Last week, a gay couple — Logan Riley and Brandon Mitchell — went viral for posting photos of the baby boy they acquired through surrogacy. What began as a celebration quickly unraveled after it emerged that one of the men is a convicted sex offender.

Social media users raised obvious concerns. Was this arrangement in the best interest of the child? What risks come with separating a baby from his mother and placing him with unrelated adult males, one of whom has a record of sex crimes? Critics asked these questions and were met, as usual, with accusations of bigotry from gay activists. But once the facts surfaced, the activists who rushed to defend the couple fell silent.

Children are not accessories. Women are not rental space. And no one should be allowed to buy a baby — least of all someone who wouldn’t be permitted to adopt one.

The pattern is familiar. Critics of surrogacy are smeared until reality breaks through the narrative. By then, the damage is done — and the child is the one who suffers.

From fallback to moral imperative

The original case for gay adoption was flimsy. It presented same-sex couples as a last resort, a solution for children who would otherwise languish in the foster system. Even its advocates admitted that two men raising a child could not replicate the contributions of a mother and father. The goal was to offer love and stability in the absence of better alternatives.

That framing has since disappeared. As the LGBTQ movement moved from acceptance to dominance, the rhetoric shifted. Gay adoption was no longer a concession. It was equal to heterosexual couples adopting, then it was superior. Religious adoption agencies that prioritized married mothers and fathers were accused of discrimination and extremism. State governments and national organizations began steering children toward same-sex households, now presented as the cultural ideal.

Once equality became unquestionable dogma, the conversation shifted again. Adoption was no longer enough. Activists turned to surrogacy — not to rescue unwanted children, but to commission biologically related ones. The moral justification evaporated. This wasn’t about saving lives so much as satisfying adult desires.

Adoption and surrogacy are not the same

Surrogacy is sometimes described as a form of adoption. That’s misleading. Adoption involves accepting responsibility for a life that already exists, often in difficult circumstances. Surrogacy deliberately creates a child to be separated from his mother and sold to strangers.

The physical and emotional toll on the mother is severe. Surrogates are often poor, vulnerable, and pressured into contracts they don’t fully understand. Children are ordered like designer fashion accessories. There are cases of forced abortions, abandoned babies, and severe trauma — all downstream from the commodification of life.

This is not a rare byproduct. It is built into the practice.

The risk to children is real

Children raised by unrelated adults face increased risks of abuse. One study found that preschool-aged children are 40 times more likely to be abused in a household with a stepparent than in one with both biological parents. The data is not absolute, but the trend is clear: Adults, especially men, are far more likely to abuse children to whom they are not biologically related.

This should alarm anyone watching the rise of surrogacy arrangements, particularly those involving male couples. These are homes where the child has no biological connection to either adult. And in some cases, as with Riley and Mitchell, one of the men has a criminal record that would disqualify him from adopting under state law.

RELATED: Trump moves to defund hospitals mutilating kids for money

chrupka via iStock/Getty Images

In Pennsylvania, sex offenders are barred from adopting. But surrogacy remains unrestricted. The child in this case remains in the custody of a man the law has deemed unfit to parent.

This is not some oversight. It is a structural and legal failure.

The moral inversion is complete

We are told that the buying and selling of human beings was one of history’s greatest evils. Our education system and popular culture treat slavery as the ultimate moral horror. Yet, in the name of equality and inclusion, we now celebrate the legal sale of children — so long as it occurs under the banner of LGBTQ rights.

And so we have elevated identity above accountability. In any other context, a convicted sex offender taking custody of a newborn would be a national scandal. But when the arrangement involves a same-sex couple, basic standards are suspended. The child becomes secondary to the cultural narrative.

Enough of this

Surrogacy did not enter the mainstream through a national debate or democratic vote. It arrived through the back door, marketed as compassionate and modern. Most people didn’t understand the process. They didn’t consider the ethical costs. That time has passed. Ignorance no longer justifies our complacence.

We now see surrogacy for what it is: a commercial industry that exploits vulnerable women and treats children as consumer goods. The law must catch up with the reality.

This is not just a problem for gay couples. Surrogacy as a practice should be banned for everyone. No adult has a right to manufacture a child for personal fulfillment. No amount of wealth, influence, or legal maneuvering justifies the creation of human life as a transaction.

Children are not accessories. Women are not rental space. And no one should be allowed to buy a baby — least of all someone who wouldn’t be permitted to adopt one.