Why Would Gays Want Children?

Townhall ^ | 12/10/06 | Kevin McCullough

[wagglebee]

Is there a more obvious product of heterosexual behavior than the creation of children? If so then isn't it somewhat peculiar that those who shun the behavior of heterosexuality so deeply crave the product that it brings?

This week as I read the news that Mary Cheney, the 37 year old daughter of the Vice-President, was pregnant, I had many such questions running through my head.

I'm not supposed to mind you.

I'm not supposed to be allowed to think such things.

I'm not supposed to openly wonder what such conclusions might mean. Such wondering might bash the belief structure that men and women are completely interchangeable with one another. Yet I wonder them nonetheless. (Call it an ever growing desire to know the truth of the matter.)

Let's face it in America today if we bring up such obvious inconsistencies we are immediately branded and labeled a bigot. I was repeatedly labeled such this week for asking six additional questions arising from the fake act of two women supposedly "becoming parents." Argue with me all you like - the truth is Mary Cheney's baby will share DNA with Mary and the male DNA donor. Genetically he/she will share nothing with Cheney's partner Heather Poe.

So here's the next item I'm not allowed to bring up... Two women who desire children can not achieve satisfaction, because their sexual union is incapable of producing it. And this is fully true - even if all parties involved have healthy, fully functional reproductive biology.

When I mentioned this earlier in the week homosexual bloggers like Andrew Sullivan took exception with the notion and accused me of being hypocritical of the issue when it comes to infertile couples. Yet it is the critics who are being inconsistent.

If a man and wife struggle with infertility, it is because of biological breakdown. What God designed to work a certain way short circuited. He has low sperm count. She doesn't produce eggs as she should. They have trouble getting the two together. The biological dysfunction is not voluntary, they attempt sexual intercourse, time and time again but because of the faulty genetics in the machinery they are unable to complete the conception. And should medicine ever develop a cure for whatever that specific breakdown might be - there will be no problem for the couple, through natural sexual engagement to have another child.

Not so with Cheney and her partner. If they were to choose to engage in sex acts a thousand times over, their biological machinery would never produce what is needed - but for a different reason. There is no dysfunction in this case. Instead the reason the sexual engagement does not work is because the necessary parts are not even present. It is the equivalent of screwing a nut onto a bolt, by using a hammer. They just don't fit.

So after a cacophony of naughty e-mails being sent to me describing thousands of positions a male participant or a turkey baster can be used to impregnate a woman who only has had sex with women, I'm supposed to be intimidated so as to no longer ask these questions.

But they're good questions.

And doesn't the sick attempt at humor reveal what the purpose of my questions was from the very beginning?

In normal relationships the privacy and intimacy of the act of procreation is a spiritual and beautiful thing. In the sexual acts of women who sleep together that adequacy will be something they always long for and never have the satisfaction of knowing, thus undermining the fidelity of what they believe their relationship to be.

In our culture we don't think about our actions from the viewpoint of the One who created us. Rather we obsess about our rights to do what we want, how we want, and as often as we want.

But children are never about what we want. Raising them is about supplying what they need. Britney Spears does no one a service when she gets pregnant on the cheap in a marriage that doesn't last only to end up not providing a father for her children while flashing her nether region for paparazzi. Like wise how moral is it for Mary Cheney to bring a child into society who from the outcome is told that her second mommy is the equivalent of a true father?

There is a reason for homosexual activists to have kids; it is part of the great deception that no one is to question. By having children in the picture the attempt to complete the circle and to convince the world that such a family unit is normal is all important.

Since we do not live in a theocracy it is unreasonable to maintain that Americans will not all make the same choice when it comes to morality and sexual behavior. However that reality has nothing whatsoever to do with whether sexual behavior should be considered moral that extends beyond moral boundaries.

And since homosexuals insist upon desiring limitless sexual activity, not governed by provincial rules and traditions, why would they want children?

Children are the undeniable product of the superiority of heterosexual engagement. And since homosexual behavior in large terms wishes to throw off the weight of conventional sexuality, I am curious as to why they would desire to reinforce the inferiority of their sexual behavior.

And no amount of hate-mail from small minded radical activists will stifle the curiosity from which I seek to learn.

[pleikumud]

Right. And I know a guy who was sodomized by a male "authority figure" when he was a boy. The guy has significant mental problems - deep depression alternating with euphoria, injuring himself by hitting himself against a wall, and so on. Homosexuals seeking gay sex are a menace to society, both due to their physical and mental abuse of children and adults, and by the fact that they are the root cause of the worldwide AIDS epidemic, costing millions of lives and billions of dollars. And of course, they reproduce exactly nothing. Homo sapiens would become extinct if gays prevailed.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I am not getting the love the sinner, hate the sin here. We should probably just stone all the homosexuals, like the adulterers. That will fix the marriage problem, old testament style.

Right away, Imam.

[Howlin]

I would posit that your post makes more sense than any on ANY of these threads.

I would also posit that in any group there are the "trouble makers." Look around. :-)

[onyx]

The medical community is not in unisome on this subject.
I am married to a notable psychiatrist who takes issue with ALL of the studies he has read, having done his research discertation in homosexuality.

[Howlin]

And are you now gay because of that? :-)

[onyx]

ROTFLOL! Good one.

[Sunsong]

Did you even read it? What she said is not true - because my sister who has eight children would never and has never said anything like she claims that all parents of large families would say.

[bvw]

Your post is an excellent and thoughtful one. You are correct on every point.

1. It is perfectly OK to be prejudiced or bigoted towards "behavior".

   Yes, we scorn, deride and refuse to tolerate the behaviours of alcoholism, drug abuse, and the absense of self-control in a violent individual. Yet those are all just behaviours.

2. We show prejudice towards all manners of other anti-social behaviors, why can we not show prejudice against homosexual behavior?

   Because the new age social mind controllers demand that we do not. Like any other monstrous tyrant throughout history they not only demand a tax, or hard work, or property -- they demand we think a ceratin way and no other.

3. First it is clearly anti-social as the behavior cannot sustain a society (which is the whole premise of the article.)

   Well, the thug horde of mind controllers are refusing to discuss, or intellectually blocked from discussing any real point in the article.

   And yes you are right, as is the article -- lesbians bearing children out of wedlock is a highly anti-social behaviour, long term. Long term a society that allows and encourages such a thing disappears -- there is only a short term for such tolerance. Europe's a clue .. the birth rate amoung native Europeans has dwindled to rates that will casue Europeans to cease to be in not many more years, if continued.

4. Second, homosexuality is clearly a "behavior".

   Fact. The current crop of PC mind-control thugs of Free Republic have problems with facts they can't handle.

5. Homosexuals are self-defined by "what they do" -- not who they are.

   You mean that by insisting that they be viewed as homosexuals, they deny us the ability to view them as fellow humans with all the flaws and blessings hidden and revealed of humans.

   Instead they insist that we pay attention to that one most odious aspect of themselves -- their failing, and that we welcome it, and celebrate it!

   Utter tyranny!

[Raycpa]

So, celibate Catholic priests are eunuchs?

In the original greek, yes.

[wouldntbprudent]

That's my point.

You offered up the example of tourists "afraid to go to red states" as some sort of proof that individuals with whom you apparently disagree on a some topics had sullied the reputation of their states worldwide.

Yet the examples you give demonstrate that the tourists were either not basing their views on accurate information or were not knowledgeable enough to put the information they had in an appropriate perspective.

[therut]

So are most homocidial maniacs. Free Choice is a bugger. Pardon the Pun.

[Burkean]

Isn't it possible that couples who struggle with infertility are doing so because God is saying "You two don't need to be parents"? If they've waited too long because they were focused on a career, or if they neglected their health and perhaps exposed themselves to diseases that have made it impossible to bear children, why should they be trusted with children?

[dmw]

"Saying that male homosexuals sleep around more than heteros is just silly."

I assume you are basing your comment on an assumption you have about this and not on facts. If you did a search on your favorite search engine on this subject you will find that gays do indeed have more partners than heterosexuals. This is just a plain fact that even most gays would not deny.

Below is information I copied and pasted from the catholiceducation.org website which is a great website to go to for information on the health risks of gay sex. I think you might find it interesting. For more information you can go here http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

This is from the Catholic Informaiton Resource Center and written by a MD.

Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.

Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs.

[Old_Mil]

Much of what homosexuals and lesbians do is driven by their sexual behavior. This is in and of itself abnormal when compared to the normal heterosexual individual who has a variety of interests that have nothing to do with their heterosexuality.

Much of what homosexuals do in the public square - and this includes the adoption of children - is done in an attempt to normalize their deviant behavior in the eyes of society. Hitler knew that if the youth of Germany were placed under his care, that he could take over the nation without firing a shot. This is perhaps a secondary reason for homosexuals to promote adoption - so they can progandize members of the next generation of heterosexuals to be sympathetic to their cause if not recruit them outright.

Any heterosexual who supports homosexual adoption is, in my opinion, engaging in a form of child abuse.

[gitmo]

And since homosexuals insist upon desiring limitless sexual activity, not governed by provincial rules and traditions, why would they want children?

What a preposterous statement; and that's saying something considering all the crap that's been written about this subject this week.

Twas a question, not a statement. Can you provide the answer?

[Raycpa]

I cannot repeat myself enough: there is no "cure" for homosexuality, just like there is no "cure" for pedophilia.

All things are possible for God.

[scripter]

I am so not attracted to men that it isn't funny. There is no way, I could wake up in the morning, and go through a program to be gay. Not going to happen.

I can understand, perfectly, what you're saying here. The problem with what you've said is it doesn't have anything to do with what causes same-sex attraction. It's an extremely complicated issue that cannot be dismissed with statements similar to: Not going to happen.

[onyx]

And yet, God has not chosen to CURE even one pedophile. Imagine that!

[therut]

You do not know the gay guys I know then. And I have had many converstations with them. They say just the opposite. However these gay guys are not wanting marriage or children. They want their gay lifestyle and they think the rest is a bunch of lies. And they told me NEVER to believe they were born that way. Maybe they are all lying or maybe they tell the truth.

[durasell]

It is what it is. And, it saddens me. I've actually introduced foreign tourists to people from American rural communities to show they weren't "ignorant racists."