to follow my-your comments, we are not in Germany or another country, I live in the USA. Wife and husband have carried distinct and specific meaning and interpretations for several hundred years in the US and before, that have been well entrenched, until the past 20 or so years.
You are correct, hetero's dont have a monopoly on words, nor do gays and trans people. What is apparent is many words have been bastardized and reduced and mis-used heavily, to try and use them, to "normalize" what is not recognized as normal behavior, in my opinion. And I imagine also within the vast majority of common sense folks in the USA (and probably elsewhere in the world).
Just because someone "says it is so" does not make it right, me included, nor you.
And as for all this nonsense about commodifying a "woman's body," it results from imagining that a woman's body equals her reproductive organs. Do any of these people object to a woman (or a man) selling her/his hands to work all day in a factory or a field or mine or a shop, or selling a brain to churn out whatever the employer wants. We all sell our bodies and minds to some degree (unless we happen to be born into immense wealth). That's how the world works. Before modern technology, women produced (and many still do) children for their childless siblings or friends. There is nothing new or surprising about it. It's a woman choice whether she wants to have sex with someone for money or produce a child for money or sell some other part of her body or mind for money.
I came to the Free Press because of the biases against Jews and Israel and against Hindus and India in media like the NYT. However, here I find among readers an unbelievable (for the US today) level of homophobia combined with ignorance about history and a series of absurd generalizations (marriage was always between a man and a woman - ever heard of polygamy? - read the Bible; fathers were always role models for sons - fathers getting involved with childcare is a very recent phenomenon, at least in the West; surrogacy is some sort of new invention - any number of women have produced children for other women - what do you think Hagar or Rachel's maids were doing?) as well as a deep ignorance of reality (divorce? drunkenness? wife beaters? child abuse?). And as for adoption, read Boswell's The Kindness of Strangers for its history. Seems like there is no media outlet that is going to work for me. And some commentators think they are being so brave and original calling gay people names. In the West, gay people were tortured and murdered for 1500 years. We burnt in the same fires as Jews did, for centuries and were also killed in the Holocaust, but readers here who support Jews don't seem to know or care about that. I'm not sure which is more amusing (or sadder) - that there is such homophobia among readers of a site founded by two lesbians or that commenters are wedded to an "ideal" or "norm" of a nuclear heterosexual family in a society that has a 50% divorce rate and a high remarriage rate, meaning that huge numbers of children are raised in the unstable situation of shuttling between parents who have new spouses. This commitment to a theory that has nothing to do with reality reminds me of people who have a theory that Jews and Palestinian Arabs should all live in peace and harmony in one state. All this is probably an indicator to me to follow Dr Johnson's advice and read great books rather than newspapers of any kind
Hearing about AIDS always reminds me of the "oh no, the consequences of my actions" meme. You mean you can have frequent anonymous sex with hoards of partners without some health impacts? The horror! Something so easy to dodge just doesn't sound that bad.
Ever heard of syphilis and gonorrhea which killed millions before modern medicine? Yes, heterosexuals also have frequent anonymous sex with dozens of partners and their health is impacted. Why do you think prostitution is called the oldest profession? Because of gay people?
In the interest of seeking the truth about the nature of the human person, The Federalist has an excellent article about the natural rights of a child to have a mother and how surrogacy exploits women and is contrary to the nature of the family. "A conservative position rejects surrogacy based on the self-evident, natural rights of the child, his right to life, to his mother and father, to be born free and not bought and sold. The child is the voiceless party in the arrangement who would never consent to the intentional loss of his or her mother." https://thefederalist.com/2023/12/04/the-conservative-pro-life-case-against-surrogacy/
If I had to pick a time when the West officially decided to make fantasy and lies triumphant over reality and truth, it would be the aids epidemic. Our author survived the natural consequences of his promiscuity and has also managed to have genetic descendants in violation of all natural rules. I'm supposed to have a warm and fuzzy feeling about this, but I don't. Ralph becoming a parent is the gateway drug to trans -- biology doesn't matter anymore ... does it?
How very interesting -- the majority here understand that a natural family is preferable to one in which the kid has five parents. Is sanity returning?
You should be already trained in lies. You tell him he is your son, and this is the bigger lie. You talk about the plan of being father in the same way you could talk about buying a new car. Fatherhood is something else. Reading your essay I understand that fatherhood is something you don't know. You and your wishes are always at the center. The Child is just an accessorie. Fatherhood is a gift, not a business.
What a touching essay. I became a nurse in the late 80s and saw first hand the devastation of the AIDS epidemic. The wonder of modern medicine is that, 35 years later, we are treated to Ralph's beautiful story and how what might have been a death sentence, now is a reminder to live every day to the fullest. Mazel!
This was a beautiful story. I understand that the term "marriage" for same sex couples seems odd for those of us who lived most of our lives believing the term meant a husband and a wife, but several states and then the Supreme Court overruled that idea. A child raised by a man and a woman in a stable, loving relationship is the ideal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't accept and celebrate other arrangements. My wife and I had one child the old fashioned way and adopted another. My daughter had two unsuccessful marriages but wanted to be a mother, so she went through IVF, which was no picnic. Now I have a beautiful grandson who will soon be two years old. He has only one parent, and I know the problems with that, having read The Boy Crisis by Farrell and Gray that lays out the daunting statistics. But my daughter is an exceptional mother and knows that it's healthy for her son to have men in his life, including his grandfather and uncle. In the case of Ralph Buchalter and his husband, it appears they are loving parents, and I'm betting their kids turn out well.
Thanks Joanne-- you got me to search deeper. The following is from "Jew in the City", an Orthodox Jewish magazine.
Perhaps Ralph felt the need to follow the Rabbinic commandment?
I keep trying to separate the issue of this being 2 gay fathers (obtaining children via surrogacy) vs a heterosexual couple doing the same.
The fascinating thing is that when examining the bare biblical law, a Jewish couple is able to fulfill the obligation to procreate by having one boy and one girl. This is seen by Torah as the minimum for it ensures the continuity of the human species as a whole. But a family of four is not what you imagine as the size of a typical Orthodox Jewish family, not by a long shot.
[So what drives these parents to continue? A love for kids? The Holocaust? Some innate affection for Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna minivans?
The answer is both profound and fundamental. It reaches into the foundations of Judaism in its view of the human being in general and the Jew in particular. Like with most aspects of Jewish life, the writings of Maimonides are the go-to place for clarity and precision. Here is what he says about our subject:
“Although a person has fulfilled the Mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying, he is bound by a Rabbinic commandment not to refrain from being fruitful and multiplying as long as he is physically potent. For anyone who adds a soul to the Jewish people is considered as if he built an entire world.” (Rambam, Hilchot Ishut, 15:16)]
Beautiful essay, and so glad you were lucky enough to survive and then to "choose Life"! Reading it brought back my years working as an AIDS Case Manager in Washington state between 1990-1997. So many deaths, even in the rural areas I worked in, but I was lucky enough to see the beginning of the turn around.
Having children is purely biological and instinctual. I've never understand how a man who isn't attracted to a woman wants a child - goes against biology. If it's to create the "picture" of a family... it isn't being done for the right reasons.
I confess that my gut reaction to this obviously earnest testament was, as others below are in agreement , was uncomfortably negative. I confess as well as to having little to no issue with two lesbian women raising children but two men does seem fraught . It would take a special sort of gay male relationship : are they monogamous (many aren't)? have they women in their lives? are they able to live, speak, think without sexual double entendre? These are issues that as a gay man of nearly exact same age and position as this author faces with the increasingly alphabetic "community". The use of surrogacy ( in order to satisfy some genetic affinity) which I find so troublesome morally confirmed my admitted bias; how can one impose upon a woman, with pay or not, with consent or not, such a serious existential commitment and take from her the child that has found her body its loving home. It is a flabbergasting prospect . That said I do wish them well, they seem affluent enough to be buffeted from scorn and cruelty and that is good, no family ought to endure nastiness when simply stumbling upon this path of life. But I did find this an unsettling essay.
A beautiful essay. I'm old enough to remember the devastation of the AIDS epidemic in the 80's and 90's. So glad you made it, Ralph.
I’m not sure how you assumed I do not know gay parents. Of course I do . I just do not seem to have the perspective you’d like gay men to possess .
Hi Ruth
to follow my-your comments, we are not in Germany or another country, I live in the USA. Wife and husband have carried distinct and specific meaning and interpretations for several hundred years in the US and before, that have been well entrenched, until the past 20 or so years.
You are correct, hetero's dont have a monopoly on words, nor do gays and trans people. What is apparent is many words have been bastardized and reduced and mis-used heavily, to try and use them, to "normalize" what is not recognized as normal behavior, in my opinion. And I imagine also within the vast majority of common sense folks in the USA (and probably elsewhere in the world).
Just because someone "says it is so" does not make it right, me included, nor you.
For this article, I stand by my comments.
thanks
rich
And as for all this nonsense about commodifying a "woman's body," it results from imagining that a woman's body equals her reproductive organs. Do any of these people object to a woman (or a man) selling her/his hands to work all day in a factory or a field or mine or a shop, or selling a brain to churn out whatever the employer wants. We all sell our bodies and minds to some degree (unless we happen to be born into immense wealth). That's how the world works. Before modern technology, women produced (and many still do) children for their childless siblings or friends. There is nothing new or surprising about it. It's a woman choice whether she wants to have sex with someone for money or produce a child for money or sell some other part of her body or mind for money.
I came to the Free Press because of the biases against Jews and Israel and against Hindus and India in media like the NYT. However, here I find among readers an unbelievable (for the US today) level of homophobia combined with ignorance about history and a series of absurd generalizations (marriage was always between a man and a woman - ever heard of polygamy? - read the Bible; fathers were always role models for sons - fathers getting involved with childcare is a very recent phenomenon, at least in the West; surrogacy is some sort of new invention - any number of women have produced children for other women - what do you think Hagar or Rachel's maids were doing?) as well as a deep ignorance of reality (divorce? drunkenness? wife beaters? child abuse?). And as for adoption, read Boswell's The Kindness of Strangers for its history. Seems like there is no media outlet that is going to work for me. And some commentators think they are being so brave and original calling gay people names. In the West, gay people were tortured and murdered for 1500 years. We burnt in the same fires as Jews did, for centuries and were also killed in the Holocaust, but readers here who support Jews don't seem to know or care about that. I'm not sure which is more amusing (or sadder) - that there is such homophobia among readers of a site founded by two lesbians or that commenters are wedded to an "ideal" or "norm" of a nuclear heterosexual family in a society that has a 50% divorce rate and a high remarriage rate, meaning that huge numbers of children are raised in the unstable situation of shuttling between parents who have new spouses. This commitment to a theory that has nothing to do with reality reminds me of people who have a theory that Jews and Palestinian Arabs should all live in peace and harmony in one state. All this is probably an indicator to me to follow Dr Johnson's advice and read great books rather than newspapers of any kind
Hearing about AIDS always reminds me of the "oh no, the consequences of my actions" meme. You mean you can have frequent anonymous sex with hoards of partners without some health impacts? The horror! Something so easy to dodge just doesn't sound that bad.
Ever heard of syphilis and gonorrhea which killed millions before modern medicine? Yes, heterosexuals also have frequent anonymous sex with dozens of partners and their health is impacted. Why do you think prostitution is called the oldest profession? Because of gay people?
Can't*
In the interest of seeking the truth about the nature of the human person, The Federalist has an excellent article about the natural rights of a child to have a mother and how surrogacy exploits women and is contrary to the nature of the family. "A conservative position rejects surrogacy based on the self-evident, natural rights of the child, his right to life, to his mother and father, to be born free and not bought and sold. The child is the voiceless party in the arrangement who would never consent to the intentional loss of his or her mother." https://thefederalist.com/2023/12/04/the-conservative-pro-life-case-against-surrogacy/
If I had to pick a time when the West officially decided to make fantasy and lies triumphant over reality and truth, it would be the aids epidemic. Our author survived the natural consequences of his promiscuity and has also managed to have genetic descendants in violation of all natural rules. I'm supposed to have a warm and fuzzy feeling about this, but I don't. Ralph becoming a parent is the gateway drug to trans -- biology doesn't matter anymore ... does it?
True. Heterosexual men have never been and still never are promiscuous. What exactly all the prostitutes are doing remains an eternal mystery
It's a matter of degree isn't it? We are told that among gays, five different, anonymous 'partners' per day is normal.
How very interesting -- the majority here understand that a natural family is preferable to one in which the kid has five parents. Is sanity returning?
You should be already trained in lies. You tell him he is your son, and this is the bigger lie. You talk about the plan of being father in the same way you could talk about buying a new car. Fatherhood is something else. Reading your essay I understand that fatherhood is something you don't know. You and your wishes are always at the center. The Child is just an accessorie. Fatherhood is a gift, not a business.
What a touching essay. I became a nurse in the late 80s and saw first hand the devastation of the AIDS epidemic. The wonder of modern medicine is that, 35 years later, we are treated to Ralph's beautiful story and how what might have been a death sentence, now is a reminder to live every day to the fullest. Mazel!
This was a beautiful story. I understand that the term "marriage" for same sex couples seems odd for those of us who lived most of our lives believing the term meant a husband and a wife, but several states and then the Supreme Court overruled that idea. A child raised by a man and a woman in a stable, loving relationship is the ideal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't accept and celebrate other arrangements. My wife and I had one child the old fashioned way and adopted another. My daughter had two unsuccessful marriages but wanted to be a mother, so she went through IVF, which was no picnic. Now I have a beautiful grandson who will soon be two years old. He has only one parent, and I know the problems with that, having read The Boy Crisis by Farrell and Gray that lays out the daunting statistics. But my daughter is an exceptional mother and knows that it's healthy for her son to have men in his life, including his grandfather and uncle. In the case of Ralph Buchalter and his husband, it appears they are loving parents, and I'm betting their kids turn out well.
Thanks Joanne-- you got me to search deeper. The following is from "Jew in the City", an Orthodox Jewish magazine.
Perhaps Ralph felt the need to follow the Rabbinic commandment?
I keep trying to separate the issue of this being 2 gay fathers (obtaining children via surrogacy) vs a heterosexual couple doing the same.
The fascinating thing is that when examining the bare biblical law, a Jewish couple is able to fulfill the obligation to procreate by having one boy and one girl. This is seen by Torah as the minimum for it ensures the continuity of the human species as a whole. But a family of four is not what you imagine as the size of a typical Orthodox Jewish family, not by a long shot.
[So what drives these parents to continue? A love for kids? The Holocaust? Some innate affection for Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna minivans?
The answer is both profound and fundamental. It reaches into the foundations of Judaism in its view of the human being in general and the Jew in particular. Like with most aspects of Jewish life, the writings of Maimonides are the go-to place for clarity and precision. Here is what he says about our subject:
“Although a person has fulfilled the Mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying, he is bound by a Rabbinic commandment not to refrain from being fruitful and multiplying as long as he is physically potent. For anyone who adds a soul to the Jewish people is considered as if he built an entire world.” (Rambam, Hilchot Ishut, 15:16)]
Beautiful essay, and so glad you were lucky enough to survive and then to "choose Life"! Reading it brought back my years working as an AIDS Case Manager in Washington state between 1990-1997. So many deaths, even in the rural areas I worked in, but I was lucky enough to see the beginning of the turn around.
Having children is purely biological and instinctual. I've never understand how a man who isn't attracted to a woman wants a child - goes against biology. If it's to create the "picture" of a family... it isn't being done for the right reasons.
I confess that my gut reaction to this obviously earnest testament was, as others below are in agreement , was uncomfortably negative. I confess as well as to having little to no issue with two lesbian women raising children but two men does seem fraught . It would take a special sort of gay male relationship : are they monogamous (many aren't)? have they women in their lives? are they able to live, speak, think without sexual double entendre? These are issues that as a gay man of nearly exact same age and position as this author faces with the increasingly alphabetic "community". The use of surrogacy ( in order to satisfy some genetic affinity) which I find so troublesome morally confirmed my admitted bias; how can one impose upon a woman, with pay or not, with consent or not, such a serious existential commitment and take from her the child that has found her body its loving home. It is a flabbergasting prospect . That said I do wish them well, they seem affluent enough to be buffeted from scorn and cruelty and that is good, no family ought to endure nastiness when simply stumbling upon this path of life. But I did find this an unsettling essay.
You're a gay man who doesn't know any gay male couples with children? Where do you live?
"are they able to live, speak, think without sexual double entendre?"
Of all the possible concerns about gay men raising kids, this has got to be the weirdest one I've ever heard.