializes sex seems to constantly promote). Sex & love are two completely different things, my friend Jerry. Agape (the truest & highest form of love, its very fulfillment) is greater than sex. Jerry, I suggest you read GK Chesterton’s (a British Catholic who inspired JRR Tolkien & CS Lewis) book on “St. Francis of Assisi”. You will learn that St. Francis of Assisi (a man who gave up the women he loved so much & sex to embrace poverty in order to roll over in the Italian snow naked) is ironically the greatest lover of all. The lover of ages, lover of lovers, without even having sex. He was more free & able to love more greatly than those that had much sex. Let’s learn from him, Jerry. St. Paul the Apostle & St. Francis of Assisi, two men who gave up sex, & yet they were the greatest lovers of all. Foolish Lovers of Christ, this is what we’re called for Jerry. A sign to contradict the powers that be. What do you say, friend?

    • Jerry Spencer

      Christ did heal me…. when I stopped listening to people like you and accepted God’s plan for me as a proud gay man. But you’re right, I am angry and confused.

      I am ANGRY that people like you get to torture and abuse children, making them think that their own love is evil, telling them that they need to suppress their feelings. I am confused as to how you could think that an innocent child, who’s only crime is being gay, should be relegated to a life of isolation and depression, filled with self-hate and suicide attempts…

      But once again, as I mentioned at the top of this thread, I love how conservatives reduce gay love to sex. You don’t reduce straight love to sex, why on earth would you do the converse? It shows your ignorance, because you have no idea if I’m having sex or not, how long I’ve been in a committed relationship, or what I’m doing in my faith with my long-term partner. Gay love is love– I’ve read Chesterton, and Lewis, and Tolkien– it has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with love.

      So, FRIEND, let’s wait until you have a close family member of yours that comes out of the closet, and you find how untenable and narrow your ideology has made you.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Sir, you seem to know so much of others & their lives, don’t you? How do you know if I have or don’t have LGTB family members? You accuse & name-call others too much. As well as assume too much. And judge others too much. And now not only are you sounding confused & angry but Paranoid. I’ll pray for you, & hope in Christ that one day you’ll return to God. And you will, it’s only a matter of when. You’ll be a prodigal son. Jerry, everybody has sinned. Jesus died for our sins. Homosexuality is a grave sin. If we keep eliminating sins from the list of sins (adultery is not a sin anymore, neither is war, neither is killing babies a sin, neither is stealing a sin, neither is homosexuality nor pride a sin) to the point where we say “there is no sin”, for what did Jesus die? If He didn’t die for our sins (including Homosex), did He die on the across for the fun of it? Jerry, I’ll stick with the true Gospel of Christ Crucified, as St. Paul puts it. If we don’t admit our obvious sins, then of what need to we need a Saviour, a healer, a physician? I have sinned & I recognize my need for Christ. By preaching a false Gospel to sinners (including those who engage in homosexual acts or immoral straight sex), not only are you being dishonest, you’re depriving people of the Divine Physician, Jesus. I love you, Jerry, but I got to go now.

    • Jerry Spencer

      Love is not a sin. A child weeping in a corner because you tell him his love is evil is not godly, that is satanic.

      To say otherwise is religiously-packed ignorance. A spade is a spade. You name call and say I’m a sinner. I name call and say you are ignorant.

      I can ABSOLUTELY tell you with 100% confidence that although you believe that you are doing the work God, you are literally walking in step with exactly what Satan wants you to do. He’s using your faith to torture, rape, and murder gay teens.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      I’m a sinner upon whom The Lord has gazed, as Pope Francis says. Unless you’re the Blessed Virgin Mary conceived Immaculately, which I presume you’re not, you’re probably a sinner (or at least born one) like the rest of us. Did you even read my posts? I freely admit I’m a sinner in need of God’s mercy. It’s you who holds this ugly “us vs. them” mentality. With all due respect, Jerry, you’re accusing others here of being Satanists & murdering & raping. Falsely accusing others of grave things like rape is calumny, I believe. You’re being paranoid. Anyway, there is great wisdom in the Christian standard of: “loving sinners (including myself) unconditionally but hating the sin.” Jerry, I love you enough to tell you the truth (which in this case is that homosexual sex is sinful & leads people away from God & should not be celebrated). In Psychology, when an individual is confronted with an uncomfortable truth, the first step is Denial, then Anger & finally Acceptance. You’re in the Anger step it seems, so I’ll pray to God so that the Peace of Christ (which the world cannot give) will come upon you. Also, I love you Jerry, but most importantly God loves you but Not your sins (nor mine). Thank God for the Holy Sacrament of Reconciliation, where we meet the forgiveness of our sins & repentance in Christ

    • Jerry Spencer

      If you agree with Satan’s work in killing, torturing, and raping young innocent teenagers (as they do with the “therapy,” the “sexual healing”, and the rampant suicide attempts), then you are doing Satan’s work. That’s not falsely accusing someone. That’s accurately depicting what goes on in those healing camps.

      God’s mercy indeed….. Those are places of torture. You haven’t been there. You didn’t survive those camps. I love you enough to tell you the truth, and survive reading your bloated, self-important comments. Nobody is going to be convinced by you.

      But they will be convinced by the harsh, ugly truth of what your “healing” looks like. Go to Exodus International, and ask them how their “healing” went. Oh wait! They went out of business, conceded that many of the teens in their programs are dead, conceded that nobody was “cured”, and apologized to the gay community. They finally saw the evil in their ways. Here’s to hoping you do too.

    • Jerry Spencer

      I suggest you look into what reparative therapy is, if you don’t think children are being tortured, raped, and murdered in these camps and groups. Women prostitutes are used to rape underage boys to convince them to be straight, all in the Lord’s name. Ice is put on taped hands while children are forced to look at images of guys holding hands, until the pain in your hands is overwhelming. Electrocution is used too, in some instances. Ridiculous and humiliating treatments, some including eating your own feces or stripping in front of counselors, is also used.

      But that’s just the physical torture! How about the mental anguish of being told that your love should be holed up and shut away? No human can survive without love. When love is locked away, there is nothing but anguish and depression, which ultimately leads the VAST MAJORITY of those teens to attempt suicide. Some of those poor innocent children succeed, and the blood of those children are on the parents, churches, and counselors who pushed them to that brink of despair and depression.

      As soon as I found a way out of that cycle of “God’s love” I became an infinitely happier and more secure person, and ironically, much closer to God’s love. Turns out, when you accept your own ability to love and you don’t shut it away, it’s much easier to love God and accept him. Funny how that works out?

    • Catholic pilgrim

      I’m a Catholic Christian (not a Protestant), Mr. Jerry. I love you, I’ll pray for you (I promise), & now I’ll try to get a good night’s sleep.

    • Laurence Charles Ringo

      You have some point you wish to make concerning Protestants, Mr . Pilgrim? If so, I suggest you tread lightly indeed.

    • Anonymous

      I never cease to find joy in people quoting a BOOK as fact. Perhaps in another 2000 plus years people will be quoting ‘Harry Potter’ books as reasons to support their bigotry. Or perhaps humans will finally outgrow their dependence on such antiquated ideas of a narrow-minded higher power. Maybe those who believe in such an entity might just learn to stop pushing their propaganda on others. Either of the last two options seems ideal, in my opinion. Here’s hoping.

    • Guest

      Pilgrim, you can tell Jerry he “sounds very angry & confused” I can
      tell you that you sound very degrading and have an unrealistic sense of
      entitlement because of your Catholic faith. Have you ever considered
      there’s more to this world outside of Catholicism? If you’ve studied
      linguistics, you can agree that it is impossible to fully translate an
      ancient language, let alone most current languages into modern day
      English. History books have proven that religions change, beliefs
      change, cultures change, science changes, theories change, etc.
      throughout time. Your argument is based off of one book written (in
      English) 600 years ago. The very fact that you solely base your entire
      argument from a book that
      was written and repeatedly translated haphazardly sounds to me that
      you’re the one who’s being ignorant and closed-minded.
      If someone
      disagrees with what is said in the bible, they have that right. You, who
      represent the Catholic faith, should at the very least respect that.
      But your comments do not reflect that, and as a Christian woman, I found
      that incredibly contemptuous.

    • Matt

      I like you Catholic Pilgrim guy :)

    • Catholic pilgrim

      I like you too brother :) thank you, Matt

    • Guest

      All lies.

    • Andy Edwards

      So if a woman conceives and caries human life for several weeks, then suffers a miscarriage, what happened in a spiritual sense? What do you think God’s will was?

    • Andy Edwards

      Also, what do you think happens when an ovum fertilized in vitro fully grows and is born a healthy human being? Is there a spiritual difference between that child and one conceived naturally? Does the IVF child lack a soul? Was the IVF child not willed by God?

    • Guest

      Fantasy and hate. Revolting.

    • Jerry Spencer

      Do you have a cogent point to make or are you just going to troll people’s comments? Intelligent discourse is a virtue, guest.

    • Guest

      My point was cogent and true. Your propaganda is hateful.

    • Anonymous

      But railing against others because of a biological preference isn’t hateful? And your point was neither cogent nor true. It was an “opinion.” I put that word in quotes because I’m aware that you may not be familiar with it, but please take a moment to learn what it means. For example, my opinion is that you are a bigot. And I believe that your opinion of me might be that I am a liberal whore. Yet, neither opinion translates to fact. Tricky, isn’t it?

  • James

    Why don’t we just be real Catholics and not let women have an opinion?

    • Guest

      Really? Sounds like liberal stupidity.

  • Guest

    May god have pitty on your poor narrow minded soul!

  • Ellie

    This is why I am leaving the Catholic Church.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Ellie, you cannot leave a Church you never knew, never understood, and never loved. Whatever church you think you’re rejecting out of enlightened wisdom and tolerance, it isn’t the Catholic Church.

    • StopInsanity

      It’s fairy tale and make-believe for people who are willing to be controlled and afraid of death.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      You are a fairy tale, make believe & afraid of death, Mister!

    • Anonymous

      That legitimately makes no sense, Catholic pilgrim.

    • Guest

      Jennifer, I just want to say that your article was great. I believe you and your husband are probably wonderful parents! Thank your husband for his service and all he does…and thank you and your kids for offering our world your husband to continue to protect our lives, and our country! :o) I wish you the very best! God Bless you and your family.

  • Guest

    May god have pity on your poor narrow minded soul!

    • Catholic pilgrim

      May God have pity on YOUR poor-minded soul instead, missus/sir! Anonymity sure is fun

  • Liquid Grace

    What a beautiful photo. Those men and those boys are so blessed to have so much love surrounding them. I support their cause!!!

    As far as the author goes, may god have pity on your poor narrow minded soul! Give yourself a pat on the back for being a mom, your medal is on it’s way. Clearly you need that validation that your role is superior to that of same sex parents.

    • Ellie

      couldn’t have said it better myself!

    • Catholic pilgrim

      May God have pity on YOUR soul, especially for your ignorance, with all due respect. Lord have mercy. If you truly loved Christ, you would realize how much suffering homosexuality (like all sin) causes to people. You would be sad when we sinners sin- not celebrate sin

    • Anonymous

      I must amend my horrible mistake. I accidentally up-voted this comment from “Catholic pilgrim” when I met to up-vote Liquid Grace’s. Homosexuality is no more a sin than having blue eyes or brown hair is. That is because it is BIOLOGICAL. Seriously…how can you not understand that? I wholeheartedly apologize for up-voting your comment. I view you as a bigot and would hate to inflate your ego any more than it already is. Please disregard that vote.

    • Guest

      Two men can never be parents. It is like claiming square circles exist.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      @Guest You’re an idiot. A bigoted idiot. Men have always been parents.

  • Ellie

    This will be a loving home, something a lot of people don’t receive, even if there is a mother in the picture. Well, according to the Catholic church, we should “stone disobedient children” (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21). Why should Catholics not be thrilled with the idea of two men raising twins. After all, men are worth more than women. (Leviticus 27: 1-7). At least this surrogate mother will have eternal life, since only women who bare children will be spared hell. The one good thing about having twin boys is that the fathers can’t sell them into slavery. Exodus 21:7-10 says men can sell their daughters into slavery.

    I am not putting down families with parents from both genders. I come from this type of family. It’s a good thing there are still these families considering the Bible says that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9).

    Maybe members of the Catholic Church should start living by these rules. I’m sure they would have a great life.

    • Guest

      Too bad you have no idea what you are talking about.

    • Ellie

      I’m simply quoting the bible.

    • Guest

      Yes, you are simple. That is the problem.

    • Anonymous

      You are simple if you think “simple” and “simply” are the same word. One is an adjective and one is an adverb. Tricky, I know.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      She proved her point with citations from the very book that you would use to prove yours. She’s not “simple,” she’s “researched”. As are all of the studies that support same-sex parenting. And the ones that don’t… oh, wait, those don’t exist among unbiased researchers. Just because you want something to be true, does not, in fact, make it true.

  • Shaila

    I am just curious , are you totally against surrogacy? Some women are physically incapable of having children ( they can get pregnant, but body can not support it) and use a surrogate to carry the baby. Is that wrong?

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Yes surrogacy is a form of adultery in Holy matrimony. A woman’s body is a holy temple, mirroring that of Jerusalem. Even when painful we must always do our Father’s will. Our Lord Jesus in His Agony in the Garden of Olive cried Abba (Father) take this cup (death on a cross) away but not my will but YOURS be done

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      @catholicpilgrim I’m sorry, but that’s just stupid. If you want to say that it’s “not natural,” that’s fine. But crying “adultery” implies that you actually don’t even understand the procedure. Surrogacy is when one woman’s egg is fertilized by sperm in a lab and placed inside of a third person’s uterus to grow. There is no adultery involved. In fact, if the couple is straight, it’s generally the couple’s egg and sperm. What you are saying would imply that someone who receives a kidney transplant is adulterous because they’ve had “someone else inside of them.” (And yes, I did say stupid. Because it is. And I’m not attacking you, I am pointing out that we don’t actually get to live in a world where “everyone wins a trophy,” and not all opinions are created equal. Yours, in this case is really, really stupid.)

    • Guest

      Ah, yes it is wrong.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      Arguing THAT would be incredibly Darwinian (“infertile people should be removed from society by natural order”) for people who don’t care for the science behind this article… which, again… doesn’t exist.

  • Jarrek

    I think that when one of this author’s children comes to her and tell her that they are gay, she is going to have a tough time explaining this article to them.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      There are many Catholics who are gay/lesbian but Abstain from sexual relations out of love for Christ & His holy Bride (the Catholic Church). Don’t be so closed-minded please. The Catholic Catechism teaches that if people have disordered sexual inclinations (like same-sex attraction) but abstain from homosexual acts, they’re considered faithful Catholics. There are several blogs of faithful Catholics who suffer from same-sex attraction, look ‘em up. Simcha Fisher’s brother is one such who has his blog.

    • Jarrek

      Dude, that’s super gay.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Being a faithful Catholic can make one supper happy (gay)? Yes I agree Jarreck, nothing causes more joy than to be a faithful Catholic (which means to be a faithful lover of Christ & His Holy Bride the Church).

    • Anonymous

      I don’t see what supper has to do with any of this. Leave mealtimes out of this!

      Oh, unless your fingers just couldn’t keep up with your bigot brain as you misspelled the word “super.”

    • Jarrek

      Why can’t they find love?

    • Catholic pilgrim

      I’m sorry Mr. Jarreck, but are you so absorbed in present-day commercialization of sex that you seem to have forgotten basic social skills? You don’t have to have sex with people in order to love them. There is a greater love (Agape) than eros. When you loved your mom, did you have to have sex with them? Did you have to have sex with your best friends? Your brother? Sex & love are to completely separate things. You’ve been to absorbed in modern culture to tell the difference though. May I suggest you look up Fr. Robert Barron of Word On Fire (he’s on YouTube channel) to learn more about the actual understanding of love. Also, read some books by Scott Hahn (theologian) & GK Chesterton (the Catholic British man who inspired JRR Tolkien & CS Lewis). Read Chesterton’s “St Francis of Assisi” book to see how a true lover looks like. Also read “The Everlasting Man” by Chesterton to help you stop being so absorbed by the lies of those in power. St Francis (the man who gave up women, power & riches, & his own clothes to roll over naked in the snowy Italian ground) is ironically the lover of lovers, the lover of ages. You could learn a thing from him, as can I, Mr. Jarreck

    • Jarrek

      No, CP, the love one feels for a brother is much different than the love one feels for a boyfriend, wife, partner, etc. So they could be boyfriends, and just not have sex, and it’d all be alright?

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Yes if two boys are friends (& not have sex) it’s not just okay to love one another, it’s a Christian duty. The love between two friends is a very spiritually strong love. Agape (the highest form of Love, it’s fulfillment) is greater than sex

    • Guest

      Why? If the kids said they like to rob banks would that be ok?

    • Guest

      No, it wouldn’t.

    • Guest

      because robbing banks is a crime!

    • Guest

      So? They are both immoral.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      No, but it also wouldn’t be the same thing. So, you know… kinda a mute point.

  • Caleb Way

    You’re not a bigot, you’re a narcissist.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      You (Mr. Caleb) are both a bigot AND a narcissist. Whatever happened to Judge Ye Not? Logic? Making arguments from logic & reason NOT personal attacks? Why are liberals, “progressives” & Anti-Christians so hateful?

    • Guest

      You called Caleb a bigot and a narcissist, and then quoted “Judge Ye Not”. You made a judgment against Caleb, then quoted the bible to never judge. Calling someone a bigot and a narcissist is a judgment, which is a sin.
      So I’m gonna jump on the band-wagon here and call you a hypocritical religious extremist.
      No one likes an extremist. Not even the Catholics.
      If you want people to listen to you, Pilgrim, and accept Christ or whatever your intentions are, hypocrisy (also known as bigotry) won’t exactly pave that road for you.
      Which may explain why someone called you a bigot in the first place.

    • Anonymous

      You, Guest, win the internet.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      There is no room for “Judge Ye Not” arguments in the comment section for this article. But I am loving the irony. Keep it up!

    • Guest

      Hater.

  • SC

    1. I disagree that a child must have a father and mother in order to turn out alright. Psychologically speaking, a child benefits most from a loving and stable home with two parents (but the gender is less relevant than the environment). I would much rather a child be adopted by a single parent, or by two women or two men, than be left in the foster care system or an orphanage. Of course!
    2. I agree that the manufacturing and sale of children, as you call it, is totally outrageous. If you want to give the gift of a home to somebody, there are plenty of children already out there waiting, longing for that home. (I feel the same about IVF).

    • Catholic pilgrim

      1.) why stop there? I believe we should have more polygamists raising children. If everything (including the parent’s sex) is irrelevant, then why not the number? Let’s have one man & five married women raise one child or more. Also, why not let the government raise our children while we’re at it? After all, studies have said that kids raised by the government can turn out all right. Who needs parents when you can have the government? Nature gives us a man as father & a woman as mother for a reason. Let’s stop going by opinions & start being more objective

    • falacious resoning

      Dude, this is a slippery slope fallacy.

    • Catholic pilgrim

      Explain yourself, please, & prove your position. Kids raised by polygamists & the government “turn out all right” (which seems to be the only criteria you care about in raising children), therefore (using your logic), why should we ban them from raising children? In fact kids raised by polygamists turn out more all right than kids raised by homosexuals. Also studies show kids raised by a super-advanced computer robot (that even has touch/hugging capacities) called RoboMommy is better able to raise children than actual human parents. Why shouldn’t we let robots raise our children? (Answer: it’s not the way God intended it. It’s not true nature. True nature, as God intends in His plans for us, if for a father & mother for each & every child. God confirms this original design in the Holy Family where His own Son is raised by Mary & Joseph. Anything less than one dad & one mom for every child is a tragedy & the result of a sinful world that goes against God’s original design, which is what our true nature before sin is.) Read Jennifer’s article again.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      Next time that you’re speaking directly to God (as is implied by your ability to divine His intentions), tell Him that I say hi.

    • Kevin Rahe

      I find that most people who claim that the “slippery slope” is a fallacy fall victim to it quite readily when the subject of permitting someone’s faith to impact the justness of a law that imposes something on them that they find offensive comes up.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      When has “slippery slope” not been a fallacy?

    • Kevin Rahe

      You should ask the people who think that allowing employers to avoid promoting contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees will lead to the equivalent of Sharia law.

    • Guest

      Slipper slope is not always a fallacy. BTW, polygamy is a step up morally from “gay” parents.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      But it is a fallacy here. They are unrelated topics. There are perfectly well-adjusted, successful adults raised by gay parents. Just because you WANT for something to be true does not mean that it is.

    • Kevin Rahe

      As far as Catholic pilgrim’s suggestion that this will excuse having “one man & five married women raise one child,” it is not a slippery slope at all. Once you discard the principles that find marriage to be between a man and a woman, whatever is left provides little support for the reasoning that marriage should be limited to two people. In fact, once you discard the idea that a child being separated from his or her biological parent is a tragedy, then it isn’t that much of a leap to having the government raise a child, either, or at least replace their parents with a more worthy pair (or triple, or quadruple).

  • the Heretick

    Types, carriers, units, the commodification of human flesh.

  • Kevin Rahe

    Thank you for the column. It confirms my own thoughts on the matter, which I posted in the comments on a story about a similar situation that appeared on my local news site just a week ago, and where one of the fathers involved decided to debate me directly:
    http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2014/07/gay_couple_surrogate_baby.html

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    Yawn. Just another day in the 24/7 Freak Show Porn Palace that was once Western Civilization.

  • thisismyvision

    I firmly believe that a baby needs a mother and a father. These men are living what they believe to be true, and living the love that they know. That’s important. This is the love that they know.

    All the rational and theological arguments mean nothing to someone who doesn’t accept the foundational principles. To argue against them using a Catholic worldview fails not because the teaching is false, but because there is no belief. Rather, why not argue for them to believe in something even -more- beautiful than the love that they have found?

    • Guest

      That is nonsensical. Just replace these two men with an incestuous relationship and see where that logic leads.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      But it’s not an incestuous relationship. You understand that, right? I mean, I could replace “nonsensical” in your statement with “genius”… replacing one thing with nothing like it does not help either the writer or the person replying.

    • thisismyvision

      Except it isn’t an incestuous relationship.

      I’m just saying that maybe having a little bit of respect for their experience is worth more in the end than complete rejection and aggression.

  • Anonymous

    People like you are the reason that I left the Catholic Church. People like you are also the reason that I consider that choice to be one of my greatest. I sincerely hope that your children never need a surrogate or *gasp* that they’re gay. No amount of science or research will change your mind, but even I had to say something.

    • Marlon

      I remain a Catholic despite people like the author, but I choose to live in the present and accept modern thinking. Catholicism has always been very slow to react to change.

  • E Dale Smith-Gallo

    What they are experiencing is based in significantly more love than this article is. I’m glad that Jesus gave you permission to judge your fellow man. Oh wait… he didn’t. Read what you wrote and remember that you are talking about people and that you are arguing that your prejudice is more important than their family.

  • Kate33927

    You have no idea how much love these fathers have for their sons and neither do I. It is absurd that you wrote this article on people that you have never met and have no idea how much love they have in their hearts. Would you rather a baby have a not so loving mother and a father than two very loving fathers just so the baby has a mother? You are making ridiculous statements. It seems like those fathers really love their sons and you should stop judging them for wanting to have their own children. Women and men make babies because they want their own and it’s okay to you because “God made it natural for women and men to have babies.” Well God also made those men gay, have you thought about that? If those men really love those babies then I’m sure He’s smiling down at them just as much as he’s smiling down at a loving mother and father.

    • Marlon

      True, very discriminating article. She claims to only care for the well being of the child but it comes across as something more than that.

  • Marlon

    I 100% disagree. That child is entitled to loving parents. That is it. Are you also saying that heterosexual couple’s who cannot conceive can’t get children as well? Or is this an attack against homosexuals? My wife and I are having a hard time getting pregnant again. Our son is 11 yrs old already. We want another. If we choose to adopt or get a surrogate then that is our decision and nobody has the right to judge that.

    Stop living in the past.

  • Lance

    Until some numbers are provided (I.e. High school or college graduation rate of children raised in same sex couples vs. traditional couples in the same area) the argument is null and void. You can’t simply state that something is a necessity because it is “the standard”. I’ve met a lot of awful mothers, who is to say that a second father would have been just as bad as a neglectful mother? Also, if the couple is same sex it is very possible that one of the partners may air on the more feminine side, so it’s not like this child will have never met someone with feminine mannerisms or who is “motherly”. Also, children “suffer” (or benefit) from all the choices that their parents make, from financial decisions to decisions on what their child is allowed to watch on TV, why is this any different? I’d be willing to say that financial decisions could make more of an effect on a child’s life as opposed to the sexual orientation of their parents. In conclusion, I believe that this is another intolerant, religious argument that has put on the front “it’s for the kids”.

  • Lance

    Until some numbers are provided (I.e. High school or college graduation rate of children raised in same sex couples vs. traditional couples in the same area) the argument is null and void. You can’t simply state that something is a necessity because it is “the standard”. I’ve met a lot of awful mothers, who is to say that a second father would have been just as bad as a neglectful mother? Also, if the couple is same sex it is very possible that one of the partners may air on the more feminine side, so it’s not like this child will have never met someone with feminine mannerisms or who is “motherly”. Also, children “suffer” (or benefit) from all the choices that their parents make, from financial decisions to decisions on what their child is allowed to watch on TV, why is this any different? I’d be willing to say that financial decisions could make more of an effect on a child’s life as opposed to the sexual orientation of their parents. In conclusion, I believe that this is another intolerant, religious argument that has put on the front “it’s for the kids”.

  • Lance

    Until some numbers are provided (I.e. High school or college graduation rate of children raised in same sex couples vs. traditional couples in the same area) the argument is null and void. You can’t simply state that something is a necessity because it is “the standard”. I’ve met a lot of awful mothers, who is to say that a second father would have been just as bad as a neglectful mother? Also, if the couple is same sex it is very possible that one of the partners may air on the more feminine side, so it’s not like this child will have never met someone with feminine mannerisms or who is “motherly”. Also, children “suffer” (or benefit) from all the choices that their parents make, from financial decisions to decisions on what their child is allowed to watch on TV, why is this any different? I’d be willing to say that financial decisions could make more of an effect on a child’s life as opposed to the sexual orientation of their parents. In conclusion, I believe that this is another intolerant, religious argument that has put on the front “it’s for the kids”.

  • RD

    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/education/Pope-Francis-ten-commandments-for-a-happy-life.html

    Here is what your leader is telling you to do. Which is the opposite of what you are choosing to do. Spread love not hate. Who are you to judge leave that up to your God.

  • Natural

    What amazes me is the entire debate around same sex parenting is that all of creation shows that it takes a male and female uniting to create new life. Logic would indicate that ideal scenarios would be that the male and female care for the new life created. But we humans like to become gods of creation and manipulate plain simple facts of life. When two men or two women can create new life, by all means let them.

    • E Dale Smith-Gallo

      When one person can form prejudicial opinions about families that are not theirs… by all means, let them. (Yes, this is directed at you. You raise your kids your way, but let me raise my kids mine. I don’t comment on your family, so please leave mine out of your discussions as well.)

    • Alexandra

      all of creation shows that it takes a male and female uniting to create new life
      ***********

      You are an ignorant idiot. You should really check out how different species “create a new life”.. Mother Nature is perfectly fine with same-sex activity and parenting. In fact it is perfectly fine with all kinds of activities and reproduction systems you can only dream about.

  • screwliberalism

    It is *exactly* the same twisted thinking for decades now, coming from “feminism,” that a father isn’t really needed except as a sperm doner.

    How many fathers have purposefully been denied their role in their baby’s life by the action of a mother choosing abortion or adopting out of [their] baby, and that father has no say whatsoever?

  • sora

    I didn’t really finish the article but i get the idea. i do agree that the role of a mother is important in a child’s development but i also don’t agree that homosexual parents aren’t entitled to caring for a child of their own. I think that some people only look at a very small part of the bigger picture, because in my opinion, the parents alone are not the only role models for the child. there are also other people aside from the parents who can fulfill the role of a mother. Say, an aunt who also has children of her own. Even if the aunt isn’t really the child’s mother, I’m pretty sure she is still able to fill the role. The same can be said for a child who grows up with his/her non-biological mother. The child may not know that he/she is not related to the mother but the child would still consider that person as mother. It’s more in the matter of rearing the child rather than their biological connection to them.
    On the matter of surrogacy, I’m not against it, as long as the child is given the love, care and attention they deserve. I believe God has reasons for everything that’s happening and if surrogacy exist, then there must be a reason for that too. I really don’t like reading about people putting words into God’s mouth as though they know everything.

  • Jeff_McLeod

    I wonder if there is any neuro-psychological research looking at the effects of maternal deprivation? I suspect there is a lot of research in this area. I am tempted to review it properly and write what I find.

  • Alexandra

    American Psychological Asssociation only changed its mind about homosexuality as a disorder because of political pressure. Not because of science.
    #############################
    That’s a blatant lie (however very popular among religious cultists) that has nothing in common with what was really happening back then. There were studies, actual studies unlike the years before that, when they “studied” only mentally ill patients who happened to be homosexual and convicts.

    Read very carefully this book http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

  • E Dale Smith-Gallo
  • Savannah Taylor

    Putting a label on people who genuinely love their children is what is wrong. Who’s to say that those kids won’t grow up in an even more loving environment than a household with a mother and father, is being a single parent also wrong ? Single fathers or mothers who cook, clean, and provide for their children giving them all the love a support they could ever need ? These children arn’t being denied a mother any more than any one else who has grown up with an only father. The men in this artical arn’t doing this to spite anyone, they just want an equal chance to have a family and build a life, and to share the world with children of their own. Isn’t that something that all of us truly want and are entitled to?

    • asmondius

      You are confusing two different sets of circumstances.

      A widow or widower parent is not in that position by choice, but by chance.

      Intentionally denying a child a mother or a father is a supreme act of selfishness. Two men can never equal a man and a woman, their quest for ‘equality’ is lunacy. And using children as some sort of commodity to possess in order to make their lives ‘normal’ is monstrous.

  • t

    So, by your own explanation here, I suppose you are depriving your children of a lot of things too? You say you move your home where the army takes you, so your children are deprived of a stable home? Stable relationships with friends and family? Familiarity with any person or place? They are home schooled, one may argue they are deprived of the experiences that come along with going to school. Friendships, sportsmanship, the amazing influence teachers can be on children, the life lessons learned by social interaction.

    I am not opposed to army wives/families, nor am I opposed to homeschooling. But perhaps those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

  • LiteRain

    The saying “Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery” has been around for a long time. Imitation will always remain a “copy”, not the genuine article, and it will take lifetimes for man to only duplicate through trial
    and error what God has made, with a trail of destruction in the process. I’m a wife, woman, mother and grandmother and I certainly am not flattered by this imitation, nor would I want to be a man.
    We are looking at the trial and error with adults crying for themselves.
    Culture now encourages entitlement and feeling over God’s gifts and reality. (Example: if I work to improve my life with what I am blessed, someone who does not (work) feels entitled to the fruit of my labor; when they receive my money, it has already been diminished by the false process. They don’t realize this until they want to rise above their level of existence and can’t because they don’t understand self-motivation. They only know to demand more as the well runs dry.)
    Another looks to the imitation of a womb, arrives at a test tube and surrogate, and calls it victory and love. While there might be some success in the physical world, the “genetics” of the soul can’t be duplicated, only warped and morphed by psychiatry and drugs. A man-made law can only ‘legalize’ this within society, it cannot make it “real” and that is why it’s hard to fool children and animals. I’d like to see the situation of these 4 people in about 20 years after the fathers have to grow up with their children.
    This leaves me with 2 questions. Did these 2 fathers research the law before they decided to reside in Texas? If they did, then they would be aware that this would happen and are looking to become a test case to further an agenda, using the children once again. If they did not, and they want to remain together in their version of a family unit, why wouldn’t they spare their children the microscope to which they’ve already been
    overexposed, reside in a state with their values and get on with life?

  • Pingback: Target’s new commercial: Lesbians having a baby? | The Thrifty Catholic

  • Lizzaanne O Leary

    I’m for the writer. Wish more would speak.