Monday, August 30, 2010

The vocabulary of depravity

Having totally ignored the Emmys owing to the fact that they are completely irrelevant to my life as they probably are to the lives of most people these days, I did give in to the temptation to click on a link today taking me to a page of Emmy fashions, complete with ratings and snarky commentary. There's something almost amusing, in the cultural-train-wreck sort of way, about seeing aging female members of the glitterati all tarted up in shameless clothing that the most depraved and debauched empress of Imperial Rome would have been mortified to wear.

Of course, there was a picture of this fellow, along with his partner in grave sin. The clever copywriter coyly referred to the men (one can't really use 'gentlemen' here, can one?) as "expectant dads."

Now, I've already written about how profoundly evil it is to manufacture children--and how this goes for heterosexuals, homosexuals, and anybody else out there. But I need to take the occasion to say something more, something about words.

Two men cannot both be "expectant dads" of the same children. One of these two men may, indeed, have provided (through an objectively gravely sinful act, by the way) the male genetic material to facilitate the manufacture of the twins currently being gestated inside of the womb of the reproductive prostitute these two children are so unfortunate to have as their mother. But it is a biological, scientific fact that no child ever born has had two fathers, just as it is a biological, scientific fact that no child ever born has had two mothers.

The belief that "Heather" can have two mommies, or that both of these Hollywood men can be "dads" of the same children, is a philosophical, quasi-religious, anti-scientific belief. Science is pretty clear about how human children are conceived. One male parent and one female parent are all that is required. A superfluity of men wishing to act in loco parentis to the resulting offspring does not change the scientific, biological fact that the children can only truly call one man "father."

Real adoptive moms and dads deal with this all the time. They use the terms "birth mother," "birth father" or "biological mom/dad" to refer to the genetic parents of their offspring. They may go by the terms "mom and dad," and they should since they have stepped in to assume these roles when the biological parents failed to live it in a way conducive to the well-being of the child--but there is no pretense about the child or children's origins. While the type of adoption may dictate how much or how little information the children can have about their birth parents, there is no hiding the fact that there are birth parents (or were, if the birth parents are deceased).

But the "two dads"/"two moms" fiction pretends that the child simply doesn't have a father or a mother (as the case may be). When a homosexual man announced the birth of his daughter on a different blog, I offered my congratulations in the comments to the child's father and mother (not to the homosexual men as "dads"). Since the child's mother was a paid reproductive prostitute, I was considered guilty of a social faux pas--but why should I have to ignore scientific reality in order to play along with the quasi-religious/philosophical fiction our culture likes to pretend?

If our culture is clear about one thing, it is that no one needs to respect another person's beliefs, be they religious, philosophical, or otherwise, if one must ignore science to do so. Science is not at all ambiguous about the parentage of a child. So why should I, or any other person, have to look the other way and pretend that it is scientifically possible for a child to have two same-sex parents?

Saying that a child has two fathers, or that he or she has two mothers, is a lie. It may be a lie that makes same-sex people feel more comfortable about the inherent and incontrovertible sterility and barrenness of the kind of sex acts they like to engage in, but it's not my job, or anybody else's, to make people feel comfortable by ignoring science and participating in lies. If other people want to do that, that's their choice, but they can't impose their beliefs on me. I refuse to play along; I refuse to participate in the vocabulary of depravity.

14 comments:

kkollwitz said...

Well said.

Tom said...

Having totally ignored the Emmys....

So you missed the warm round of applause Hollywood gave Jack Kervorkian?

Magister Christianus said...

I caught a bit of the show last night, then headed off to continue reading Lucan's epic poem _Pharsalia_ and David Denby's _Great Books_. A sidewalk puddle on a spring afternoon has more depth than those award shows.

You make a great point. Various people can attempt to serve in the capacity of parent, as indeed adoptive parents do, yet no one has two mommies or daddies, and it is a perverse form of socially acceptable child abuse for those living in the grave sin of which you speak to attempt not only to fulfill a parenting role but also to mislead innocent children into believing that it is morally permissible to do so.

Tito Edwards said...

I stopped watching such shows as this and the Oscars, etcs, ever since the Oscar was given to best song to "Being a pimp is hard" by some group.

Great post by the way.

Anonymous said...

I watched for a while, it's fun to look at dresses and it seemed fairly light hearted but I did notice the Bill Maher clip denigrated the Pope and then when they started the mini series/issue portion of the night, I turned it off.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I didn't even know the Emmys were on. In fact, I had trouble remembering which media gives them out. And everything else you said is right too.

antimeta? That's an interesting one.

scotch meg said...

Hi Erin,

I agree heartily with the gist of your post... but don't you think you're being a little harsh with regard to birth parents (relinquishing parents) in the adoption triad? The act that brought their child into being was undoubtedly a moral failure in most instances (although not all), but they usually are acting in the genuine best interest of their child when they consent to adoption. At least in the United States, they are not abandoning their child in the usual sense of the word, but rather making a deliberate choice for the good of the child. Although they may recognize that the likelihood is that they WOULD be failures as parents, that choice is NOT a failure.

teomatteo said...

Words matter. From something as simple as the word pet. A snake is not a pet. Pets do not naturally coil around a three year old and suffucate them to death. I teach my young children that is really laziness that causes us to use the wrong word and this leads to the wrong belief and possibly a death. I tell them that love is a way too important word to use frivilouslly. And someday when they are old enough i will explain to them what the word sex means and what it does NOT mean. Yes, words matter more than we wish to think sometimes...

Pat said...

May I dissent? The State of California allows 2 men to co-parent a child. In that respect, assuming that one of these men is the biological, natural father, and the other will be the adoptive father, then yes, the child can have 2 dads. At least in the legal sense.

Wild Bill said...

This is a wonderful post. I particularly like the jiujitsu of using the truth to overthrow the lie. It begins with refusing to accept the vocabulary of depravity. A wonderful insight.

Anonymous said...

Great ideas, but I think the tone was a little harsh. Neil Patrick Harris is a child of God. Yes, he is objectively guilty of grave sin. But so am I. I just got lucky that my sin isn't as public as homosexual behavior. I don't think that comments like
"The clever copywriter coyly referred to the men (one can't really use 'gentlemen' here, can one?" and "reproductive prositute" do anything to further a spirit of prayerful and penitential compassion for those mired in grave sin, especially of such a harmful and sensitive nature as homosexual behavior.

Yes, there is a truly evil and depraved attempt to make human life a commodity and human sexuality a game, and to make us all play along, and your uncompromising forthrightness is a breath of fresh air. I just think there needs to be a greater distinction between persons and their evil actions.

Dymphna said...

"aging female members of the glitterati all tarted up in shameless clothing that the most depraved and debauched empress of Imperial Rome would have been mortified to wear. "

That's a bit much.

Red Cardigan said...

Anonymous at 8:42 Sept. 1, I must respectfully disagree. Mr. Harris is indeed a child of God--but he is choosing to make two innocent children subject to the grave evil not only of his lifestyle, but of anonymous "manufacture" with a paid egg seller/womb renter for a mother (hence the term "reproductive prostitute; if we call people who sell their bodies for sex acts "prostitutes," then my term is not at all illogical or inappropriate). This is so hideously wrong that it must be called so, clearly, without euphemism or hesitation. When the innocent suffer, should we turn away out of a false sense of not wishing to hurt the feelings of their tormentors?

Dymphna, did you see the dresses being worn by some of the actresses too old to be excused on the grounds of youthful ignorance and naivete? I did. I stand by what I wrote as s simple description of fact.

Anonymous said...

Red Cardigan, now that I understand the gentleman comment was directed towards the evil of manufacturing human life rather than his homosexuality, I take back my criticism. With the prostitute thing, though...I know women who have rented their wombs. Many are in desperate and degrading circumstances, willing to do anything to survive. Which is often the case with "conventional" prostitutes. So I don't contest your right to the term, but I would ask you to remember that they are being exploited as well, and are the secondary victims (again, like their streetwalking counterparts) of the manufacture of human life.
By the way, I don't know why it keeps making me "anonymous." My name is Clare:)