The Travesty of Two Daddies


US-POLITICS-GAY MARRIAGEEvery once in a while, I come across a story that stops me in my tracks. Like the Italian high court’s decision to overturn a pedophile’s conviction because his 11-year-old victim says she’s “in love.” Or the Australian judge who pointed out that easy access to abortion and contraception may lead to the legal sanction of incest, as it has to once-taboo homosexual relationships.


Reprinted with permission from

Today’s story stayed with me all day, as I pondered the implications of a gay actor describing his joy at being able to create children with his partner–while he’s HIV-positive.

As a faithful Catholic, I have dozens of theological reasons for believing it’s wrong for two men or two women to use in vitro fertilization or surrogacy to obtain a child. But I actually don’t need a theological reason, because I’ve had six children with my husband over the past 20 years. And what I’ve learned is that the relationship between a woman and her child is primal, sacred, and written in my very flesh.

We used to know this intuitively. But as we’ve fixated more and more on fulfilling our personal desires to the detriment of everything (and everyone) else, inconvenient truths about the irreplaceable relationship between a child and his mother, between a child and her father, were sacrificed at the alter of Me, Myself, and I.

Facts, though, are stubborn things, to quote John Adams. And the facts are clear: a child needs a mother and father for the best chance to be emotionally, psychologically, and even physically healthy.

The psychological and biological inter-dependency of a mother and her child, from conception through infancy, is well established. A baby is born with eyes that can focus just about the distance from his mother’s breast to her face; his cry will cause her body to involuntarily release milk to nourish him. A newborn allowed skin contact with his mother has a more stable temperature, higher blood sugar levels (a good thing), and more normal heart and breathing rates.

A mother and child who sleep together even synchronize their breathing. There are dozens of studies showing the many ways in which a child depends on his mother’s actual presence to gain the best footing upon entering the world.

Despite all this, I find myself a growing minority in refusing to celebrate the scenario of two men creating twin boys with an egg donor to raise as their own, as happened in Texas last year. I’ve carried a child and then held him to my chest, feeling the spiritual connection between us reflected in my very body, which responds reflexively and unconsciously to his needs. I saw the picture of the two Texas dads holding their baby boys to their naked chests right after birth to mimic the skin-to-skin contact recommended for moms and babies.

I cried about it for days. Because instead of celebrating the victory for gay rights, as everyone else seemed to be, all I could think about was the confusion and incalculable loss to those two little boys, who instinctively sought the warm haven of their mother’s arms–and were denied them by adults whose priority was their wants over the children’s needs. Because that’s what good parents do, right?

After infancy, mothers are just as indispensable to their children. I have four daughters and it’s primarily my job to help them navigate the emotional, social and physical challenges of growing into a woman. Even the most compassionate gay dad will never be an adequate substitute for a loving mother who shares your unique feminine biology and struggles. A girl doesn’t want her dad or even her gay dad’s best female friend to help her when she gets her first period; she wants–she deserves–a mother there with her.

And what about fathers? Despite the secular portrayal of fathers as incidental to children’s development, the facts are stubborn here, too: fathers have a profound effect on their children’s development. Girls who grow up apart from their biological father are more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spend their childhood with both parents. Research suggests that a father’s pheromones may influence his daughter’s biological development and that his presence provides the security and confidence she needs to avoid “looking for love in all the wrong places.”

It should go without saying that a boy needs a father to guide him into manhood, but conventional wisdom now says that two women can do the same job for a boy that a father would. Yet I’m certain my preteen son would disagree. Even the most caring mother can’t speak to a boy’s struggle to embrace his masculinity–both biologically and psychologically–like a father can.

A boy wants a father to show him how to shave, not a mother. A boy with a father can look at his dad and know that he, too, will survive all the bodily and emotional changes that have turned his world upside down.

Yes, life is messy and sometimes we can’t provide our children with a mother and a father. Their father left us; our spouse died. Her addiction or his abuse forced us to divorce to keep everyone safe. But here’s the difference: single parents always intended to give their child the two parents they need. These men and woman are making the best of a bad situation and I know God blesses these families with abundant graces.

Most single-parent families also still have the opposite-sex parent as part of the child’s life; though separated, the mother and father are still available to the child and can provide the guidance and model he needs while growing up. Even when regrettable circumstances separate a child from his biological parents, adoption can still provide him with a loving mother and father so that he can thrive despite that loss.

But that’s not what happens when gay couples start a family–these folks deliberately create a child that will never have a father or mother, for which there is no hope of ever having both of the vital relationships so important to our development as persons. It is fundamentally wrong–not from a religious perspective, but from a human rights one–to purposefully deprive a child of so basic a need as a mother and father, so that gay men and women may have what they WANT.

A girl needs a mother to learn how to be a woman. A boy needs a father to learn how to be a man. Children need the opposite sex parent, too; a girl needs a father and a boy needs a mother, for both provide example and guidance unique to their sex. A mother and father provide the fullest education in what it means to be human–and this is simple wisdom that no amount of social engineering will change.


About Author

  • Guy McClung

    Check out the work of Prof Mark Regnerus, Professor Univ of Texas Austin, which showed that children raised by those who choose to engage in homosexual activities were “worse off” than children raised in a marriage (family: one mom, one dad). Guy McClung, San Antonio

    • cminca

      Dear God in Heaven do you honestly not know that that study has been invalidated countless times?

      He NEVER compared children raised in intact Heterosexual homes to intact Homosexual homes. Didn’t do it. Not in the numbers. Compared apples to oranges and declared he made lemonade.

      • Phil Steinacker

        You’re talking nonsense which is noting more than homosexualist propaganda..

        An offended homosexual filed a complaint with the scientific journal which published it, claiming his methodology was flawed. He didn’t offer specifics; he had none. As a homosexual he just believed it MUST be flawed; no other possibility existed for him.

        Oddly, the journal (name escapes me now) absurdly conducted a review of Regnerus’ methodology based on an emotional complaint lacking any specific methodology flaws which might have warranted it. Still, the journal found the methodology of that study was beyond reproach and ended its participation in the witch hunt initiated by hurt homosexual feelings.

        As I recall, Regnerus actually surveyed a range of many other studies, and so his findings are even more powerful because they were distilled from all that data.

        As for you, I challenge you to list just a few (say, five? that shouldn’t be too many to demand from “countless”) peer-reviewed studies which disproved Regnerus. Please provide the study titles, the names of the principle investigators, and the names of the journals in which they were published. Oh, and don’t forget the dates. Dates are important.

        Personally, I think you are only a troll, and a weak one at that. Your reliance on a condescending sneer fails to conceal your lack of specifics. Using “countless” might have seemed a good idea, but I’m calling you on it.

        • TK

          Regenerus got relentlessly blasted by the homosexualists and his data outlasted the ire because his science was irrefutable. It was one of the most egregious displays of bigotry and prejudice against sound science since Galileo. The whole incident will stand as an infamous reminder of how far the homosexualist movement will go to promote its agenda, even to the point of rabidly denying reality.

          Regnerus and the Austin Institute still do great work for the good of children and the family.

          • cminca

            The federal judge on the subject of Regnerus’ study:

            “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 ‘study’ was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it ‘essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society’ and which ‘was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.’ … While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”

          • TK

            “More serious scholarly judgment has reached a much different conclusion.Three researchers published responses to Regnerus’s work in the same journal issue, and each credited his study with advancing inquiry on the subject. In contrast to prior studies based mostly on small, non-representative ‘convenience’ samples, Regnerus’s New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a large, national sample that provides the most representative picture to date of young adults whose parents had same-sex relationships. Professor Paul Amato of Penn State University notes in his discussion of the study that the NFSS ‘is probably the best that we can hope for, at least in the near future.’”

            “Case Closed at UT Austin: Regnerus Exonerated”

            The Daily Signal, August 31, 2012

            Visiting the article enables on to use the embedded hotlinks.

          • cminca

            The Daily Signal is a mouthpiece for the Heritage foundation–a conservative think tank.
            Try again.

          • TK

            Red herring and genetic fallacy. Double shot logical fallacies. Strikes two and three. There’s nothing to your stance on the issue except prejudice.

          • cminca

            Dude–believe regenerus until the cows come home if you want. There is a word for someone who sells “wares” like he does.

          • TK

            Thank you for your participation in this discussion. You’ve effectively demonstrated the homosexualist mindset, a philosophy based on total disregard for research integrity and motivated only by advocating for the hedonistic whims of adults at any cost. Children are the most egregiously disenfranchised victims of the homosexualist agenda. Scientific observation of the effects of homosexualism on culture/society is of no relevance to its advocates. Homosexualism is inherently destructive on every level.

          • cminca

            You cannot use the terms “research integrity” and Regenerus in the same sentence.
            And you are nothing but a bigot with a pedantic vocabulary.

          • TK

            Interestingly, there is no use of Regenerus and “research integrity” in the same comment, much less the same sentence.

            Genetic fallacy (again) with a shot of ad hominem.

            Ironically, I had to look up “pedantic” in the dictionary.

          • cminca

            TK–be prepared to be very angry for the rest of your life.

            In the words of ACT UP: We’re here. We’re Queer. Get over it.”

          • TK

            Actually, I have nothing to be angry about. I’m over it. :0) May God bless you with peace and prosperity.

          • asmondius

            You’re a statistically insignificant deviation.

          • cminca

            That’s a “statistically insignificant deviation” that seems to be kicking Christian butt.

          • asmondius

            Always obsessed with other persons’ hindquarters…..

          • TK

            No human being made in the image and likeness of God is a “statistically insignificant deviation.” I’m kind of at a loss about what the phrase even means. Well, it’s meaningless. This is not about statistics or even consensus. It’s about people and justice and mercy. Let’s remember that.

          • asmondius

            Justice requires mercy, mercy requires truth, truth requires reading another’s thoughts in context.

          • goral

            You are here to stay because it’s God’s will that evil be in the world to test our Christian charity. That doesn’t mean that you are going to get a pat on the but………er…back, for it.

    • yo

      In addition to Regnerus there are other researchers dealing with this topic.

      Review of Economics of the HouseholdDecember 2013, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 635-658

      Date: 26 Sep 2013

      High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households

      Douglas W. Allen

  • cminca

    I’d suggest you look up Zach Wahls on you tube.
    Then compare his accomplishments against your children’s.

  • Sandro Palmyra

    In the Papal States it wasn’t unusual for an 11 year old girl to be married.

    There are good parent’s and bad parents, do you really think it has anything to do with gender? or how many?

    • TK

      I think the bigger issue here is not lowering the standard to the lowest common denominator, but raising the standard to the highest level tha can be maintained. Children deserve the best society can give them. Arguing that all children should live in compromised home situations because some of them do is backward logic.

      For more specific answers to your questions, read the studies that have already been cited here.