Laura Pedrick, New York Times

Here’s the photo that accompanied the article mentioned in the previous post. It’s a glowing “family” portrait of a homosexual couple and the boy in their care. It does not trouble the Times, or the two men, that this boy has been deprived of a mother. What’s so special about a mother?

The Times’  report was intended to show the unfair economic costs homosexual couples pay. I see no sign of financial distress in this photo. Also, I wonder if this little boy will be eager to pose for a photo with his two dads when he is a teenager.

Rose writes:

Here’s a song that gets it right.

I actually think that a strategy for conservatives would be to emphasize the ways that the issue has little to do with homosexuality per se. Before I was born, my mother moved in with her sister for a few years to help her in taking care of the latter’s daughter, my poor fatherless cousin. No matter how much I love both women, together they were no substitute for traditional parents. This situation only came about because my uncle had flown the coop, but if pairs of sisters and brothers around the world decided that they wished to rear children on their own it would be as bad a trend as homosexual lovers having children and for the same reasons. When (so I have heard happens occasionally) a homosexual man and lesbian agree to “coparent” a child together it isn’t an ideal situation but at least the child will be reared by his mother and father. Of course, the normal channels to parenthood have always been open to homosexuals and lesbians but they have recently decided that it is a human right to have all the normal social rewards and be sexually gratified. This a right that has never existed, no, not even for heterosexuals.

By the way, here is an essay by Roger Scruton on the topic.

Laura writes:

I believe all groups fighting for traditional marriage already make the effect on children the central plank of their campaign. Homosexual activists consistently try to deflect attention from the proven psychological harm experienced by children raised in homes without a mother or a father. The prisons are filled with adults raised only by mothers. The beautiful Negro spiritual, Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child, speaks to the universal desire for a mother, but I suppose it will have to be banned from the American songbook in the future. 

I wonder what it’s like for the children of these “co-parenting” homosexuals to know they were conceived by two people who not only didn’t love each other, but were sexually repelled by one another. Homosexuals who support this are so exquisitely sensitive to their own psychological needs, while being blithely confident in the adaptability of children. They are emotionally dyslexic. They can read their own emotions, but not those written on the souls of others.

Rose writes:

“I wonder what it’s like for the children of these ‘co-parenting’ homosexuals to know they were conceived by two people who not only didn’t love each other, but were sexually repelled by one another.”

I rather agree with the writer of this book and think that at least abstinent homosexuals can marry (the opposite sex) and parent. I am sure that many children of heterosexuals end up in the exact situation you’ve described, but as long as the parents remain on friendly terms with each other they can still carry out their child-rearing duties adequately. (But of course there’s the separate problem of being good examples of masculinity and femininity, given the unstable gender identity of many gays and lesbians.)

Laura writes:

I don’t think of someone who is married to the opposite sex as an abstinent homosexual even if they have desires for the same sex any more than I consider a man who has desires for sadistic sex a sadist unless he carries out those desires. In my understanding, it is what you do, not what you desire, that determines whether you are defined as homosexual or heterosexual.

I think most children view parents who are married as part of a love bond. Regardless of how his parents felt on the day he was conceived or even how they may act toward one another later, the child imagines love was involved and believes love continues to hold all together. But with parents who were never married, never intended to marry and are openly committed to never having relations with the opposite sex except as a sort of parental business transaction, the child is left without much romance to live on. Many millions of children whose parents are divorced live without this romance, but that doesn’t justify the deprivation of millions more. “Co-parenting” is one of those hoaxes that can fool adults but not children. Children feel their own love for their parents so intensely. It frightens them to think the world may not reciprocate the depth of their feelings. But they don’t want their parents simply to love them, they want them to love each other. Married parents can always put on a show of intimacy even when they don’t feel it. Co-parents can’t.

Obviously, throughout history, many people who had strong homosexual desires married and had children. It’s hard to believe that these people were less happy than practicing homosexuals today, who cannot procreate with ease and who must disregard the psychological needs of children to advance their own interests. Our ancestors would have been mystified at this glorification of sex over the pleasures of procreation.

Rose writes:

I don’t want to come across as defending “coparenting.” I think my larger point is just wanting to tell other gays that if they want children so badly then they need to do it the right way. Their attitude is really a childish refusal to accept the reality that every choice is a sacrifice and that the universe will not conform to one’s every whim. (Unfortunately, it’s not something I get to say often in the real world where I want to win and keep friends!)

Laura writes:

Yes, I realized Rose wasn’t defending co-parenting. I was just laying out the general reasons against it since she had brought it up.

Regarding Rose’s final comment, I can only say this. Friends who disagree with your basic principles make loneliness look good.

Hannon writes:

I enjoyed your comments on the NYT story. Then I saw the photo and thought, well, several things before I came to “a miscarriage of humanity.”

Laura writes:

Thank you.

The photo doesn’t match the story at all. They should have shot a poor struggling homosexual couple sitting before a stack of unpaid bills with their heads in the hands while their unwashed and tattered juvenile charges stood at their feet crying for food. The point is homosexual couples are suffering financially!!! One hundred and forty thousand bucks a year and the livin’ ain’t easy.

But they couldn’t resist this family scene with the angelic boy, the adoring professional dads, the urbane furniture and big screen TV. It speaks of stability and financial ease. It’s an advertisement. It’s shameless promotion, not journalism.

Please follow and like us: