IN THE previous entry, I made the point that one always has a father, whether one knows him or not. A person deliberately deprived of a father (or a mother) through homosexual “marriage” or artificial reproduction is like Hamlet — a man surrounded by a smiling villainy that says nothing is amiss. But the orphan knows something is wrong. Thus Hamlet’s final words to his father’s ghost in Act I, Scene 5:
…. —- Remember thee?
Aye, thou poor ghost, while memory holds a seat
In this distracted globe. Remember thee!
Yea, from the table of my memory
I’ll wipe away all trivial fond records,
All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past
That youth and observation copied there,
And thy commandment all alone shall live
Within the book and volume of my brain.
Unmixed with baser matter. Yes, by heaven!
Oh most pernicious woman!
Oh villain, villain, smiling damned villain!
My tables. — meet it is, I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain
At least I may be sure it may be so in Denmark:
So uncle, there you are. Now to my word;
It is, ‘Adieu, adieu! remember me.’
I have sworn’t.
No one can obliterate the desire to know one’s father. It is written on the table and records of a person’s mind.
— Comments —
A reader writes:
I wanted to share with you a couple of links to adoption blogs. The stories there deal with regular adoptions, homosexual adoptions, and anonymous donor adoptions. One thing that is wrong with every kind of adoption is that the adopted child is not supposed to have any longing for the missing parent. It’s not about nature, it’s about nurture, according to received wisdom, which means that as long as your adoptive parents are loving and caring, you are supposed to be well-adjusted and content. If you feel that something is missing from your life then you must be crazy. This is what one adoptee writes:
“And what I realized is that most of society DOESN’T WANT the REAL ME. They want the “Happy to be Adopted” me. The one who, sure, may have a HINT of CURIOSITY, but nothing that really affects me deeply ~ because I am fulfilling the role that was written out on my amended birth certificate, my adoption decree ~ that is WHO I AM SUPPOSED TO BE.”
One thing that is wrong with every kind of adoption is that the adopted child is not supposed to have any longing for the missing parent.
Adoption can be very painful in the best of circumstances. But there are adoptive parents who recognize this longing and would not agree that the “child is not supposed to have any longing for the missing parent.” In cases of artificial insemination or gestational surrogacy, however, the absence of one parent is intentional from the moment the child is conceived. The adoptive parents have arranged it so that the father or mother is a non-entity. Also they do not provide a substitute for both a mother and father.
My highest commendations to you for your “Hamlet” post. It was dead-on accurate and heartrending. We are all of us in the modern world surrounded by smiling villainy. In fact, we are led by it. Perhaps it has always been so, but I find no consolation in that fact. I knew a half-Filipino, half-American man once, who had never seen his father, a U.S. serviceman who casually impregnated his mother. He told me that his fondest wish was to see his father’s face and have the father acknowledge him. He did not say this with violent bitterness, but with such sadness, the memory of it brings tears to my eyes still. He told me this 25 years ago.
ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) was created with the best of intentions, for childless married couples to be able to conceive a child that is a product of the husband and wife’s genome. But it has morphed into a horrifying profit-making enterprise, which exploits the poor and the rich equally.
Lawrence Auster writes:
A person deliberately deprived of a father (or a mother) through homosexual “marriage” or artificial reproduction is like Hamlet—a man surrounded by a smiling villainy that says nothing is amiss. But the orphan knows something is wrong.
This is an insight of uncommon quality. You understand—not just with your reason, but with an intuitive grasp that takes in the whole picture—the moral and spiritual meaning of this liberal horror, and you express it by means of an analogy to a classic work of literature that drives home the point. How many mainstream conservative writers are capable of such an insight? Zero.
Beng a conservative writer among mainstream conservative writers is like being in Hamlet’s position too. : – )