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.