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.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I prefer ridiculing the wives and weird uncles who wear tinfoil underwear and tape magnets to their head.

CUE SPOOKY MUSIC...

[little jeremiah]

Okay, all of you homosexual rights supporters - here's your chance to read what REAL homosexuals believe and want! Two articles for your reading pleasure, feel free to agree with the author/s!

Gay Liberation Manifesto (1972 revised 1978)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1751204/posts?page=1

Position Paper: The Right's Attack on Sex
The Natinal Coalition for Sexual Freedom ^ | 1996, revised 2001 | By Eric Rofes and members of the San Francisco Sex/Politics Study Group
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1751202/posts?page=1

Note to all: The above are the real deal. This is what has motivated the homosexual rights' activists and their supporters. Those on this and other similar threads pewling about "Talibornagain", prudes, homophobes, turning back the clock, etc - means nothing. It's nothing but vain verbiage, sentimental drivel. The two aritlces are what homosexual rights are really about.

[onyx]

Let's agree to disagree. For some reason, some of you NEED to believe homosexuality is curable. I am not interested in your reasons for NEEDING to believe it.

[LowOiL]

We can't get too detailed here, but in generalities, most straight men cannot even fathom preforming oral sex on another man. How could one be forced to become gay? The reverse is true too.

I remember my first cigarette, threw up, tried another one, got just bad sick. Repeat repeat repeat addicted. Now I am a nasty pack a day person. The nicotine is my addictive, the sick thrill is their addiction.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Ok, so, by your definition, anyone who violates any law of God is a whore?

And here I thought a whore was somebody who traded sex for money. Silly me...

[Sunsong]

I've implied nothing. You keep writing posts to me. I keep answering them. Fact. I live in a red state.

[Sunsong]

I didn't request reading material. Does it ever occur to you to ask people if they want some of your propaganda materials?

[bvw]

It's war. Family versus "Gay Liberation", and just as with the other war we are in, a good percentage of Doofus Americanus is unwilling to admit that it is a war. Just as with the war against Islamo-facsism the other side knows, the other declares and redeclares the war. Thanks for the finding that makes the war declaraion against us obvious, maybe, I'd hope, to some soon-to-be-ex Doofuses Americanus.

Never forget that our Freedom in America was won be a very small percentage of those who persevered in doing the right thing, no matter what odds against them. Under 10% of the population.

[LowOiL]

I didn't request reading material. Does it ever occur to you to ask people if they want some of your propaganda materials?

I bookmarked the thread because of great links like he provided. Thanks LJ

[dmw]

" I can see where some females may have a hatred for men, particularly if they've been abused."

Yes, very true. That's exactly why my mom became a lesbian. After having the crap beat out of her by my dad for ten years she decided she hated all men and would never marry again. She only became a lesbian because she was lonely and looking for companionship. She never really liked being a lesbian, but it was better than being lonely, and better than letting another man beat her to pulp again.

Many gay men I know have also been abused in some form or another when they were younger. Most of the ex-gay men I know were abused sexually or rejected by their father. Lots of other reasons too, but again, the facts don't seem to matter to you. But like I said, I have many good friends, gay and ex-gay, and I know that they can chose another lifestyle and be very happy doing it.

[LowOiL]

I had an older classmate become gay (lez) after the band director (he was bi) corrupted her.

[onyx]

I wish you and yours a Blessed and Merry Christmas.

[bvw]

Yes, John Wayne Gacy - his lust and hunger was NOT HIS CHOICE, either I'd suppose.

So what? It was wrong, he had to control it. And if he didn't, we had to.

[dmw]

I don't NEED to believe that homosexuals can be cured Onyx. But for some reason you certainly do seem to want to believe the lie you've been told rather than the indisputable facts that come from thousands of ex-gays who have come out of the lifestyle.

Yes, let's agree to disagree because we do indeed disagree big time.

[dmw]

Thank you onyx and the same to you too.

[wku man]

"Why Would Gays Want Children?"

Well, I know a lot of happy people who want kids, and a lot of happy people who have them already. Now, if the question is why would sick, perverted, disgusting homosexuals want children, well, that has been answered already. It's so they can debase the meaning of "marriage" and "normal family".

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

I didn't request reading material. Does it ever occur to you to ask people if they want some of your propaganda materials?

OK... The nah!!! nah!!! nah!!! nah!!! nah!!! nah!!! nah!!! I can't hear you argument now enters the fray.

So typical of 90% of the homosexual activist posts to this thread: Call the person who quotes studies (with references) names (bigot, gay basher, etc.), refuse to look at peer reviewed studies, then go on about how they **feel** about the issue - name calling along the way.

Sunsong, you were even warned at one point by the moderator in an earlier post to stop the personal attacks, correct?

And some used to think that people had rational discussions based on facts on FR!

[little jeremiah]

Aww, poor widdle sunsong didn't "request" reading material! Does this mean we can only reply to your comments if you ask us to?

BTW, the links are not written by me, but by - get this - homosexual activists, leaders and spokespeople! It's not propaganda, it's what actual homosexual rights activists and leaders think!

Try reading it. It's folks from YOUR side, not mine!

[SuziQ]

It's also worth noting that no male will ever be conceived by such a practice.

Lesbians everywhere must be thrilled. Not sure what the homosexual guys must think.