|
|
|
|
- EDITORIAL: Two Lesbians Raised a Baby. But… (Perma Link) Originally published December 12, 2011
This YouTube video is going viral a second time, 11 months after first exploding on the Internet, largely, it seems, because of a November 30 posting
on MoveOn.org, titled, “Two Lesbians raised a baby and this is what
they got.” In the video, Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old University of Iowa
student, is seen delivering an articulate, compelling argument to the
Iowa House of Representatives during a public forum, in which he sought
to drum up opposition to Joint Resolution 6, which effectively sought to
ban gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in that state.
|
Wahls, a self-professed 6th generation Iowan and engineering student
who has been raised by a lesbian couple, one of whom is his biological
mother, Terrie, presents as a handsome, clean-cut, polite, and eloquent
young man. Regarding how he sees himself and his non-traditional
upbringing, Wahl tells the House Committee, “I’m doing pretty well. I
scored in the 99th percentile on the A.C.T. I’m actually an eagle scout.
I own and operate my own small business. And if I were your son, Mr.
Chairman, I believe I would make you very proud. I’m not really so
different from any of your children. My family really isn’t so different
from yours. After all, your family doesn’t really derive its sense of
worth by being told by the state, ‘You’re married!’ Our sense of worth
comes from the commitment we make to each other.”
Certainly—well, superficially, at any
rate—Wahl’s accomplishments at such a tender age would constitute
success in most anyone’s book. Moreover, he appears to be a likeable,
well-adjusted young man. But the obvious question that emanates from his
argument is: If the sense of worth for same-sex families comes not from
the state declaring that they are married why, then, are they so
aggressively demanding a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex
couples?
To be sure, there are special rights that are afforded
federally and contractually to heterosexual couples in support of
“responsible procreation,” which is really what lies at the heart of
society’s interest in regulating marriage.
In the “Land of the free,” no one could reasonably argue that gays and
lesbians don’t have a right to live as they choose. What they don’t
have, however, is the right to redefine marriage for all of us. Same-sex
marriage is not about "my relationship" versus "your relationship."
Public policy is not about specific individuals. Likewise, public policy
regarding marriage is not about any couple in particular. Marriage is
about future generations and the ideal setting in which they are to be
raised. And yes, some same-sex couples do a very good job at raising
kids, while some heterosexual couples fail miserably at it. But again,
public policy is broader than specific couples and should be based on
noble ideals that transcend all of us—you, me.
Truth be told, what same-sex couples and homosexual activists are
seeking ultimately, shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,”
and “fairness” is moral approval. What they are seeking—even in light of the glaring, intrinsic difference in gender coupling and its associated social consequenes—is
not merely to be tolerated or accepted but to be deemed "no different"
than heterosexual couples. They want to be embraced and encouraged and
their lifestyles considered mainstream. However, moral approval would
require you and me to look upon homosexual behavior and proclaim it "a
good thing." Moral approval would mean that we are complicit in our
children being taught that homosexuality is righteous and true and that
we are compelled by conscience—and if not, the courts—to
spurn businesses and persons who do not believe likewise. Effectively,
moral approval would mean that you and I are not only prepared to permit
homosexuality in our homes, but that we embrace it. We applaud TV shows
that celebrate it, Web sites that promote it, books that endorse it
and, yes, that we may even choose to practice it. Moral approval goes to
the very essence of our person. And, in this effort,
homosexual activists clearly intend to take no prisoners in seeking,
ultimately, to silence all opposition to their lifestyle choices. Never
mind that what they are seeking stands in stark opposition to universal
social and spiritual beliefs over several millennia regarding what
constitutes marriage. They have a manifesto and playbook
in place since 1989, which demands that anyone not in complete
compliance with their point of view be deemed “bigots” and “haters”
rather than dissenters or, more accurately, purveyors of sheer common
sense!
What’s more, we have not yet accumulated sufficient
credible, empirical data through long-term social and scientific study
to support society’s carte blanche approval of these arrangements as
viable and healthy options in which to raise children. Indeed, in their
efforts to reengineer the family, can same-sex couples unequivocally
state, with any sense of integrity, that we fully understand the likely consequences of our institutionalized severing of biology from parenthood?
|
|
The
real issue, ultimately, is not about Wahl’s particular situation—or how
much empathy he elicits as a really likeable guy—but whether or not
such anecdotal accounts can actually hold up to closer, impartial
scrutiny and whether they are truly representative of other children
caught up in similar scenarios. Assuredly, there are countless others – already deemed “collateral damage” who tell a different story. “Alana S.,” for example, speaks
about the “pain of being DENIED a biological parent (and being taught
that it was a good thing!)” Adult rights, according to the apparent
reasoning of same-sex marriage supporters, seemingly trump those of the
children like Alana S. who have been conceived to satisfy the biological
longings of same-sex couples wanting to “play house” with partners that
nature will never comply with in producing children.
Therefore, before we succumb to strategic—but misguided and, often, duplicitous—appeals to conscience
by homosexual activists regarding what constitutes “equality” and
“fairness,” perhaps lawmakers should be contemplating, in an impartial
bipartisan forum, the collective emotional and psychological well-being
of first generation test-tube/IVF babies that have now grown into
adulthood. Perhaps, we should be listening to their heart-wrenching stories about
how being an “engineered” baby feels to them, about their rights being
severed from conception to connect on a sheer visceral level with the
biological donor parent(s) who determined their very existence and with
whom significant numbers believe their true identity is linked. And it
is not just same-sex couples that are engaged in these kinds of
biological engineering and shenanigan agreements with sperm donors! For
every seeming success story, there are undoubtedly countless others who
do not have such glowing accounts as Wahls of their domestic situations,
or enviable psychological profiles, even when raised by loving
well-adjusted—even heterosexual—parents.
Moreover, can we just be honest,
please, without the politically correct spiel? Plain and simple,
same-sex families are different! Two women or two men can NEVER bring to
the table the same biological and sociological attributes that a
heterosexual couple can to parenting. Trust me, I know. I have largely
raised my own two daughters—both of them high achievers—with the help of
my mother over the past ten years. My mother and I are both strong
women—“good” people, as most who know us would attest. But, after
experiencing a traditional domestic arrangement in a loving scenario
before my husband succumbed to cancer, my children will tell you—without
fear of recrimination—that being raised by two women is not only
different. There is a clear void—a “Daddy hunger” that, sadly, neither
my mother nor I can fill.
When all is said and done in this
same-sex marriage debate, lawmakers will have to decide not just what
constitutes marriage but who also qualifies for marriage. Ultimately, we
will have to decide whether both mothers and fathers have critical and
important—but different—roles to play in well being of children, as
nature appears to scream, or they do not. However, in the interim,
before we completely succumb to the powerful, sophisticated
psychological techniques that the homosexual movement uses to manipulate
the public in the media, can we, at least, agree on one thing? As David
Blankehorn stated in his book, The Future of Marriage, “One can believe
in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a
mother and a father. One cannot believe both.”
Editor's note: A constitutional ban on gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships passed the Iowa House by 62-37. Democratic Reps. Dan Muhlbauer, Brian Quirk and Kurt Swaim joined 59 Republicans in support of the measure. Thirty-seven Democrats voted “no,” and one Republican was absent. In order to become law, the amendment must now pass in the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Council Bluffs Democrat, has vowed to block it. If it succeeds there, it must be passed by both the House and Senate again in 2013 before it can be placed on the ballot.
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: The Sperm-Donor Kids Are Not Really All Right: A new study shows they suffer. Slate magazine, By By Karen Clark and Elizabeth Marquardt, June 14, 2010
The
Kids Are All Right, due out in July, is being praised for its honest
portrayal of a lesbian couple, played by Julianne Moore and Annette
Bening. But what seems most revelatory about the movie is its portrayal
of their two teenage children who track down their sperm donor
biological father and insist on forging a connection with him. Finally,
we have an exploration of how children born from such procedures feel,
because in fact it turns out that their feelings about their origins are
a lot more complicated than people think. . .
RELATED BLOG: Confessions of a Cryokid
“What
happens when little bundles of artificially created joy begin to speak
for themselves? Revolt! I'm a product of an anonymous sperm donor and
now that I'm an adult I'm searching for answers and speaking out. And
this is my story..."
RELATED ARTICLE: Donor-Conceived
and Out of the Closet: The children of anonymous sperm donors are
growing up, speaking out, and demanding rights in a forum fraught with
controversy Newsweek/The Daily Beast, By Alessandra Rafferty, February 25, 2011
When
she was younger, Alana S. used to experiment and tell people her dad
died when she was a baby and that she didn’t really ever get to know
him. She would get a sincere hug and a heartfelt, “I’m so sorry.” But
when she told people the truth of her father’s whereabouts, she got a
response mostly filled with confusion. “When I tell people I’m donor
conceived, God, the blank expression on their face,” Alana said.
“They’re shocked, they’re paralyzed.” The reaction propelled her to
create AnonymousUs.org,
a no-names online story collective for donor-conceived people, their
families, donors, and medical professionals. “The goal is for it to be a
healing resource, and also I want to find the patterns. I feel like I’m
a tile in a big mosaic and I want to see other people’s tiles and get a
big picture,” she said. AnonymousUs.org is part of the growing online
presence and increasing visibility of the adult children of anonymous
sperm and egg donors—kids who are not quite all right. . . . . .
Currently, in the United States, you need a license to sell a condo or
cut hair in a salon, but not to broker human life. The $3 billion
fertility industry goes largely unregulated, offering blank pages to
those searching for information where the rest of us are free to access
vital statistics of public record. “I’m not a treatment, I’m a person,
and those records belong to me,” says Pratten. . .
RELATED SITE: AnonymousUs.org
Mission
Statement: The Anonymous Us Project is a safety zone for real and
honest opinions about reproductive technologies and family
fragmentation. We aim to share the experiences of voluntary and
involuntary participants in these technologies, while preserving the
dignity and privacy for story-tellers and their loved ones. Read More
RELATED INFO: Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media MassResistance.org
Read
below: The powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the
homosexual movement has used to manipulate the public in the media. . .
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
