(The Australian) — THE largest sperm bank in Britain is under investigation from health officials over claims they used sperm from the wrong donor after a gay couple had two children from different racial backgrounds.
The alleged mix-up at the IVF clinic only emerged after the birth of the couple’s second child, who is of different race to the rest of the family.
The parents are said to be “devastated” at the alleged mistake as they had wanted their children to be genetically related by using the same sperm donor, The (London) Sunday Times reported.
“The damage to the [younger] child in the future, to both the siblings and the family unit could be quite catastrophic,” said Caron Heyes, the couple’s lawyer.
The commentary practically writes itself on this so I will only ask the questions.
- Since the liberal idea that two mommies or two daddies is as ideal as one mother and one father, why isn’t the idea that children of different races not ideal as well? After all, adopting multiracial children is to celebrities what collecting baseball cards is to the average hobbiest.
- If multiculturalism is ideal for the workplace, the judiciary, the university, the public school system, why not the family?
- Why does the attorney believe the younger child will be damaged by the racial make-up of the family, but not the gender make-up its parents?
Sifting Reality 
– Having two loving parents is a wonderful situation for a child. The gender (identity) of the parents makes no more difference than the gender (identity) of the child. I always like to point out that two parents is actually only slightly better than one. In truth, a child needs an extended family so the parent or parents don’t go crazy trying to chase the little one around :-) . The more the merrier.
Similarly, the race of the child makes no more difference than the race of the parents. I can understand the parents having a preference about race or height or eye color or intelligence or anything else. But to say they are “devastated” or that the younger child will be “damaged” sounds bigoted to me too. <– we agree
Evolution does show that genetic diversity, as with an interracial child, does theoretically provide for healthier children. A genetic monoculture tends to reinforce genetic flaws that would otherwise not be passed if the trait had to compete with a healthier trait. But children, all birthed and able to appreciate their lives, want and deserve parents. The genetic makeup is not part of the decision. Eugenics is a disgraced concept.
Those celebrities who adopt kids may have shallow motives or they may have noble motives, but the kids themselves are taken from destitution and cared for, so I support their "hobby" wholeheartedly, whatever their motivation.
Jason
Are you saying there is no substantial difference between men and women?
Excellent points, John.
And for Jason, Evolution does not show anything. That is a reification logic fallacy.
Gender of parents does indeed make a difference in the development of the child. Men and women are not identical and the gender differences, and how they manifest, impact the understanding the child develops of the world around him and, more importantly, what it means to be either. I question those “studies” that suggest children growing up in homes headed by parents of the same gender are not adversely affected by that scenario, especially since there are grown children who have stated otherwise, that recent research has shown a higher percentage of children in those situations self-identify as homosexual themselves and of course, the common understanding of the benefits of a child being raised by both of its own biological parents (all other things being equal).
your posts many times become great topics of discussion for me and my husband. I appreciate your wisdom and insight!
Really?! That’s great! Thank you for reading my posts and thinking about them.
Absolutely! We love to discuss current events from our faith perspective. And we love how you filter world news through biblical truths. It makes us think and gives us great talking points on current subjects with non-believing family and friends. Keep it up – we need to be a louder voice in our culture!
JB – There are differences between men and women. Men and women are, for all their differences, equally valid. The qualities of individuals in general far outweigh the biological or psychologically differences of gender. Also, the value of having two loving parents (and hopefully a few aunts and uncles) far outweighs any value there may be in having two genders represented in the parental unit. One benefit in particular is the ability for single-gender parents to inoculate their children against gender stereotypes and gender norming.
Jason,
Not all “gender stereotyping” is wrong. And “gender norming” is nothing but a buzz phrase to marginalize true gender differences.
Same-sex parents cannot teach the child about the missing gender, nor will they be able to demonstrate normal marital relations. Their children will only be taught a skewed sexuality as normative, which is why a high percentage of children in these situations become homosexually oriented themselves – they are taught that way.
It is wrong- immoral – to intentionally deny a child a father or mother just to satisfy selfish desires.
“Also, the value of having two loving parents (and hopefully a few aunts and uncles) far outweighs any value there may be in having two genders represented in the parental unit”
The problem with this statement is that it is not an equal comparison. An equal comparison would be two sets of parents of equal “quality”, both being loving, etc and then determining if one set (opposite sexed, biological parents) is better for the children than the other (same sexed, with one or neither biologically responsible for the child’s existence). All other things being equal, the first set is always the better scenario for raising a child, followed by adoptive parents that mimic that father & mother dynamic.