what hath we wrought?

i figure this is a pretty cut-and-dried kind of a concept...

"The man said,
'This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man.'
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:23-24)

and for those who like to believe that the old testament is no longer relevant today, particularly to the topic at hand, i offer up this new testament passage wherein Jesus Himself thought it was important enough to quote from genesis...

"Haven't you read,' he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." (Matthew 19: 4-5)

so, what's all the fuss about? just a little news item that, i think, merits more air time than it's been getting... definitely more than paris hilton going to jail or lindsay lohan's new movie coming out (priorities, priorities). the ramifications of this case are going to have a significant impact on family law (and the re-defining of the term "family") for years to come. the gist of the matter is that a lesbian couple (well, former couple, as they've gone their separate ways) utilized the services of a male acquaintance as a sperm donor in order to have a couple of children. after the break-up, a court ordered the ex-partner of the birth mother to pay $1,000 a month in child support. in response to that order, the partner sought to have the court force the sperm donor to ante up. the court said no, but an appellate court overturned that decision. compounding the problem now is the fact that the sperm donor died, so if the case can be made that the donor is on the hook for support, there will be social security survivor benefits available to pay child support from.

so, back to the scriptures above. it's become rather commonplace for lesbian couples to decide they want to have children "of their own" even though that is physically impossible. so the next best thing is to employ the services of someone with the necessary equipment to get the job done. the article states that the sperm donor "helped" the couple conceive. helped?? a lesbian couple CANNOT conceive, no matter how much "help" they get. two women cannot conceive children together, so this takes our donor out of the "helper" category. the DONOR and the BIRTH MOTHER conceived the children plain and simple. its' also interesting to note that the article stated that "the process was very informal. the birth mother was inseminated at home." what does that mean exactly? i doubt that fertility doctors make house calls, so there's a lot of speculation as to just how informal a "procedure" it was. anyhow, the whole episode smacks of sexual immorality, with more than just a little bit of greed thrown in for good measure.

with all the redneck comments concerning "adam and steve" aside, there is just no validation for homosexual relationships, homosexual civil unions or homosexual marriages in the bible. pro-homosexual "theologians" have to do all sorts of translational acrobatics to make the case for it. and there's plenty of good reason for why these relationships are unhealthy. even a plumber can explain one of the most practical reasons. but look at where we find ourselves at this juncture in time because of the pandora's box that was opened when society started to embrace this monstrosity. the excuses and justifications all started out with "what happens between 2 consenting adults is nobody else's business." well, that one didn't pan out too well, did it? now same-sex couples are demanding the right to adopt children, so the circle widens to include children. then same-sex partners wanted to be able to "have" children of their own, and the circle widens even more to include the person who fathers these children. and in the process, when things go wrong, the courts become involved, then the media. also, by virtue of the fact that the male participant in this fiasco is now deceased, we're all pulled into the circle because if this case is decided in favor of the partner that brought this suit, our dwindling social security pool will be dipped into for the support of the 2 children. so much for "what happens between 2 consenting adults is nobody else's business." now it's what happens among three consenting adults, and there are children involved who didn't have any say in the matter at all. the donor just figured he would make his one-time contribution and fade quietly into the background (although in this case, because he was already an acquaintance, he managed to insinuate himself into the "family" dynamic to the point where the children were not only aware of him, but knew he was their biological father. and according to court records, he spent thousands on toys and clothing for them). and in the end, we all pay financially, but more importantly, the moral fabric of our society gets shredded a little bit more.

one of the many thorny issues this has raised for the courts to figure out is that there are THREE parental figures involved, whereas most states' custody and support laws are written, and rightly so, under the assumption that there are only TWO parents. additionally, without having first-hand knowledge of what was going through the mind of the non-birth-parent partner in the case at hand, it seems that she decided that her responsibility as a "parent" only went as far as her commitment to the relationship she was in. when that was over and she got tagged for child support, she started looking for somebody else to foot the bill. so now the very foundation of the traditional family, not to mention family law, has been turned upside down, and no one is quite sure how to proceed or where this will all end up.

there is no provision in God's word for a) same sex unions, and b) third party participation in pro-creation. however, this whole third party business is not exclusive to same-sex relationships. what about heterosexual couples that cannot conceive children in the traditional way? same thing as far as i can tell. i just dont believe God is honored or glorified when a wife has sperm placed inside of her from a man that is not her husband. i dont have a problem with in-vitro fertilization or medically-assisted insemination where the husband's sperm is used to impregnate his wife when, for whatever reasons, the wife cannot become pregnant through normal sexual relations. but there is just no place within a marriage for the introduction of a third person's genes, chromosomes and DNA. surrogate mothers? no to that, too. there is a mountain of court proceedings which tell us that many donors and surrogates at some point begin to feel a bond with the children they created, and what at first seemed like a simple, even impersonal "contribution" turns into a nightmare for all involved. as can be seen in the account of abraham, sarah and hagar, the wife who cannot conceive can often be adversely affected as well.

many people claim that the Word of God is outmoded, archaic and impractical for application in a modern society. God is not an idiot. He knew and knows what's best for mankind. while we may believe we know better, a quick perusal of the headlines would tell us that left to our own devices, we have little to contribute other than chaos and confusion.