Sasha Louw
Spoiler alert – we don’t.
There is an ideological battle currently taking place in our country and while it may seem that the only right answer is to be inclusive and accepting of what some may see as their rights, the other side to this argument deserves to be understood.
As conservatives, we are in the business of, well, conserving. Conserving the structures that are required for people to flourish, for society to flourish. One of the fundamental structures of a healthy society, is a healthy family. And it just so turns out, that until yesterday – figuratively speaking, of course – we all agreed that family and marriage were structured a certain way. Why is it that God/nature/the Universe saw it fit that one man and one woman would be the context in which children were born and raised, if same-sex partners would have been just as fitting? As conservatives, we feel strongly about protecting the rights of children and preserving what has been the very nucleus of society up to this point. This is why we fight.
Why marriage matters
There is far more to this issue than not wanting to allow certain groups to “love who they want to love”. Marriage between one man and one woman has naturally been the context in which a family comes about. Marriage exists, legally binding these two people not only for their own good, but for the wellbeing and stability of the family that is likely to follow. We must acknowledge and hold fast to the essence of this design if we hope to fortify the future of our children and to preserve what has been, for centuries, the conditions that have naturally been fitting for them and our society to flourish in. It is either ignorance or pride that would cause us to go against nature to fulfil our singular desires.
Surrogacy
Creating children for same-sex partners is problematic. For the child. When a child is born, it possesses a natural and fundamental (and obvious) right to its biological mother and father. As adults, it is our responsibility to not get in the way of that. There is a deeply ingrained belonging that comes with being attached to your own mother and father that just cannot be achieved by any other means. Children are not a commodity. We do not get to create and obtain a child because we desire to. In doing this, we strip the child of even having a choice in the matter. We decide what is best for us. But what is best for the child?
A biological parent is irreplaceable. God/nature/the universe caused it to be that a child would be produced through one man and one woman. These two people, in most cases, are the ones that are most invested in the wellbeing and the future of this child at an intrinsic level. In heterosexual relationships, it is no different – step-parents simply cannot replace what exists between a child and its own mother or father. A father or mother hunger exists in children with adoptive parents, no matter how well they parent the child, no matter what they are able to offer the child in terms of financial stability etc. We long to know who we are, whose we are, where we came from. It is how we were made. To pass legislation that would allow same-sex partners to obtain a family through surrogacy, is to knowingly and willingly cause an innumerable number of children to face the emotional, physiological and psychological effects that we know come about in these kinds of situations. It is science. Not sentiment.
Mothers of new-borns are enthusiastically made to practice skin to skin with their child as soon as they are born. This immediate bonding is significantly beneficial for both mother and child. The child knows its mothers smell and voice, and the sense of security produced by being near her, has untold effects now and for the future. The same is true if the child does not gain this access to its mother. Untold effects. Breastfeeding offers a significant impact on the child and the mother’s wellbeing as well. Physically and emotionally. This is science. Not sentiment. In the case of surrogacy, the child is removed from the surrogate, so this essential bonding and the naturally beneficial trade-offs between mother and child would not take be able place. These things matter. Ask your paediatrician. In order to “block” biological urges or claims to the child, it is also not uncommon that three separate people could be involved in the bringing about of child into the world. In the case of two men, for instance, there could be an egg donor (mother), the surrogate and then the biological father (who would go on to raise the child with his male partner). What kind of society do we think we are building by intentionally creating children who by default will be robbed of one of their parents? As well as removing the sense of security and intimacy that was undoubtedly perceived from their relationship to the surrogate. Not to mention the myriad of unseen psychological, emotional and physiological intricacies that go along with all of that.
Adoption. What role does one man and one woman play? Let’s say one partner in a heterosexual marriage passed away and the remaining partner took on a same-sex partner afterward. Are the children borne of the heterosexual marriage receiving the same nature of parenting as previously? Any sensible person would have to say no. There is no amount of studying or preparing that one gender could do, to be able to truly fill the role of another, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. A woman cannot instinctively provide the psychological, emotional and physical input that a man would have done. And vice versa. We cannot just “replace away” the unique, innate qualities that both genders bring to the table. They exist for a reason. In the case of adoption, we already have a wounded child on our hands. Scientifically-speaking. The next best thing we can do for these children, is offer them a wholesome alternative to their own parents, so that they may stand a chance to receive the fulness of what is naturally intended for them – maternal and paternal love, guidance and input. It isn’t to say that same-sex unions could not be well-intentioned and kind and loving. It is that we stretch beyond what is naturally fitting when we place children in the hands of same-sex partners and we have no idea of the reaches of the ripple effect that is to come, when we do that. Our intentions should rather be to support and encourage the environment that a child naturally would grow up in. As conservatives, we don’t hate gays. We are simply in the business of conserving. Conserving the natural context in which marriage ought to take place and in which a child is meant to grow up in. It is a matter of natural order versus disorder. And the effects it has when we rob children of the right to natural order their lives, before they even have the chance to speak. The LGTBQ community can put forward legal cases to try to secure their belief in “family first” and have good and sincere intentions of having a family of their own, but it will never be “family first” when those children will never meet their own mother or father or receive the balance of paternal and maternal input that was meant for them, from the start. That is not family first. We are standing at a crucial crossroads. I hope that we choose rightly, Namibia.
* Sasha Louw is the founder of Conserve Namibia.