<p><!-- BEGIN THEIA POST SLIDER --></p>
<p> <br />
</p>
<div style="position:relative" data-narration-container="true">
<p><span style="font-weight:400">You may have heard Left-wing political orthodoxy described as a “war on noticing.” Steve Sailer wrote a book on the topic, called “Noticing.” At every opportunity, Leftists will demand that you deny the reality that’s directly in front of your eyes. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">We see this over and over again, particularly during any debate involving racial and gender politics. You’re just not supposed to notice that all the mass shooters were on SSRIs, or that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by young black men, and so on.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Closely related to the “war on noticing” is something you might call the “war on showing.” Leftists will happily use euphemisms to describe their policy goals, but they’ll go to extraordinary lengths to avoid showing you what those policy goals actually entail. They’ll talk about the “woman’s right to choose” or “gender affirmation surgery,” for example. But under no circumstances would they want voters to see any footage from an abortion, or a “vaginoplasty” or whatever they call it. They understand that, if most people actually saw the horrific procedures they’re talking about, support for Leftist ideology would collapse overnight.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Nevertheless, every now and then, despite the best efforts of activists who are committed to keeping you from “noticing,” reality occasionally slips through. The masses get a glimpse of the utter depravity that every major institution of the Left — from the media to academia to Big Tech censors — tries so hard to conceal. One of these moments took place over the weekend, when millions of Americans saw this video, which was uploaded by a gay 51-year-old Nashville-based country music songwriter named Shane McAnally. (And yes, that’s actually his name: Shane McAnally). He’s apparently collaborated with singers like Kenny Chesney and Keith Urban, and he’s won a few Grammys. In this footage, which we’ll play in a second, McAnally’s self-described “husband” shows off a five-month-old child whom they acquired through “surrogacy.” And in particular, McAnally’s alleged “husband” attempts to get the baby to say, “who do you want, Dada or pop,” to which the child responds, “Mama.” From behind the camera, McAnally informs the child that “mama” isn’t an option.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Watch:</span></p>
<p><amp-youtube layout="responsive" width="1170" height="658" data-videoid="QZtf4kI3JOY" title="001 Baby Comments V2"><a placeholder href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZtf4kI3JOY"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QZtf4kI3JOY/hqdefault.jpg" layout="fill" object-fit="cover" alt="001 Baby Comments V2"></a></amp-youtube></p>
<p>Source: @shanemcanally/Instagram.com</p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">No matter how much propaganda people have been force-fed by the corporate press, and no matter how much reprogramming they’ve undergone at a university, this kind of video cuts through all of it. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">At a primal level, unless you’re completely broken as a human being, this footage is both enraging and intolerable. Your first reaction is that you have to find that child, rescue him from these psychopaths, and return him to his mother. It’s not simply that these two men clearly aren’t interested in properly taking care of this child, or treating him as a human being, instead of a social media prop. The issue is that these two men, as a matter of basic human biology, are incapable of properly taking care of this child. They are not able to give the child what he actually needs, which is a mother and a father. A child needs his mother. Neither one of these men are his mother, and neither one of them can properly take the place of the mother.</span></p>
<p><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1765-the-matt-walsh-show?elementPosition=1&;row=5&;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-976065" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"/></a></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">That’s what makes the moment so profound, and so unbearably sad, when the baby asks for “mama.” Some commenters have defended McAnally and his fake husband by saying that the baby is just babbling. He doesn’t know what “mama” means. He’s too young to speak using words. And that’s true. But it doesn’t make this moment any less horrifying. Babies say “mama” before they even know what the word means because “mama” is an easy sound to make. This is how the word “mama” came to be. It’s why we call our mothers “mama,” which we usually shorten to “mom” as we get older. And it’s why almost every culture on Earth uses the word “mama” or “mom” or some slight variation.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">So we are born saying the word “mama” before we know what it means. In a normal, healthy situation, the adults in the baby’s life — especially his mama — will respond enthusiastically when he makes that sound. And that’s how he’ll learn to attach the sound to the most important person in his life, his mother. He’ll make the sound, his mother will light up and smile, and he’ll learn that the sound applies to his mother. This is the natural way of things. The process works beautifully. It’s engrained in us from birth. It is a beautiful, wonderful thing. Except when the child is torn away from his mother at birth and forced into an unnatural, disordered environment. Only then does this beautiful, wonderful, natural process become tragic and sad.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">McAnally and his “husband” have made the decision to exploit the tragedy and sadness of the child’s situation for social media clout. When McAnally posted that video on his Instagram, as you saw there, someone posted a comment that read, “Throw it away and start over.” And McAnally replied to the comment with some laughing emojis. He also uploaded this footage, which has the caption, “6-week old homophobic baby.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Watch:</span></p>
<p><amp-youtube layout="responsive" width="1170" height="658" data-videoid="aV_kjVIQqQs" title="002 homophobic baby V2"><a placeholder href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV_kjVIQqQs"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aV_kjVIQqQs/hqdefault.jpg" layout="fill" object-fit="cover" alt="002 homophobic baby V2"></a></amp-youtube></p>
<p>Source: @rightanglenews/X.com</p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">The baby’s face suddenly grimaces when he’s informed that he supposedly has two fathers, instead of a mother. And this is hilarious, because you see, the baby is acting like one of those backwards Right-wing bigots, who think children actually need a mother. So he posts the image of this child on his Instagram, and uses his child as a punchline. And then, when the online backlash began, McAnally </span><a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15741905/Gay-dads-baby-mama-Shane-McAnally-video.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight:400">insisted</span></a><span style="font-weight:400"> that the outrage was overblown and that he’s actually, “quite conservative” politically. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Just to be clear about this: If you believe two men should raise children together, you’re not a conservative. You’re destroying the most critical, fundamental bond that a child can have. You are permanently altering the trajectory of their life, for the worse. And it’s not even a close call. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of human nature doesn’t need to have this explained to them. If you don’t believe in conserving the fundamental building block of human civilization — which is the family — then you are not a conservative by any meaningful definition.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">And yet, you’ll hear it endlessly claimed that “science” somehow proves that children don’t actually need a mother. They’ll cite all kinds of studies, which supposedly show that children raised in gay households don’t suffer any negative developmental consequences. So a few years ago, a woman named Katy Faust — who founded the organization “Them Before Us” — </span><a href="https://thembeforeus.com/study-studies-same-sex-parenting/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight:400">looked into</span></a><span style="font-weight:400"> these claims. She found — unsurprisingly — that these “studies” were unscientific nonsense. Many of them recruited their survey participants directly from websites devoted to gay activism. Additionally, she found that, several years after the Obergefell ruling that legalized gay marriage, only 0.02 percent of all households in the United States consisted of same-sex couples raising children. This is an extremely small number of households, which makes it very difficult to find a sample size for any kind of usable data set. You run into the same problem with all of the studies purporting to show that “gender affirmation surgery” benefits children. All of those studies are absolute bunk because of the methodology used to conduct them. Just like the studies extolling the virtues of gay parenting, these are not blind studies. The participants know what the study is trying to prove, and they are recruited for that purpose. And the sample sizes are so small that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from them.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">You’ll find this with any major society-altering change the left is trying to foist on us. They make the change and then 10 seconds later claim to have volumes of long term, scientifically conclusive studies proving that the change is good. But it wouldn’t be possible for them to have that kind of data. If they have the data, it’s because they engineered it. They rigged it to achieve the desired outcome. That’s inevitably what’s required if you want a study to somehow prove that it’s a good idea to chemically castrate a child, or that a child is better off being raised by two men rather than his own mother and his own father. These are irrational, illogical conclusions that fly in the face of common sense, biology, and thousands of years of human experience. They are conclusions that you can only arrive at if you’ve predetermined them from the outset. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">In reality, the ideal and natural situation is that a child is raised by a mother and a father. Two men raising a baby can never be ideal, by definition. And that is putting it very, very mildly. In many cases, these situations go from far from ideal to outright horrifying, very quick.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Consider this case out of Georgia:</span></p>
<p><amp-youtube layout="responsive" width="1170" height="658" data-videoid="SsgFbKWMzBQ" title="efefec"><a placeholder href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsgFbKWMzBQ"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SsgFbKWMzBQ/hqdefault.jpg" layout="fill" object-fit="cover" alt="efefec"></a></amp-youtube></p>
<p>Source: @Law&;Crime Network/YouTube.com</p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Notice the line about how these children were adopted through a “Christian special needs” program. This is a recurring theme, sadly, when it comes to the worst, most civilization-destroying ideas known to man. For pretty much every single one of them, you’ll find a “Christian charity” funding or enabling it, in some way. Christian charities resettle more foreign invaders in the United States than anyone else. They support all the “climate change” scams and “racial justice” programs and so on. And now they’re helping gay men find children to rape and abuse — a crime that, even in Georgia, apparently doesn’t qualify these two gay men for the death penalty. So you have to wonder why we even have a death penalty at this point, if this isn’t going to qualify.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">But as heinous as this crime is, it’s not exactly uncommon. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Here’s another </span><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y21d4zrrxo" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight:400">recent case</span></a><span style="font-weight:400"> from Britain:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><i><span style="font-weight:400">“A man has appeared in court accused of sexually assaulting and murdering a 13-month-old boy he was seeking to adopt. High school teacher Jamie Varley is also accused of repeated counts of assault, cruelty and indecent images. All of the charges relate to Preston Davey, who was pronounced dead shortly after he was taken to Blackpool Victoria Hospital in July 2023. Mr Varley, 36, and his 31-year-old co-accused John McGowan were in the process of adopting Preston. … Lancashire Police were alerted on July 27, 2023 after an unresponsive baby boy was brought into the hospital. Mr McGowan is accused of allowing the death of a child, sexually assaulting a child, and two counts of child cruelty.”</span></i></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">What you have to keep in mind here is that, simply from a statistical perspective, we have absolutely no way of knowing how often this kind of abuse takes place. Unless these abusers are dumb enough to brag about what they’re doing, or manage to murder their child — something along those lines — then the abuse is nearly impossible to detect. And in many cases, there’s not even a way to screen parents who are obviously a threat to their children.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Remember the registered sex offender who managed to acquire a child through surrogacy in Pennsylvania?</span></p>
<p><amp-youtube layout="responsive" width="1170" height="658" data-videoid="u4sqElfzDvQ" title="efefef"><a placeholder href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4sqElfzDvQ"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/u4sqElfzDvQ/hqdefault.jpg" layout="fill" object-fit="cover" alt="efefef"></a></amp-youtube></p>
<p>Source: Rightanglenews/X.com</p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">It turns out that, in Pennsylvania and most other states, it’s fine for a Tier 1 sex offender to acquire a child through surrogacy. They only care about the background checks for children who are adopted — and even then, we can assume, they’re not exactly rigorous about the background checks. Think about how utterly deranged this is. A child is conceived through surrogacy, ripped from his mother, and dropped into the hands of two gay men, with no family to check in on him. “Disturbing” does not begin to describe this. But it’s completely normal in most of the country.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Mention any of these trends out loud, and you’ll get shouted down or worse. Ryley Niemi was just assaulted for mentioning these statistics. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Watch:</span></p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Why are they so triggered when <a href="https://twitter.com/RyleyNiemi_?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@RyleyNiemi_</a> ask them completely reasonable questions about the child’s wellbeing?</p>
<p>I hope he pressed charges. <a href="https://t.co/ZiXnSrzH9l" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pic.twitter.com/ZiXnSrzH9l</a></p>
<p>— Jake Rattlesnake (@jakerattlesnk) <a href="https://twitter.com/jakerattlesnk/status/2045429911926735317?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">April 18, 2026</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Source: @jakerattlesnk/X.com</p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">When they aren’t assaulting you, the normal response from the Left at this point is to claim that, in fact, “the data” supports their position. They’ll accuse you of cherry-picking one or two bad outcomes. So to be clear, I’m not talking about one or two extreme cases here. As a general matter, children raised in same-sex households have much worse life outcomes. This is from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, once again.</span></p>
<div id="attachment_1081103" style="width:778px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1081103" class="wp-image-1081103 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Depression-stats.jpg" alt="National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health" width="768" height="432" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Depression-stats.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Depression-stats-300x169.jpg 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px"/></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-1081103" class="wp-caption-text">Source: National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health</p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">The green bar is children raised by a man and a woman, while the yellow bar is children raised by same-sex couples. The same-sex parents produce worse results in virtually every category. Children raised by same-sex couples are far more likely to be obese as adults, far more likely to be distant from their parents, more likely to have suicidal ideation as an adult, and far more likely to be depressed as an adult.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Then there’s the findings from the National Health Interview Study, which looked at 1.6 million cases and found 512 same-sex parent families.</span></p>
<div id="attachment_1081107" style="width:932px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1081107" class="wp-image-1081107 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Child-Emotional-Issues-922x576.jpg" alt="National Health Interview Study" width="922" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Child-Emotional-Issues-922x576.jpg 922w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Child-Emotional-Issues-300x188.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Child-Emotional-Issues-768x480.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Child-Emotional-Issues.jpg 1080w" sizes=" (max-width: 922px) 100vw, 922px"/></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-1081107" class="wp-caption-text">Source: National Health Interview Study</p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">You can see the results. It’s the same story. Children raised in same-sex households were more likely to have emotional problems across the board. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Donald Paul Sullins, a professor of sociology at Catholic University, </span><a href="https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/the-research-same-sex-parenting-no-differences-no-more" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight:400">summarized </span></a><span style="font-weight:400">the findings this way.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><i><span style="font-weight:400">“Biological relationship, it appears, is both necessary and sufficient to explain the higher risk of emotional problems faced by children with same-sex parents…. The primary benefit of marriage for children, therefore, may not be that it tends to present them with improved parents (more stable, financially affluent, etc., although it does this), but that it presents them with their own parents.”</span></i></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">You have to dig to find these studies, because this is not exactly the kind of research that’s likely to be funded these days, or reported on. But it’s all out there. And even if it wasn’t, even if there wasn’t a single study showing that children in same sex households have worse outcomes, we would still know that it’s a horrible idea to let gay couples adopt or use surrogacy. We would know that because it’s a matter of basic logic and common sense that by far the optimal situation for every child is to be raised by a mother and a father. Every child has a mother and a father. This is the natural set up. When I say that two men are not meant to become parents, I’m not making a moral claim at all — although I do think gay adoption and surrogacy are immoral. But I’m making an observation about physical reality. Two men are not meant to become parents. We know that because two men cannot become parents. In principle, by their very nature, they are forever and always, in all situations, through all of time, past present and future, excluded from the act of procreation.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">None of the arguments I’m making are new. It’s not a revelation. If you go back to the Obergefell decision in 2015, and pull up John Roberts’ dissent, you’ll see that he makes all the same points. I’m obviously not a fan of John Roberts, but this dissent has aged extremely well. Roberts argued that, if the Court forced the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage simply because a bunch of activists demanded it, then those same activists would soon be able to insist on all kinds of other legal protections, without any basis in the Constitution. Roberts wrote that the Supreme Court was ordering, “the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs.” Roberts pointed out that, “for millennia, across all civilizations, ‘marriage’ referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman.” And Roberts noted that, “When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.” And from a democratic perspective, Roberts observed that only 11 states had voted to legalize gay marriage, while five states had legalized the practice through court decisions. The country was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the institution of marriage intact.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">How did the Supreme Court majority, led by Justice Kennedy, respond to all of these points? They didn’t. Pull up the decision sometime and see for yourself. Obergefell wasn’t based in the Constitution at all. It was the beginning of a slippery slope that has continued to this day. You can draw a straight line from Obergefell to those videos of the gay men taunting the baby that they purchased and trafficked into their homes.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">And by the way, when you hear the term “slippery slope,” you’re often told that it’s a “fallacy.” It’s a convenient label that’s used by people who know, very well, that the slippery slope is undefeated. If you give Left-wing activists any kind of concession, they’ll immediately demand more concessions. If you change the definition of marriage to appease these people, they aren’t going to stop there. They’re going to recognize that you’re weak. And then they’re going to use the court system to enable horrors beyond human comprehension. Just like they used the courts to force gay marriage on every state, they’ve used courts to mandate racial equity programs, gay adoption and surrogacy, and child castration and mutilation under the guise of so-called “gender-affirming care.” And the whole time they’re doing it, they’ll claim you’re a bigot if you object. They’ll accuse you of being a hateful person for recognizing obvious patterns of behavior.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">It’s a total abomination. There’s no coherent argument in defense of it at all. Literally not a single argument. The best that advocates can do is argue that maybe allowing gay men to purchase babies might not be that harmful to the baby. That’s wrong, of course, but it’s also not an argument for why this is a positive good that should be embraced, because it isn’t.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Gay surrogacy and gay adoption are predicated on the idea that gay men (or women) have a “right” to become parents. It’s not only morally insane but also logically incoherent. It’s like jumping off a building and claiming that you have the right to fly. Nobody has the right to defy the laws of nature. Where would such a right even originate? But as long as Leftists can invent rights out of thin air — which is what they did in Obergefell — then they’re not going to stop until someone forces them to stop.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">So let’s have that conversation. Let’s state as plainly as we possibly can that two men cannot be parents. It’s impossible. Doesn’t matter how they feel or what they want. It cannot be. The only “right” at issue here — and the one that’s being ignored completely — is the right of the child. The child has a right to be raised by a mother and a father, not two men masquerading as mother and father. The child not only has that right, but it is indeed one of the first and most fundamental rights. The whole idea of a right is that it is a thing you rightfully possess by nature. All of our legal rights in this country are based on the philosophical idea that some things belong to us by nature. Those are our “unalienable rights.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Every child has a mother and a father by nature. A child’s mother and father belong to him, and he to them. This is literally what a human right is. Some children will be deprived of one or both parents by death or some other misfortune. If that happens then obviously it can’t be said that the child’s rights are being willfully infringed, in the same way that we wouldn’t say a person’s property rights are infringed when a tornado hits their house. But when a conscious choice is made to uproot a child out and away from his natural family, rip him away from his mother, and place him into some kind of constructed, artificial scenario where he will be raised according to the impossible fiction that he has two dads — or two moms — then in that case his rights have been violated. They have been violated at the deepest level that it is possible for a right to be violated. A gay couple that is not allowed to adopt or use surrogacy is not experiencing any infringement of their rights because they have no right to possess a child that they did not and cannot conceive themselves. But a child on the other hand does have a right to his own mother — because she is his mother. This should not be a difficult concept to understand.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">And until we stop pretending that we don’t understand the concept, children will continue to be abused in ways that we can’t possibly fathom — or detect. The solution is clear: Ban adoption by gay couples. Ban human trafficking under the guise of “surrogacy.” Do it at the federal level. And ultimately we have to overturn Obergefell, which, next to Roe, is the most farcical and ridiculous supreme court decision of all time. I’ve said repeatedly that conservatives haven’t done much with their time in Washington. But if they can pass these bans, then they’ll have made a major stride towards conserving one of the most important institutions in this country, which is the nuclear family. The Left has made the nuclear family their primary target precisely because they understand how important the institution is to Western civilization. Before any more children are tortured, and before any more lives are destroyed, we need to defend it.</span></p>
</div>
<p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/this-video-is-one-of-the-worst-things-ive-seen-in-a-long-time">Source link </a></p>
<p><!-- END THEIA POST SLIDER --></p>

This Video Is One Of The Worst Things I’ve Seen In A Long Time
