Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Would Gays Want Children?
Townhall ^ | 12/10/06 | Kevin McCullough

Posted on 12/10/2006 2:01:49 PM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2abuse; 2molest; 2pervert; 2recruit; 2warp; 4futurevictims; 4pleasure; 4thenextwave; homosexualagenda; homotrollsonfr; marycheney; michaeljackson; moralabsolutes; pedophilia; perverts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 821-824 next last
To: wagglebee

I'm a little confused as to what all the hullabaloo is about on this thread... Hmm. It sounds like a reasonable article to me. Perhaps not completely accurate but not 'outrageous.'


401 posted on 12/10/2006 6:15:34 PM PST by Terriergal (All your church are belong to us! --- The Purpose Driven Church)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
LOL Sonic, And before I end this post, let me answer the question of "How many homosexuals were raised by straight parents?" with another question: "


I can tell you unequivocally that they were all conceived by two, one of each!
402 posted on 12/10/2006 6:15:48 PM PST by gidget7 (Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon
So the kids can take care of them when AIDS sets in?

Oh, yeah, you're a regular laff-riot.

403 posted on 12/10/2006 6:15:56 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (“Don’t overestimate the decency of the human race.” —H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Maybe I'm slow, but why 'outrageous'?


404 posted on 12/10/2006 6:16:11 PM PST by Terriergal (All your church are belong to us! --- The Purpose Driven Church)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Fine. Now we have a definition.

Now name some people who are doing it.

Take a trip to the Netherlands. You'll find plenty there.

405 posted on 12/10/2006 6:16:50 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (“Don’t overestimate the decency of the human race.” —H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: therut
You know you have a way of trying to twist peoples words which is a known liberal tactic.

Which words of YOURS did I twist.

BTW, that accusing people of being liberal when they don't agree with you pretty much sucks as an argument.

406 posted on 12/10/2006 6:17:28 PM PST by Howlin (40 days to Destin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: dmw
My argument is with anyone who believes that heterosexuals are not guilty of the same kinda of promiscuity that homosexuals are. There are plenty of heteros who engage in sodomy. There are plenty of heterosexuals who use 'artificial' pleasure. I don't care what stats you throw around... and I don't care what you or anyone else does in the privacy of their own home, as long as it is consensual.
407 posted on 12/10/2006 6:17:35 PM PST by rintense (Liberals stand for nothing and are against everything- unless it benefits them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Conduct your own test. Force yourself to become gay.

Precisely. A heterosexual can commit homosexual acts while still remaining straight. The reverse is also true (which points to the lifelong struggle of many 'cured' homosexuals)

408 posted on 12/10/2006 6:17:54 PM PST by Wormwood (Everybody is lying---but it doesn't matter because nobody is listening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: al baby
I think you need a time out or whats really going on with you Im worried about you

I cannot trace back what concerns you. If you are genuinely worried, please let me know.

409 posted on 12/10/2006 6:18:28 PM PST by paulat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: rintense

Dear God, I had missed that post.

But, hey, did you see the one where one of the "religious" people called me a queer?


410 posted on 12/10/2006 6:18:33 PM PST by Howlin (40 days to Destin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Supporting a heterosexual marriage amendment (which I don't support, by the way) is not gay-bashing. Five knuckle-dragging freaks beating a homosexual to death in an alleyway with baseball bats, on the other hand, is.

There is no talk of an amendment on this thread - but there IS a lot of gay bashing. Beating gays is beyond bashing - it is criminal and those who engage in it should be locked up.

411 posted on 12/10/2006 6:19:28 PM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

We weren't talking about the Netherlands; we were talking about Mary Cheney.

To insinuate she's pro-euthanasia is outrageous.

But, hey, I'm sure that's been said about me.


412 posted on 12/10/2006 6:19:54 PM PST by Howlin (40 days to Destin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood


Thank you. Prison proves that. For some reason, some people here NEED to believe it can be "cured" --- that it's a choice that can be changed.


413 posted on 12/10/2006 6:20:42 PM PST by onyx (I'm now a minority and victim of the democrats, but with full and free entitlements!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Didn't you know? If you don't condemn all gays to hell, you must be one of them too?


414 posted on 12/10/2006 6:23:27 PM PST by rintense (Liberals stand for nothing and are against everything- unless it benefits them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: onyx
For some reason, some people here NEED to believe it can be "cured" --- that it's a choice that can be changed.

Oh, that's an way one.

If being gay is a choice, then those prejudiced against gays can proclaim that they are just 'condemning bad behavior".

But what if gays had no choice in their sexuality? Then those who are bigoted against them would just be . . . bigots.

415 posted on 12/10/2006 6:25:41 PM PST by Wormwood (Everybody is lying---but it doesn't matter because nobody is listening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: scripter

BTTT for great links.

"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."

Theocracy is not the same as having laws based on religious principles, which is what laws have been based upon since laws were first invented.

If a libertine-arian tosses the slogan "you can't legislate morality" what they REALLY mean is "hey, no fair making any laws against any kind of sexual activity! Makes me feel weird!"

Laws against theft, embezzelment, perjuroy, murder, assault, kidnapping, etc - are all laws legislating morality. Libertine-arians, for some reason, want all laws restricint sexual license abolished.

I wonder why, since sexual libertinism so obviously causes social breakdown, family breakdown, and great personal suffering.


416 posted on 12/10/2006 6:26:16 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rintense

Oh, I see.

I did not know that; well, so be it.


417 posted on 12/10/2006 6:27:17 PM PST by Howlin (40 days to Destin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Didn't you know? If you don't condemn all gays to hell, you must be one of them too?

That's right :-) and not only that you support Hillary Clinton :-)

Condemnation of others is a pre-requisite to get into the *club*. Otherwise you are not to be trusted.

418 posted on 12/10/2006 6:27:35 PM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Hell, no! :-D


419 posted on 12/10/2006 6:27:39 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (“Don’t overestimate the decency of the human race.” —H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood


Right.


420 posted on 12/10/2006 6:28:30 PM PST by onyx (I'm now a minority and victim of the democrats, but with full and free entitlements!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 821-824 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson