« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
07/07/2008
Matt Barber: Are you (a) anti-all adoptions or (b) a major hypocrite?
Writing for his former employer, the Concerned Women For America, Matt Barber has the following to say about one specific custody case that's playing out in Virgina. However, he is really speaking generally about children who are raised by same-sex parents:
Ultimately, though, it all boils down to simple biology. It's impossible for a "gay" pair to have a child without utilizing the mechanics of natural procreation. They have no choice but to bring an opposite-sex third party into the picture. A child like Isabella can't really have two mommies (or three mommies; Jenkins is reportedly in a new lesbian relationship). She can have only one mommy and a daddy (who in this case was an anonymous sperm donor).
Jenkins and others like her are laboring under an unfortunate delusion. They're not mom, mommy, mother or mum. They're not even "step-mom." The closest thing they are to family is, well, kind of like mommy's fun friend who made you call her Aunt Meg.
But none of this matters to today's postmodern moral relativists. They have a specific agenda in mind: to completely redefine reality-based marriage and family into oblivion, no matter who gets hurt in the process.
But we can't help but wonder: Would Matt have the indecency to say the same about a straight couple who employed adoption of outside fertility methods? Would he dare to say something like this:
Ultimately, though, it all boils down to simple biology. It's impossible for a "barren straight" pair to have a child without utilizing the mechanics of natural procreation. They have no choice but to bring either one of two opposite-sex individuals into the picture. A child can't really have two parents who did not produce him or her in the natural way. He or she can have only one mommy and a daddy, who absolutely must be the duo that provided the sperm and the egg.
Those who raise a child not born out of their bodily fluids are laboring under an unfortunate delusion. They're not mom, dad, mommy, daddy, mother, father, mum, or papa. They're not even "step-mom" or "step-dad." The closest thing they are to family is, well, kind of like mommy or daddy's fun friend who made you call them Aunt Meg or Uncle Joe.
But none of this matters to today's postmodern moral relativists. Heterosexuals who become adoptive parents or who have relied on surrogacy methods have a specific agenda in mind: to completely redefine reality-based marriage and family into oblivion, no matter who gets hurt in the process.
Who knows, maybe he does shun those heteros raising children that they did not schtup into being. However, something (like, maybe, years of covering his raging anti-gay-ocity) tells us that Matt's antipathy is more focused, opportunistic, and hypocritical than that.
Children in the "Gay Marriage" Crosshairs [CWA]
Your thoughts
ok seriously, as a apdopted kid of a straight couple this is absolutely ridiculous. my parents are my parents and anyone who says anything differently can shove it. i have met my bio parents and they are lovely people, but they are not my mother and father, the people who raised me are. biology has nothing to do with family. when will people like barber get this.
Posted by: rae | Jul 7, 2008 3:18:56 PM
I have to agree with Rae. "Parents" are those that brought you up. They are the ones that nursed your wounds, held you during difficult times, shared your joy and triumphs. While many parents are the SAME ones that borne you as a union, that does not mean ALL are.
As to the adoption part Barber brings up, does this mean he would be against ANY adoption agency. It seems from his mindset that ANY placement of children NOT with thier biological parents would only be aiding the "gay agenda" and therefore unacceptable.
How does he feel about adoption agencies in general? Would he ban all of them? Adoption advocates are constantly decrying a shortage of adoption parents, would he eliminate a whole population that could provide for these children?
just my 2 cents
aj :)
Posted by: aj | Jul 7, 2008 3:45:47 PM
The Barbers and LaBarberas of the world want to restrict the rights of gay people up to, and including, designating us to have the legal status of criminals. But the rights of straight people are sacrosanct.
As one example, Susan Atkins, one the Sharon Tate killers who is serving a life-term, has become a born-again-Christian and has been married twice while in prison. Her current husband is a Harvard-educated lawyer! But, hey, they have different sex organs, so they get a pass.
Posted by: Richard Rush | Jul 7, 2008 4:47:11 PM
I think that Matt has a more sinister and maniacal motive in mind. I think that he's looking to solve our energy and food production problems by utilizing all of these biological -parent-less children as animal food or as fuel to replace dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. He obviously doesn't want them to have a chance at a future in families where they are loved and cared for. AND, he can fatten them up with all of the excess McDonalds food from the boycott.
Matt "Soylent Green" Barber. Has a ring to it!
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 7, 2008 5:52:16 PM
comments powered by Disqus
