Part of that declaration handles the Rights of Children. One of these rights states that every child should have the opportunity to be raised by both it's biological parents. By using sperm donation, or surrogate mothers, combined with a right to anonimosity of those, you deny the child this basic human right.
Eh. If one (or more) of the biological parents waive their connection (or whatever it should be called) with the kid, then m'of the opinion that should be that. So long as the child's got support and the parent is uninterested, then... okay. Kid's got a right to support of some sort, but not necessarily by their biological parent if there's other options available. So long as said support is available, I wouldn't say the child's right to support supersedes the biological parent's right to be left the hell alone, y'know?
Personal experience has
strongly demonstrated that biological means precisely jack and shit when it comes to parenting. What's important is all that... love and support and that sort of rot. There's nothing about biological decent that privileges biological over non-biological parents, at least from what I've seen. What matters is care and willingness, not blood.
Which is the problem with the "born that way" movement : it doesn't adress the root of the problem, namely, why would you want your children heterosexual and not homosexual?
I thought the problem was why the zog is the parent trying to influence the child's sexuality
at all instead of just letting them do what they do and supporting them in that? Parent doing their job otherwise and the kid's choice of partner is going to matter basically none, so...