Surrogate mothers bearing babies for gay couples

Well this is an interesting phenomenon. A growing number of surrogate mothers are helping same-sex couples (usually gay men, which would make sense) start families. I think it’s great — just as I think surrogate parenting is a pretty good thing to begin with. And this article serves as a reminder that same-sex couples with families already exist. As the same-sex marriage decision in Mass pointed out, children who are already part of a family headed by a same-sex couple aren’t afforded the same benefits under the law as children whose parents are allowed to be legally married. So in “defending marriage,” anti-same sex marriage advocates are actually harming families. Imagine that.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

20 comments for “Surrogate mothers bearing babies for gay couples

  1. BillyHW
    May 28, 2005 at 1:42 pm

    bell hooks is a genius!

  2. BillyHW
    May 28, 2005 at 1:42 pm

    Feminism is for everybody!

  3. jam
    May 28, 2005 at 1:58 pm

    Jill, you don’t think every child deserves to have a mother?

    any single parent fathers out there? listen carefully, because Billyboy is about to lay down why your family is only second-rate. i assume any gay fathers are already listening.

    so, let me guess: kids deprived of ongoing developmental contact with one (1) human being possessing female sexual organs & one (1) human being possessing male sexual organs will grow up a sad twisted freak. because two men (no matter how loving & supportive) will ever compare with that grand metaphysical event known as a heterosexual couple (no matter how abusive or disfunctional). am i getting close?

    love doesn’t have a gender Billyboy.

  4. BillyHW
    May 28, 2005 at 2:40 pm

    You didn’t answer my question, Jill.

    What are you afraid of?

  5. May 28, 2005 at 5:37 pm

    I love how wingnuts think that once you quit answering their questions since you realize that brick walls have more sense, they conclude you must be “afraid”. Just as it’s scary to try to explain nuclear physics to the cat. No, it’s just a waste of time.

  6. Quisp
    May 28, 2005 at 5:45 pm

    I feel there have been posts deleted here. I hate missing stuff.

  7. Thomas
    May 28, 2005 at 6:33 pm

    Jill, what are you keeping Billy around for? Is there any possibility that he will add substance to any debate in the forseeable future?

  8. Quisp
    May 28, 2005 at 8:02 pm

    I guess there’s always the possibility that, if treated reasonably and rationally…oh never mind…

  9. May 28, 2005 at 8:39 pm

    Yeah, Billy is a bit of a distraction… my personal philosophy about blogging is that, unless someone gets completely offensive and out of hand, I don’t ban them. I like debate, and I like hearing from the other side. Obviously, hearing from the other side is a whole lot more valuable when they’re reasonable, rational and actually have a point, but it is the far right we’re talking about here. So should Billy continue to spew total nonsense, his removal will probably occur at some point.

    Re: Billy – I didn’t answer your question because I didn’t see it, so I don’t know what it was. Sorry.

  10. BillyHW
    May 28, 2005 at 11:01 pm

    Jill, you must have seen my question when you rewrote all my posts.

    Here it is again: Don’t you think every child deserves to have a mother?

    I fail to see how discussing the need of children to have mothers (or fathers) is “nonsense”.

    This is a very serious question and will certainly come up in the public debate over “gay adoption” that is sure to follow the same-sex marriage controversy. How will your side respond?

  11. Quisp
    May 28, 2005 at 11:44 pm

    No, every child does not need to have a mother. Having a mother (I assume you mean a mother who lives in the same house as you and takes care of you and loves you, etc., not just a female who gives birth to you) can be a great thing, providing of course that the mother is a great mother. Having a sucky mother, or an insane mother, or an abusive mother, has its disadvantages.

    What every child “needs” (i.e. deserves) is a loving home. I’ve seen single dads provide it, single moms, two dads, two moms, grandparents, older siblings even, not to mention good old fashioned moms and dads. For me (I can’t really speak for “my side”) the crucial overriding factor is that the parent(s) is/are emotionally and mentally healthy and therefore able to provide an environment in which the child can thrive and be happy.

  12. May 28, 2005 at 11:50 pm

    Jill, you must have seen my question when you rewrote all my posts.

    Here it is again: Don’t you think every child deserves to have a mother?

    I didn’t rewrite your posts. You don’t have to believe me, but I didn’t. (However, whoever did, it’s funny).

    As to your question: I think every child deserves loving people to care for him or her, for his or her entire life. I don’t think it makes that much of a difference if the primary caretaker is a mother, a father, both, two mothers or two fathers. I think children deserve supportive households that encourage education, strong character and kindness. The gender of the parent/s doesn’t factor into any of the ideals that I consider important for all people to grow up with.

    I grew up in a two-parent household, with a mother and a father who had what I thought was a perfect marriage. When I was 18, my parents divorced suddenly. My childhood was great — both of my parents were involved, loving and supportive of my sister and I. Since the divorce, my relationship with my mom has actually improved. We get along better. She’s become a more interesting woman now that she’s allowed to be a little self-centered, and I’ve grown up quite a bit and have recognized what an amazing person she is. Had she raised me alone, would I have been a different person than who I am today? Sure. My dad shaped a lot of who I am. Would I be worse off? I’ll never know, but I don’t think so. Ditto if I had been raised my my father — who is also a very interesting person — without my mom.

    So this is long-winded and more personal than I intended on getting, but my point is that I had the luck of having two people who would give everything they had for my sister and I (and they certainly did). If it had been just one or the other, I would have been just as lucky. My mom wasn’t a good mom by virtue of her being female; she was a good mom because she is intelligent, because she has a huge heart, because she’ll do anything for her kids and because she loves us with a fierceness that we can feel in our souls. That’s what a parent is. Parents are invaluable. Their sex isn’t what’s important.

  13. BillyHW
    May 29, 2005 at 1:13 am

    (I’m glad to hear that it wasn’t you Jill that rewrote all my posts and tried to prevent my access to this blog. It seems that your co-blogger(s) are not so tolerant of differing opinions and are not prepared to debate the issues or even hear the positions of the other side.)

    I guess this is another fundamental difference between us.

    We believe that a child has a natural right to both his mother and his father. We believe (and have mountains of evidence to back this up) that children do better when they have both a loving mother and a loving father to raise them. We believe that mothers and fathers bring different abilities and styles to parenting that can not be completely reproduced by the other.

    We believe that to deliberately deprive a child of either a mother or a father is to do violence to them.

    We are prepared to take liberals to the mat on this issue. We will definitely lay waste to you on this issue.

  14. Quisp
    May 29, 2005 at 1:36 am

    That ship has sailed. Same-sex couples are already adopting kids and having kids through surrogates. You think you’re going to make it impossible for unmarried parents (i.e. same-sex couples who can’t marry because you don’t think they should) to adopt — at the same time you’re making it impossible for people to get abortions , while simultaneously incubating all these frozen embryos to term? That’s a lot of extra babies you’re making, while you shut down the possible homes for them.

    Why all this concern with stamping out gayness? Really, what’s it to you?

  15. May 29, 2005 at 7:50 am

    BillyHW said:

    We believe that to deliberately deprive a child of either a mother or a father is to do violence to them.

    We are prepared to take liberals to the mat on this issue. We will definitely lay waste to you on this issue.

    Then you must also be an anti-war advocate, especially when it comes to the occupations we are currently engaged in. All of those mothers and fathers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are parents are not currently raising their children. You must then believe that the President and his cabinet of falsifiers are performing violent acts aganst these families.

    I can’t help but agree.

    As for taking us to the mat, I don’t really understand. Do you envision legislating a family structure? Will you place the “wrong parents” into gulags and their children into orphanages?

    Billy, your “lay waste” rhetoric is a bit over the top. The foundations of this country are based in the idea that we may expand the personal freedoms of our fellow citizens. You’re not sounding very American here.

  16. Quisp
    May 29, 2005 at 2:33 pm

    Ryan:

    I agree, Billy’s hostility is decidedly un-Christian. But regarding your point that Billy ought to be an antiwar advocate, I think I just figured something out.

    Here’s what I think might be going on: unconsciously, the Right feels bad about killing all these innocent people, which is why they spend so much time rationalizing it (they’re not innocent, we couldn’t have foreseen their deaths, you have to break a few eggs, the principle of double effect, etc. ETC!). But rationalization only takes you so far. You also must demonize those in society who are telling you what you are doing is wrong.

    The appeal of the “abortion is murder,” “frozen embryos are people,” “gay parents do VIOLENCE to their children by definition” tract is that it makes all liberals into violent mass/serial murderers and child abusers. Now, remind me, what is it again that the Right might feel guilty about?

    See?

    They want those things to be true because it makes everyone just as bad as they are afraid they are.

    Once again, projection denied.

    They say they value all human life equally and then proceed to define human life in such a way that human life is more often than not disposable if not worthless. They don’t want to raise the status of those embryos. They want to lower the status of their victims to that of the ants they fried up with their magnifying glasses when they were kids.

  17. BillyHW
    May 29, 2005 at 4:10 pm

    the ants they fried up with their magnifying glasses when they were kids.

    I’ll admit it…guilty as charged.

    :)

  18. Dianne
    May 29, 2005 at 5:52 pm

    “We believe that a child has a natural right to both his mother and his father. We believe (and have mountains of evidence to back this up) that children do better when they have both a loving mother and a loving father to raise them.”

    I’m not sure who “we” is in this context or what “mountain of evidence” BHW is referring to, but the claim is not backed by the peer reviewed literature. There is, if not a mountain at least a large and respectable molehill of evidence suggesting that being raised by a gay or lesbian couple is just as good for a child in terms of a number of outcomes such as health, relationship with parents, mental health, education, etc as being raised by a straight couple. See, for example:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15870566&query_hl=1
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15482501&query_hl=1
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12361102&query_hl=1

  19. Quisp
    May 29, 2005 at 6:07 pm

    Yes, but don’t you think the We of Billy believes that gay parents are guilty sinners and that by definition children raised in that environment are being raised in an environment of sin which by definition is worse for a child than any hetero mom+dad environment, no matter how otherwise fucked-up it might be?

  20. judgemc
    May 29, 2005 at 8:05 pm

    Here it is again: Don’t you think every child deserves to have a mother?

    Every child deserves to have a mother, but that question is naive and deceptive. There is only one answer that is acceptable. “Yes”

    That is not the real question that should be asked. The real question is “In what environments can a child be raised and grow up to be a functioning member of society?”

    The answer is: many different familial environments will produce functioning members of society; even those that are less than “ideal”. (i.e. poverty, single parent, abusive…)(I use the term ideal simple because I couldn’t think of a better word.)

    My sister-ilaw died at the age of 26 leaving behind three children. They deserve to have thier mother, but that is not going to change ever. Thier mother is gone and they will have to live with that, but they will not be less for it.

Comments are closed.