SurroGAYcy, Renting Wombs, and the Evangelicals Who Didn't Stop It
Instead of buying kids or trafficking them, homosexuals are having them bred in a form of pederasty DIY. And evangelicals helped them do it.
It began like every other piece of algorithmic propaganda. A feel-good video, tailor-made for Instagram and TikTok, featuring a clean, smiling gay couple holding their infant son. The men cradled the baby. The baby gurgled softly. Everything was warm, modern, and affirming. The video’s music was uplifting. The couple’s narration was sincere. The message was clear: love makes a family. The hashtags did the rest—#PrideFamily, #TwoDads, #LoveIsLove. It was just another carefully packaged ad for the surrogacy industry, disguised as organic joy.
Then someone checked the registry.
One of the men, Brandon Mitchell, was outed within days as a registered sex offender. According to state records, Mitchell had been convicted in 2016 for crimes involving a minor. The man holding the surrogate-born child in a video seen by millions was a known abuser. And the baby in his arms had been legally acquired through one of the fastest-growing fertility sectors in the West.
The reaction online was immediate, but not unanimous. Ordinary users were horrified. Many asked how someone with that kind of history could legally gain custody of a child. Some demanded accountability. Others tried to rationalize it. A few activists claimed it was “none of our business.” Within twenty-four hours, the video disappeared from most official accounts. But it was too late. The damage was done. And the questions remained.
This was not a one-off failure. It was the logical result of a system that treats children as commodities, parents as consumers, and sexual preferences as sacred. The fact that a registered child molester could bypass traditional adoption channels and legally purchase a child through surrogacy is not an anomaly. It is a design feature. And it tells us everything we need to know about what this movement really values.
EVANGELICALS FOR THE NEW PHALLUS CULT
When the video of a gay couple cradling their surrogate-born infant went viral, it was not supposed to end with a pedophile registry. It was supposed to reinforce a narrative. These men were not framed as customers who purchased a human child. They were cast as brave, loving pioneers in the new family order. Their image was meant to normalize the product, celebrate the transaction, and silence the skeptics. For a few days, it worked.
However, the collapse came quickly. It always does when reality intrudes.
The problem is not just the degeneracy of the content. The deeper betrayal is the silence of the people who should have known better. For years, evangelical elites told us that the most Christlike response to this revolution was compassion, nuance, and tone management. They nodded solemnly as same-sex couples were handed children. They praised the dignity of families built without mothers. They urged us to reconsider our instincts and reject our fear. And when children like the one in that video were handed over to dangerous men, those same leaders looked away.
This is not neutrality. It is collaboration.
THE INSTITUTIONAL RIGHT'S ROLE IN NORMALIZATION
The conservative Christian establishment didn’t stop this. Largely, it didn’t try. In many cases, it helped build it.
Russell Moore, former president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and now the editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, spent years softening evangelical resistance to LGBTQ ideology. His writing, filled with academic distance and emotional compromise, treated homosexuality as a theological puzzle rather than a moral rebellion. He warned about “weaponizing” family values. He suggested Christians focus less on resisting same-sex marriage and more on showing empathy.
David French, former National Review contributor and now a darling of centrist evangelicals, openly defended the right of same-sex couples to adopt. He claimed that objections to gay parenting were based on fear, not fact. In his telling, the American family was not defined by nature or Scripture, but by consent and legality. He has praised gay men who adopt and has never retracted that position, even as stories like Brandon Mitchell’s came to light.
JD Greear, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, famously declared from the pulpit that Christians ought to be “the fiercest advocates for the rights of LGBTQ people.” He insisted that “being gay is not the worst sin” and framed opposition to same-sex identity as a form of pride. Under his leadership, the SBC grew increasingly reluctant to oppose the cultural momentum behind LGBTQ normalization
These men did not stand outside the system. They helped install it. They provided the theological air cover that allowed Christian institutions to drift left without admitting it. They encouraged their followers to avoid culture war. They praised the civility of defeat. And they made it impossible for anyone in their orbit to speak plainly about the obvious.
SANCTIFYING THE MARKETPLACE
Evangelical leaders could have challenged the commodification of children. They could have drawn a bright line between biblical parenthood and market-driven surrogacy. They could have condemned the buying and selling of human offspring, the erasure of mothers, and the legal systems that allow men like Brandon Mitchell to bypass adoption law entirely.
However, they did not.
Instead, they emphasized compassion. They warned against harsh language. They accused their own congregants of bigotry for expressing discomfort. And in doing so, they implicitly approved the system. They conferred moral legitimacy on the idea that love, not biology, creates family. They blessed the structure that now produces tragedies and expects applause.
What made it worse was the posture they adopted. They did not merely tolerate surrogacy. They celebrated its fruit. They applauded stories of gay adoption in national magazines. They shared photos of gay families smiling in churches. They used sentimental anecdotes to override Scripture and reason.
It was not just theological error. It was pastoral malpractice.
As the cultural costs of honesty increased, evangelical leaders changed their tone. They began to speak of biblical clarity as “weaponized theology.” They warned about the harm caused by “unloving rhetoric.” They shifted from affirming God’s design to minimizing the consequences of rejecting it.
The result is a generation of Christians who feel guilty for noticing what is in front of them. They have been trained to doubt their instincts, suppress their objections, and default to affirmation. The fear of sounding mean has replaced the fear of enabling evil.
The leaders responsible for this shift will insist they were motivated by grace. However, grace without truth is not grace at all. It is cowardice in disguise. The true gospel does not excuse rebellion. It calls sinners to repentance. And when churchmen lose the courage to speak truth about family, children, and sexual order, they become part of the deception.
No one forced these men to bless the system. They chose to baptize it.
A CULT OF CONSENT
The new regime is not built on love. It is built on consent. In this theology, adult desire is the only moral constant. Children are not protected by design, but negotiated into homes through legal means. Family no longer refers to a natural structure rooted in sex and covenant. It refers to any arrangement entered into by contract.
This is not Christian anthropology. It is a cult of autonomy.
Evangelical leaders who tried to integrate this cult into the church must now reckon with what they helped create. The child in the video is not an isolated incident. He is the logical outcome of a worldview that treats children as accessories, that erases motherhood, and that equates fatherhood with possession. And the Christian leaders who made peace with that system cannot now claim ignorance.
They chose to see the world through the lens of elite acceptance rather than divine design. And in doing so, they left the children behind.
It began with redefinitions. Marriage became optional. Gender became plastic. Parenthood became contractual. And the Church, eager to appear loving, adjusted its language to fit the times. Some held the line quietly. Others sold it outright.
Now we are watching the consequences unfold. Pedophiles gain custody of children because the system has no guardrails. Surrogacy agencies grant ownership without inquiry. And churches, once entrusted with protecting the vulnerable, now praise the aesthetics of inclusion.
There will be more stories like Brandon Mitchell’s. More children raised without mothers. More boys adopted into dangerous homes. More headlines that vanish after twenty-four hours. And behind every scandal will be a network of enablers—some secular, some sacred—who knew the truth and blessed it anyway.
A HISTORY OF SANITIZED PREDATION
Modern discourse insists that the link between homosexuality and pedophilia is a malicious lie. To even suggest such a thing is to invite accusations of hatred, ignorance, and extremism. Every media outlet, academic institution, and corporate diversity training repeats the same line: there is no connection between same-sex attraction and the sexual abuse of minors. The matter is settled, and to question it is considered an act of bigotry.
But the historical record tells a different story.
Before the modern era sanitized the narrative, the overlap between homosexuality and pederasty was not just known. It was celebrated. Across ancient civilizations, from Athens to Baghdad, from Rome to Edo-period Japan, adult male attraction to boys was not only tolerated but institutionalized. And far from being fringe behavior, it was often considered a marker of elite status and aesthetic refinement.
PREDATORS WITH RESPECTABLE NAMES
The modern gay rights movement is often sanitized in retrospect, but its early architects included open advocates of pederasty. The German activist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, considered the “first openly gay man,” spoke sympathetically of boy-love. The British writer Edward Carpenter, often praised by gay historians, defended intimate friendships with teenage boys. Oscar Wilde’s trial for gross indecency stemmed in part from his relationships with adolescent males.
In the twentieth century, the pattern continued. The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), founded in the 1970s, openly campaigned for the abolition of age-of-consent laws. It marched in early pride parades. Gay rights pioneers like Harry Hay defended it, calling its members “prophets.”
The Kinsey Institute, whose research forms the bedrock of modern sexual science, has never fully accounted for the origin of some of its data, particularly the graphs in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male that tracked the “orgasmic response” of children as young as five. Kinsey claimed to have used diaries from anonymous sources. Later investigation revealed that some of this information likely came from active pedophiles documenting their abuse.
None of this is accidental. It is part of a consistent pattern, stretching from antiquity to the present, in which the boundary between same-sex desire and adolescent exploitation is porous. That boundary has always existed in theory. But in practice, it has often been ignored.
In modern liberal democracies, any discussion of this history is met with outrage. Activists insist that the past is irrelevant. Institutions publish position papers claiming that there is no increased risk of abuse among same-sex couples. Journalists refer to this topic as “a dangerous myth.”
But the record remains. And everyone knows it.
The truth is not that all homosexuals are pedophiles. The truth is that, throughout history, male same-sex desire has repeatedly expressed itself in the form of attraction to younger males. This is not universally true, but it is structurally consistent. And in cultures that normalize same-sex eroticism, pederasty tends to follow; whether implicitly or explicitly, whether as mentorship, aesthetic appreciation, or outright abuse.
The modern attempt to separate the two is unprecedented. It is a project of political hygiene, not historical clarity. It is the cleansing of the record to fit a narrative.
But no amount of narrative can erase what is already written in stone, clay, parchment, and court record.
If you appreciate my work, grab a paid subscription to access exclusive content. This is one of the things I do to provide for my small farm and family, so I sure appreciate it. And if you act now, you can get an annual subscription at 40% off.
Clear and concise message exposing this problem of contemporary "Christianity". From my theological perspective, this tolerance of homosexuality and its destructive fruits testifies of a general acceptance of the new diversity, equality and inclusion in even more fundamental areas.