When we troglodytic, irrational, hate-filled, vile, anti-Enlightenment bigots in a feeble attempt to justify the heterosexist conception of marriage say that every child deserves to know and be raised by the couple who have sired and conceived him, our opponents respond by blithely dismissing our concern for genetic ties and say that such things pale in importance to what is really crucial for good parenting, namely love and care, of which same-sex couples, of course, have in overflowing amounts (for only with such wasteful quantities of love have they been able to vanquish our cramped, narrow-minded hatreds).
But when our Enlightened Betters discuss surrogacy as an option for same-sex couples, all of a sudden genetic links become crucial. If they weren't, then surrogacy would not be such a wildly popular way for same-sex couples to acquire children. Same-sex couples would content themselves with adopting or fostering those kids we've been told over and over and over again no heterosexual couple wants.
How is this NOT a glaring inconsistency? I want to know, and if you deign to give me an answer, O Ye Progressive Ones Who are Guided by a Reason Purified of All Religious Superstition and Irrational Prejudice, please use very simple words. I am a dumb bigot, remember.