Reengineering the Family (What are the consequences of our severing biology from parenthood?)

National Review ^ | 02/01/2010 | Heather Macdonald

[a fool in paradise]

An image from a TV ad for gay marriage, reproduced in the January 18 New Yorker, provides a Rorschach test for reactions to America’s ongoing revolution in family structure. Two men in black suits stand shoulder to shoulder in a group of people, looking into each other’s eyes. In their arms are two newborns in white baby clothes and blankets. Though it’s not immediately apparent from the photo, the men are at a baptism for their infants. The ad, still being test-marketed, is called “Family Values,” and is intended to emphasize the “conventionality of gay couples,” explains the New Yorker.

Then the church they are taking the baby to for baptism is practicing apostasy. The men celebrate their sin. What is the child being taught in being brought into such a church?

[domenad]

When the kid needs bail money, the father will lower his paper and say “What kid?”

[a fool in paradise]

To the extent that a gay couple wants to preserve the traditional connection between that biological parent and his offspring, however, the adult side of the family becomes more of a non-traditional threesome.

Polygamy by proxy.

Will the child's birth father/mother also be covered under the loving couple's insurance?

Will visitation rights be protected?

[aruanan]

Reengineering the Family (What are the consequences of our severing biology from parenthood?)

If "family" is whatever the usual arrangement is of offspring and parents, then the traditional family of the west is the oddball. This isn't to say that it isn't the best way to raise kids and that it doesn't provide the most sound foundation for an advanced civilization. It's just to say that it is as rare throughout history as are a government and economy like those of the United States.

[KansasGirl]

[Every time a homosexual couple conceives a child]

Huh? It is physically impossible for a “homosexual couple” to “conceive” a child.

[a fool in paradise]

By contrast, every gay (and single parent) conception by definition entails an absent parent; it is a visible affirmation of the social acceptability of severing genetic contribution from parenting. Every gay couple and never-married single parent raising a child trigger the same potential question as the couple in the “Family Values” ad: “Where’s the mother (or father)?”

I ask this question when I see tv ads all the time. TV ads have many examples of a mother feeding her sons/daughters at supper with no father to be seen. Dads appear in commercials for comedy relief. Dad is dumb, mom is wise, but the kid is the smartest one of all. Wash, lather, rinse, repeat for sitcoms.

[alexander_busek]

A very well-written article, but I stumbled over one sentence:

The deprivation to gays [...] is large.

That's a weird grammatical construction. I wonder what it actually means?

Regards,

[a fool in paradise]

reproductive technology will eventually allow “three or more people . . . to combine their DNA to create a baby.”

And what becomes of the resulting birth defects as they perfect their technologies? Abort the "freaks"?

[SeekAndFind]

Will the child's birth father/mother also be covered under the loving couple's insurance?

No, because under this arrangement, the birth father/mother are simply considered sperm/egg donors. They sign a contract to disavow any future relationship with the child for a handsome fee ( I'm not sure if Michael Jackson's arrangement fit this category ).

I can see this scenario as being another business that will experience some growth if marriage becomes redefined. No longer will one need to work, all one has to do is be willing to donate his/her sperm/egg and he can make a living.

[MrB]

Never forget the “cosmic battle”.

There are only two sides, Christianity and Satan.

Homos are just another one of satan’s weapons to destroy Christianity and ultimately, humanity.

[a fool in paradise]

Moreover, in a culture where men are not expected to raise their children, boys fail to learn the most basic lesson of personal responsibility and self-discipline.

Women are not expected to raise their children either. 50million abortions since Roe v. Wade.

[a fool in paradise]

Feministas attacked the patriarchy and they act “surprised” when men no longer respect their family obligations.

[a fool in paradise]

Defenders of the separation of genes and parental identity may respond that when homosexuals and infertile couples make use of fertility technology, the intent of all parties to either raise or repudiate the resulting child is explicit and contractual.

And what of the lesbian couples we've seen who celebrate having David Crosby's babies only to later separate?

All parties do not stick around to raise the baby they wanted at one time.

[Slyfox]

I remember watching a BBC special on a family who's father was confused about his sexual identity and dressed as a woman in front of his family. The children were interviewed and asked how they felt about their father and his dressing like a woman. Four children and all of them had sadly painful looks on their faces. The oldest boy was about eleven, spoke up and related all of their feelings, "We love our daddy, but he is just wrong."

Just because you want a child does not mean that you were meant to have a child. A child deserves unselfish action on the part of their parents. The best thing a child can receive is a father (male) who shows love for his wife (female) and a wife (female) who shows respect for her husband (male).

Rosie O'Donnell's oldest son is always telling Rosie that he wished he had a father. The selfishness of Rosie is more important than him having a real dad.

[goldstategop]

The reason Americans oppose same sex marriage is the family is not the subject of a radical social experiment. There is no reason to throw tradition just because some people left out. Single people are left out and no one is demanding compulsory marriage to make singles feel inclusive. Same point applies forcefully to gays.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[a fool in paradise]

If one were confident that gay marriage will have at most a negligible effect on the ongoing dissolution of the traditional family, I would see no reason to oppose it. And fertility technology is hardly the only source of stress on families; heterosexual adults have been wreaking havoc on the two-parent family for the last five decades in their quest for maximal freedom and choice.

"Heterosexual adults" have not been wrecking havoc on the two-parent family for the last five decades, liberal red diaper doper babies have been.

They have attacked the institutions of marriage, church, and government. We are seeing the results of their attacks.

Free love wasn't free and we pay the price today. Thanks hippies.

[frogjerk]

It's just to say that it is as rare throughout history as are a government and economy like those of the United States.

I'm not quite sure I understand your post. Are you saying that the traditional family of a Father, Mother and children has been rare throughout history?

[MrB]

Feminists of the liberal ilk are also tools in the battle.

True elevation of women comes from biblical precepts.

[silverleaf]

baptism is for the child, no matter whose arms it rests in during the service