“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all lifestyles are not created equal, that they should be evaluated in light of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and that those endowed by their Creator with Reason have the right and responsibility to proclaim Reality to a delusional Society.” (from The Declaration of Reason)
Jennifer Cramblett is suffering with fears, anxieties, and tremendous uncertainty with regard to her family’s future. Along with all the inconveniences of attempting to live her life in a committed lesbian relationship within the context of a primarily straight culture, she must now deal with the worst of all the social stigmas: racism. As an upstanding member of the LGBT community, Ms. Cramblett should have been able to expect the wide support of the Liberal Left base in her pursuit to produce an analog to an intact biological family. But then she stepped on the third rail of progressive American outrage by suing the sperm bank that supplied the means of granting her a black baby. In case you didn’t know, Jennifer and her partner are white.
If moral relativists ever suffered from a moral dilemma, this scenario would be it. A white lesbian living in a state that doesn’t allow Gay “marriage” sues a sperm bank because she had a black baby. Where should one begin? Perhaps I should have started with the “white lesbian” line. But then, you might have thought I was telling one of those “A white lesbian walks into Ohio…” jokes. Sadly, it isn’t a joke. But the following is.
A white lesbian couple walks into a bar with their black daughter to celebrate her twenty-first birthday. The bartender looks up at them and says, “I’m sorry, but you’ll have to leave. The bar is closed.” Please evaluate your level of cultural sensitivity and sense of social justice by taking the short survey below.
You find this joke offensive because:
- The bartender is a homophobe.
- The bartender is a misogynist.
- The bartender is a male chauvinist.
- The bartender has been put in an impossible position by his money-grubbing, capitalistic employers who coerce him via the exploitation of his lack of other employment opportunities to implement rules he finds morally repugnant.
- The bartender is a racist.
- The joke wasn’t funny.
- All of the above.
- None of the above.
If you chose #5, then I trust you appreciate the dilemma this case presents to all social engineers. Of a certainty, they feel that homosexuals should enjoy all the reproductive trappings of heterosexuals – their disinclination to marrying and procreating with members of the opposite sex notwithstanding – but not at the expense of a color-blind society. Difficult indeed.
If you chose #4, then you are at worst a committed Communist and at best a neo-Marxist. Either way, I’m happy you found this post and hope you will read more of the blog as you might find it helpful in the pursuit of reality.
If you chose #7, then you can hold your head up proudly amongst all of your liberal associations. Your indignation at this hypothetical situation proves that you have been fully sensitized by politically correct rhetoric.
If you chose #8, I suspect that perhaps you are a realist that likes giving people the benefit of the doubt. Absent any other information, you’ve come to the conclusion that the bartender’s only blunder was forgetting to lock the door at closing time. But why should reason prevail. After all, we are living in a country that seems hell bent on drawing some moral equivalence between a married, heterosexual couple having biological children and rearing them and a homosexual couple using artificial insemination and/or surrogacy to have children of their own. The fact that the only thing being questioned as controversial in the case of Cramblett vs. Midwest Sperm Bank is the mother’s concerns of having a mixed-race baby in an all-white community shows how effective the LGBT community has been in promoting their agenda.
To the critics of Ms. Cramblett who call her racist for picking a blond, blue-eyed, white baby daddy because – aside from having testicles and a penis – he happened to best match the demographic profile of her partner; I say, what did you expect? Gays and lesbians and acceptance of them are held up today as paragons of diversity. Help me understanding this. How is it that people who primarily pursue as sex partners other people who have the same type of sexual organs they do (i.e. HOMOsexuals, from the Greek homos, meaning “same”) are considered to be bent toward diversity? Homogeneity is central to their identity. I’m only surprised Cramblett didn’t ask for a white, blue-eyed, blond lesbian sperm donor.
Lesbian sperm donor? But lesbians don’t produce sperm! My point exactly. And neither do gays lay eggs. In a rational society, Creationists and Evolutionists should both agree that this is bad business. I am an ardent, Bible-believing Creationist. As such, it should come as no surprise that I believe these types of social experiments are an abomination and ultimately do a disservice to the child. But if one believes that natural selection is the principle of biological progress, how can the idea of same-sex couples attempting to propagate be considered a viable option? From the perspective of evolution, if homosexuality is a genetic trait it must be considered a mutation that should be weeded out of the sexually reproducing population through the sheer attrition of survival of the fittest.
For years, social activists have banged the drum that children raised in homosexual households suffer no disadvantages as compared to those raised in heterosexual households. And in current PC-enlightened thought, being raised by homosexuals might even be preferable as the children will probably be more tolerant of differences in society. This is all well and good if tolerance is your goal, but at what cost?
A groundbreaking study published in 2012 seriously calls into question the assumption that being reared by two moms or two dads is just as good (or better, if you are a true progressive) as being reared in an intact biological family (i.e., one that is comprised of a mother and father that are married and raising their biological children). The study concentrated its research on young adults 18 to 39 and asked them about their experiences growing up and their current life circumstances. When compared with children from intact biological families, the study found that children of lesbian mothers:
- Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance.
- Are less likely to be currently employed full-time.
- Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed.
- Watch TV for longer periods and more frequently.
All this is good news for the social engineers as this means that they are also more than likely to vote Democrat. But wait, dear reader, there is more. Children of lesbian mothers:
- Are more likely to be currently cohabiting.
- Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual.
- Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting.
I trust you see why this agenda is being pushed. After all, it produces tolerant civilians who are more likely to lean on public assistance and happen to be sexually liberated. For the social progressives, what’s not to like? But we’re not finished. Children of lesbian mothers also:
- Smoke more frequently.
- Use marijuana more frequently.
- Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will.
- Are 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”
And now the Leftist Social Engineers have another moral dilemma: is it worth putting up with drug abuse, rape, and the sexual abuse of children in order to have a tolerant society dependent on Government and fully engaged in the fantasy of moral relativism? Sadly, I think their answer has been a resounding yes.
In case you find all this depressing, let me leave you on a lighter note. Two she-wolves tire of the traditional pack hierarchy and the odiousness of alpha male syndrome. “How about you and I become a committed couple, run off, and be our own pack,” says one to the other. “But I want puppies,” says her friend. “Fine,” the first one replies, “you can be the bitch.”
 The beauty of a principled world view is that I suffer no moral dilemma when it comes to Ms. Cramblett’s pregnancy itself. She learned she had been inseminated by the wrong donor before giving birth, but she did not abort the baby. She is to be commended for not compounding a clerical mistake with murder.