Saturday, November 04, 2006

Motherhood as a traditional belief?

There's an article in this month's Melbourne Child in support of the "two gay fathers" model of family life. I was going to ignore the whole thing until I read the following lines:

One of the most deeply held traditional beliefs concerning families is that they must contain a mother. This belief is the source of much prejudice toward gay fathers.

Might I suggest to the author of the piece, Kylie Ladd, that it is not just a traditional belief that families must contain a mother, but a universal tradition that families do so and that this might have something to do with the most basic biological reality that it is a mother who brings a child into the world.

It is therefore difficult for families not to have a mother and the only way the gay couples featured in the article were able to do so was via IVF, a donor's eggs and a surrogate.

Much of the rest of the article is an argument along the lines of "it doesn't matter who raises a child as long as the child has a loving home".

Perhaps many people will want to believe this, but I hope that they are aware of the logical consequences of accepting such an idea.

First, it contributes to the instability of the heterosexual family. If we deny that children are generally better off being raised by their own biological mother and father, then there is less reason for biological parents to persevere with their marriages.

In other words, if the cultural message is that kids don't really need their biological father then mum is more likely to kick him out of the house (and he is less likely to hang around when the going gets tough).

Second, if all kids need is a loving household, then there's no need to think of families in terms of two stable carers; you could have all kinds of different arrangements, including three or even four parents, or combinations of adults who "swap" at different intervals, or institutional care.

So even if gay parenting becomes increasingly common I think it's unwise for heterosexuals to accept the kind of justifications likely to be advanced for it.


  1. Mark, I did a lengthy post recently about a long series the LA Times ran on 2 gay men who used surrogacy and purchased eggs to make 2 babies, both of which died after premature birth. The article was cloying in the extreme when describing the relationship between the men, to the extent of saying how, at the hospital, the staff noticed they were more dedicated than most couples there.

    I am not even comfortable about surrogacy for heterosexual couples. But that 2 gay men would go through such a process (instead of just adopting, for example) strikes me as an obscene use of science that would have been clearly recognised as such only 40 years ago.

    But the love is what it is all about, the writer implies. No matter that such love meant using an inherently difficult and dangerous procedure with 2 dead babies at the end.

  2. To leftists, homosexuals & feminists – there is no sense of being held to a life ‘direction’ and sticking to it. (ie. A firm choice, or Honor). The reason is that feminists (& their ilk) want to be bound by nothing. They want no responsibility, but all the privileges. Feminists/homosexuals want access to the benefits that a heterosexual union produces, without being bound by it’s syntax.

    It’s simply the notion of ‘entitlement’ that leftists demand for themselves simply by virtue of the fact that they are human. Their choices, and their consequences, do not matter to them. To them – they should be able to ‘do it’, simply because others can.

    A central concept in logical thinking is that most choices negate others. But not so in feminist rhetoric. Feminists, Gays & leftists in general somehow think that by ‘choosing’ a lifestyle, like homosexuality, that negates the natural production of offspring that a heterosexual one might – that they can ‘fudge’ social perception (under the legal guise of ‘discrimination’, etc) to synthetically allow attributes in their lifestyle that would otherwise be non-existent.

    Sure – feminists can ‘define’ a healthy family by one that provides ‘love’ (and nothing else) – it’s easy to (as we often do) make it ‘feel’ ok. But it willfully ignores other social & biological systems.

    For example; even if we ‘accept’ homosexuality as a minority lifestyle (where it exists as a small percentage of the population) – then we must look at ‘what’ life skills a boy of girl will learn from his/her same-sex parents? If little Jimmy or Lucy is most likely going to be heterosexual (as statistics very LARGELY show), then ‘what’ are they going to learn from mommy-&-mommy (or daddy-&-daddy) that will help then know how to treat their partner (of the opposite sex) when they grow up? What is little Jimmy going to learn from his two dads that will help him when the time comes that he is attracted to women and needs to know how a man & women engage together? How they respect or interact with one-another? What about the little Jimmy’s masculine development, particularly the psychological ostracism he’ll receive in school? Supposedly, feminists will tell you “society” needs to change, and that “It just about love” – and has nothing to do with sex.

    Oh really.

    So to hell with children, men and society – as long as the feminist-homosexual utopia is achieved? Feminists and their homosexual ilk, while choosing a lifestyle at the fringes of society (which, by the way, society has graciously accepted by now), continues to believe that they have an entitlement to those social heterosexual norms that they have decided to deviate from.

    As I’ve stated above, there’s a ‘rational’ notion that should be observed as mature individuals - that a choice is a choice – and as such, negates other choices.

    - Like choosing one person to marry and negating other partners.
    - Like having a child and being responsible for it.

    These are the tenets of a progressive society. Of being a responsible adult. The notion of moving ‘forward’ and standing by one’s ideals and honor.

    To leftists/feminists/homosexuals – we should all be androgynous and bound by no rules. (Whether the majority of heterosexuals think so or not). The fact that I (as a heterosexual man) am viscerally attracted to women, does not matter to them. Apparently most heterosexuals are ‘told’ what to be attracted to. Even the fact that our complementary sexual organs negate this, is inconsequential to them.

    As a largely ‘naturalist’ thinker – I believe homosexuals having children is a selfish act, the ramifications of which are detrimental to the progress of society (and the children themselves). Feminism’s fraud is nowhere as apparent as when one attempts to look at concepts larger than their precious ‘feelings’.


  3. Bobby,

    As a gay man I have to take issue with your statement that people choose the gay lifestyle. Some people may choose to be gay, but the overwhelming majority do not. Seriously, I get the impression that you think that we all choose to be gay because we want the endless dancing and circuit parties and what have you, but then some of us decide we want kids too and are just too lazy to turn back. I think the truth is that our homosexuality, like our desire to have children, are largely beyond our conscious control. And, unfortunately, they clash.

    Having said that, I do agree that being a parent means you put your children first. And I'm very uncomfortable with gay people choosing to raise children in single-sex parenting homes. Maybe it will all turn out ok for the child, but maybe not. And if not, it's an incredibly selfish thing to do.