JAMES P. writes:

Diana wrote of the “right to reproduce” and of the absurdity of homosexual couples having children genetically their own. She terms this madness that she doesn’t believe will ever happen. But it is already happening! This story relates that 63-year-old Elton John and his male “partner” have had a child via a surrogate mother. Frankly I find everything about this story repulsive, but that’s the world we live in — what seemed like unthinkable madness yesterday is the reality of today.

Laura writes:

The headline is a deliberate lie, of course. They did not both become parents. This child is genetically related to one of these men (as opposed to the imagined possibility of reproduction by two people of the same sex, as Diana discussed.)  That doesn’t make their “parenthood” any less of a crime against a boy than if they somehow were both parents. The whole thing is a staged farce. 

Diana writes:

This engineering feat was accomplished via an American reproductive prostitute (otherwise known as a surrogate), whose privacy is allegedly being protected. (Poppycock.  Congenital exhibitionists like Elton John don’t understand the meaning of the word privacy, much less its sanctity.)

So we’ve got a twofer!  An anchor baby and a child born into a “gay family.”

Though done via the usual sperm-and-egg route, I contend that this form of breeding isn’t materially different from the science fiction kind I wrote to you about. The mother’s presence will be systematically extinguished from the child’s life. But as you well know, children have minds of their own (bless them). What will they say when the child asks (or rather, screams), “where’s my mommy?”

                                                                   — Comments —

A reader writes:

Two dads is not as sci-fi as some might think. It’s convoluted but we’re getting there, and it’s a  lot closer than your readers may surmise.

Brandon B. writes:

The link in the previous comment to the article about offspring created from two male mice struck my attention. This is such a blatant example of scientistic hubris and luciferian arrogance it blows my mind that people accept it so passively without question. And further, where is the animal rights activist outrage over this? Could it be that they are silent because they are often leftist allies of the most vocal proponents of technological hedonism? I realize that many people view mice as despicable pests but they are living creatures that God put on this planet. Using them in this manner is cruel and barbaric. It’s similar to scientists making “glowing” monkeys just because they can. The cult of scientism has us moderns in a trance like that of an occult spell.

Diana writes:

Here is another article about the mice. The lead researcher is quoted as saying, “It was a weird project but we wanted to see if it could be done.”

The scientist said it. Same-sex procreation is just a problem to be solved. And he’s solved it. The homosexual rights movement has swept away all moral objections to this research. The article states that the method is “questionable” and “impractical” for human reproduction, but concludes: “And perhaps someday it could lead to the development of technologies that would allow gay male couples to have their own genetic children.”  How something can be questionable, impractical and promising all at once is a mystery to me. But I didn’t graduate from journalism school.

Anyway, my point is made: if same-sex marriage is good, if reproductive prostitution is good, then so is genetically engineering human reproduction to enable same-sex procreation. You can’t have one without the other. I will repeat myself: once same-sex marriage is the law of the land, homosexual couples will be viewed as any other infertile couples. They will deserve Assisted Reproductive Technology.

Please follow and like us: