(LifeSiteNews) — Responding to a podcast discussion between Jordan Peterson and popular “conservative” homosexual commentator Dave Rubin about Rubin and his “husband” raising toddler sons obtained two years ago via surrogacy, Bishop Joseph Strickland declared, “These children are God’s, not a project, they are not a commodity to be acquired.”
“This sadly illustrates how far we have drifted from family and God’s plan for children,” added Bishop Strickland.
The bishop began by directing his X followers to something that author and commentator Keith Woods had noted when he posted a clip of the discussion between Rubin and Peterson:
Dave Rubin recounts his decision to purchase two children with his “husband” and name one after Jordan Peterson, which he says made Peterson cry.
“Conservatism” in 2024.
“Please read this brief paragraph and acknowledge the tragic message it delivers,” wrote Bishop Strickland. “To use the word purchase in connection with children created by God is a devastating comment on the brokenness of our society.”
Please read this brief paragraph and acknowledge the tragic message it delivers. To use the word purchase in connection with children created by God is a devastating comment on the brokenness of our society.
These children are God’s, not a project, they are not a commodity to… https://t.co/juJmQlA7W1
— Bishop J. Strickland (@BishStrickland) November 26, 2024
Elsewhere during their discussion, Rubin noted that during the time when he and Peterson were on a world tour in 2018, Peterson told audiences night after night that the only way for adults to “live a fully actualized life is to have a child.”
Rubin and Peterson avoid mentioning a truth of equal importance: For a child to have a fully actualized life, having both a mom and a dad is an integral part of being a son or daughter.
Surrogacy is one of the gravest social/medical evils of the 21st century
Rubin, then in his mid-forties and legally “married” since 2015 to Dave Janet, took Peterson’s message to heart, and the two contracted with two surrogates so each could carry on their own bloodline with a child.
And while Bishop Strickland assumed that Rubin and Janet’s two children had been obtained through adoption, the reality is even more troubling: They were procured through two surrogates, a process fraught with misery for everyone involved except the wealthy adults using this extreme means to become parents.
It has become a trend among wealthy homosexuals to have “pseudo-twins.” That is, each would-be father contracts to have a child with his own surrogate using his own sperm at about the same time. This represents the pinnacle of male narcissism and displays the vast difference between “married” homosexuals and male-female couples: the children produced in complementary marriages through a loving marital union clearly belong to both husband and wife, not one or the other.
Surrogacy necessarily involves IVF
When couples or individuals choose to create children using IVF, many more eggs are fertilized than necessary as an insurance policy in case first attempt(s) at successful pregnancies fail. Embryos stored cryogenically who are deemed to be no longer necessary for the parents’ pursuit of a family – often numbering a dozen or more, and sometimes as many as 30 – are discarded as medical waste or are donated for “research.” This is the fate of 93+ percent of all children created for IVF procedures.
Surrogacy treats women as nothing more than “breeders.” It’s the ultimate expression of misogyny, a fact that the children of homosexuals who come into the world via surrogacy will easily infer.
Rubin and Janet are far from being able to legitimately describe themselves as conservative after having chosen to bring children into the world via surrogacy.
In fact, their actions are antithetical to conservatism, to timeless principles that have defined married and family life down through the ages in nearly every society and religion around the globe.
To actually be loving fathers, homosexuals such as Rubin and Janet have a single course of action available to them to guarantee the happiness, security, and well-being of their soon-to-be-born children: They must dissolve their so-called “marriage” and wed the mother of their children.
And that of course is far more complicated than it sounds, because both of their children come from not one but two mothers: An egg donor mom and a surrogate mom who carried him or her in her womb for nine months. One is the genetic mom, and the other is the nurturing, gestational mom.
Rubin and Janet’s rationale for utilizing surrogacy – insisting on the importance of carrying on their genetic lines so they might see themselves in their children – is the ultimate in male vanity and arrogant adolescent narcissism.
Addressing Rubin and Janet at the time, I wrote:
Because of your unwillingness to marry (instead preferring to imitate marriage, the real thing) and to produce children by having natural sexual relations with your wives, your children are motherless victims, and you are their victimizers.
You have replaced the role of their mothers with a small army of other women: Your egg donor(s), your surrogates, your female family members and other daytime caretakers, your night nurses, and your breast milk providers.
Sadly, your wife could have performed ALL these roles and done so brilliantly while also establishing the natural maternal bond your children will so desire.
But nothing you are doing is even close to being deemed natural. You are creating a synthetic, pro-homosexual, misogynist environment for your kids.
Perhaps ironically, Rubin and Peterson have attained fame by calling out the worst of wokeness, yet once again they are loudly, publicly surrendering to it.
