This is such an offensive description of gay parents.
I don't know the couple in the article you linked to, so I can't speak to how good they are as parents. And, like you, I have misgivings about surrogacy, so we might have some agreement there.
But, in general, LGB people are people, and they do (or don't) want children for the same reasons that straight people do (or don't) want children.
I am thinking of 4 couples who are close to me. One is a married gay couple who adopted a hearing-impaired son and are great parents to him. (Despite being men -- did you really say that men would have no clue what to do with a baby?) Another is a lesbian widow who is similarly a great parent to her two daughters. A third is a lesbian couple who are planning to adopt in a few years; both have experience with young children and are good with children.
And a fourth couple is a straight couple who are infertile and are in the process of adopting their foster daughter. If you think it's selfish and wrong to adopt children, remember that you're condemning this last couple, too.
I accept that you believe same-sex marriage is wrong, and I accept that that is the position of your church. But adopted children are not "trophy children", and children conceived through medical interventions are likewise not "trophy children".
I never suggested adoption was always wrong. That would depend very much on the reasons a same sex couple are seeking to adopt, how stable they are, could they really cope with needs of a young child, are there other family members who can become involved - I think the rules should be as strict in terms of assessment as they are for everyone else.
I said some
prominent same sex couples have sought children and exhibited them triumphalistically through the media as if trophies of a political victory.
It was a rhetorical question to make you think (as I will explain in a moment), not a description except in so far as everyone has seen examples of high profile LGB couples who court the media and show off that they now have kids of their own (occasionally neither by adoption nor through coitus). They are boasting about their gains politically.
The article I linked mentioned something called "genealogical bewilderment" - a sense of bewilderment a child may experience if they don't know who their biological parents are. If adopted, a person becomes older they may be able to trace one or both of their birth parents if they are living, but some children that sense of bewilderment is going to be greater if they have been conceived through artificial means and no longer can trace parents.
In a
democratic society there is toleration of a diversity of opinion about adoption by LGB couples - including tolerance of those who are opposed in principle to the idea because a child growing up needs both a mother and father. It is a valid and legitimate view that people still can and do express, there is nothing 'homophobic' about saying in what sort of family milieu a child does best.
Homosexuality was widespread in Greek culture (moreso among the upper classes), but of quite a different character and also to an extent in Roman culture but neither of those cultures went as far as legislating for same-sex marriage - the idea of a quasi-marriage between people of the same sex was not really thinkable for them. In reality there wasn't the notion of a "gay identity" or even of "gayness".
Now the question is why do some self described gays and lesbians seek many of the aspects of hetrosexual relationships - marriage, wedding rings and ceremony, children etc.? They say they are having to give the hope of fulfillment of longings and aspirations they have in order to embrace a "gay identity". Who is telling them they have to embrace a gay identity? If they have those longings maybe that should be telling them something?
