A British man now living in Florida who freely chooses to be in a type of erotic union that is by design sterile believes it is his right to create children who will have no connection to their mothers and no certainty about who their father is. Here is his morally repugnant, convoluted story.

In 1999, then-30-year-old Barrie Drewitt-Barlow and his then-35-year-old partner whom he later “married,” Tony Drewitt-Barlow, purchased eggs from Tracie McCune and rented the womb of Rosalind Bellamy to acquire their first two children: a boy named Aspen and a girl named Saffron.

The fertilized egg that became Aspen split, so they froze Aspen’s identical twin, defrosted him four years later, and implanted him in the rented womb of another woman, Donna Calabrese. Aspen now has an identical twin brother Orlando who is four years younger than he is.

About nine years later, the millionaire Drewitt-Barlow fathers purchased yet more eggs, rented Calabrese’s womb again, and had two more boys, Dallas and Jasper, born in 2010. The biological mother is a “Brazilian model whom Barrie spotted on the catwalk and paid £35,000 for the privilege” of donating her eggs.

Both men contributed sperm to the selfish, dystopian reproductive project, and while they know which biological child each sired, they’re not telling the children. Apparently, the two men are entitled to children, but their children aren’t entitled to know who their biological fathers are.

In an interview with the Daily Mail in 2015, Tony, the older Drewitt-Barlow, proclaimed that their lifelong commitment was ironclad:

Barrie and I will never split up. We’re soulmates. But also we’d never do that to our children because of the pain it would cause.

Last October, Barrie and Tony split up.

The now-50-year-old Barrie began an erotic relationship with his daughter’s 25-year-old bisexual ex-boyfriend, Scott Hutchison. Barrie and Scott then bought eggs and rented a womb for the purpose of gestating their triplets who are due in October. Barrie announced,

Our family has too many boys and too much testosterone! So we used sex selection to even things out. We know we are having girls. … We found a beautiful, young, educated egg donor. … We met 15 egg donors at the Beverly Wiltshire hotel, the hotel in the film Pretty Woman. We decided that would make the perfect setting to find the woman who would add the part of the DNA for our baby girl. Once we found our surrogate we transferred three blastocysts (embryos), two girls fertilised by Scott and one girl fertilised by me.

Barrie, his young paramour Scott, his ex Tony, Aspen, Saffron, Orlando, Dallas, Jasper, and the triplets will all be sharing the same home—just one big, strange family created to satisfy the desires of selfish adults.

Barrie isn’t done yet with his profligate inseminating. He donated sperm to a lesbian couple in the U.K. who will be giving birth one month before his and Scott’s triplets are born here in the United States.

Barrie writes about the nature of the homoerotic relationship into which he’s bringing three babies:

I know people will think Scott is only after my money and all that — he is, after all, 25 years younger than me — but I don’t care. I’m going to enjoy every moment that I can, while I can. After all, you only have one life.

This is the toxic fruit of the sexual revolution that began the erosion of cultural taboos regarding sexual activity. Sexual revolutionaries severed sexual acts from procreation, sexual acts from marriage, and then sexual acts from sexual differentiation. The only purpose for sex became carnal gratification. Sex lost all meaning. While children gained sexual autonomy—the right to erotic gratification—they lost the right to be raised by both a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents.

The damage done to children’s rights and needs by the sexual revolution—from the denial of family through divorce and sperm and egg donation to the “trans”-cultic destruction of their hearts, minds, and bodies to their extermination in the womb—constitutes the justice issue of our time. How many presidential candidates who claim to care about social justice will address it?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The-rise-of-homosexual-family-madness_audio_01.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

By The Editors at National Review Online

President Barack Obama is getting credit, even from some critics, for finally being honest and consistent in his position on same-sex marriage now that he has announced his support for it. But he is still being neither honest nor consistent. And his dishonesty is not merely a matter of pretending that he has truly changed his mind about marriage, rather than about the politics of marriage.

His claim that he believes that states should decide marriage policy is also impossible to credit. One of the purposes of the federal Defense of Marriage Act was to block this scenario: A same-sex couple that resides in a state that does not recognize same-sex unions as marriages goes to a state that does so recognize them, gets married there, returns home, sues in federal court to make the home state recognize the “marriage,” and prevails. Obama has long favored the repeal of the act. He does not truly want states to be able to continue to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

And really, why should he, given his premises? Does anyone doubt that he believes that the marriage laws of most states are not just wrong but unjust? His spokesmen have repeatedly said as much when registering his opposition to states’ attempts to undo judicial decisions to impose same-sex marriage. If these marriage laws amount to unjust discrimination against certain persons, then it follows that states have no right to enforce them. If Obama’s appointees to the Supreme Court join a majority that requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages, does anyone think that he will do anything but applaud? There is no reason to believe that Obama’s long-advertised “evolution” on marriage is now complete. 

All people, whatever their sexual orientation, have equal dignity, worth, and basic rights, by virtue of being human beings. We have previously explained why we believe that this premise does not entail the conclusion that the marriage laws should be changed (anddefended our views from critics). For now, we will merely repeat one point: The only good reason to have marriage laws in the first place — to have the state recognize a class of relationships called “marriage” out of all the possible strong bonds that adults can form — is to link erotic desire to the upbringing of the children it can produce.

We have already gone too far, in both law and culture, in weakening the link between marriage and procreation. To break it altogether would make the institution of marriage unintelligible. What possible governmental interest is there in encouraging long-term commitments with a sexual element, just as such? What reason is there to exclude from recognition caring long-term relationships without such an element? (In one of the editorials mentioned above we mention the case of two brothers who raise a child together following a family tragedy; other hypotheticals are easy to devise.)

Many people who support same-sex marriage sincerely believe that they are merely expanding an institution to a class of people who have been excluded from it rather than redefining it. But this view is simply mistaken. We will not make our society more civilized by detaching one of our central institutions from its civilizing task.