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.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I know the gentleman quit well, actually...

[Sunsong]

But basic moral principles do not change.

Aren't what you are calling "moral principles" based on what material objects (such as bodies ) do?

I don't know what the big changes that are coming will be but I suspect that a new more loving, more tolerant view of homosexuality is one of them. Some of them I imagine will come from new medical breakthroughs - such as the ability to grow parts of the body - for example the ability - with a few cells for people to grow a new kidney or liver or heart etc. And I think there are, obviously, some amazing new technological changes coming - changes that will impact the entire world. And there are others that I can't yet see or imagine or am not thining of at the moment I have no doubt about it

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

device to make you think.

Sadly you've not gotten there.

You enjoy your life as well!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

There is not a single scientific study that proves homosexual behavior is genetic -

Exactly... that would make it a birth defect...

Birth defect, mental illness or a choice...

They need to pick one and stick with it.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Some of them I imagine will come from new medical breakthroughs - such as the ability to grow parts of the body - for example the ability - with a few cells for people to grow a new kidney or liver or heart etc.

Frankenstein...

Cloning an army?

What if someone creates something we cannot get rid of?

[Central Scrutiniser]

So, why does God create defects?

I thought God was perfect.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I am an atheist... wrong question...

[Gabz]

I have seen what has happened to me first hand by homosexual activists and the support I have received by homosexuals that do not adhere to such aganda. My experience is no less real or hurtful than yours.

Why are so few speaking out is not the question, the question should be why are they being ignored when they do speak out. Tammy Bruce is heard because of her previous positions.........contrary to the belief held here by many, most homososexuals are not into publicity. At least not the ones I know, many of whom are very politically active.

The difference is their sexuality does not define them, it's just part of who they are. It does not define their politics, their religious beliefs, their lives, their friendships. I'm not a naive person, in fact boys who like boys and girls who like girls was explained to me by my mother more than 30 years ago, yet I have homosexual friends, men and women, that I had no idea were homosexuals until it was brought to my attention. And usually by a heterosexual friend.

I'll fight the homosexual agenda, because it is a bad thing to me, but I will not condemn all homosexuals because of the well-financed vocal few that make things appear to be what they aren't.

[Sunsong]

Yeah, I said that :-) I said if you think of the politcal spectrum as a circle rather than a straight line - the far left and the far right are side by side. And when you look at them they both act amazingly similar. They both do want to use government to control us - and in some ways they both have succeeded. We are nannied beyond what free people should have to endure -

I agree with you that it is scary. They are so convinced that they have *the only truth* that they feel justified in doing whatever they can to gain control of us. The far left environmentalists are convinced that the world is about to end because of global warming. The far right fundamentalists are convinced that the world is about to end because of immorality (and dare I say homosexuality :-) . They both feel that government is the only way to stop the end of the world :-) I'm sure you can see similar examples of how the really are a lot alike.

I appreciate your posts here. It's so nice to talk with a reasonable person after this long thread with such horrible blanket condemnations of homosexuals.

[Dustbunny]

If two people of the same sex decide to become sexually involved with each other, no matter what words are 'used' to justify the homosexuality, it is still perverted/un-natural sex.

[SuziQ]

You may not like what gidget is saying, but the comment about homosexuality being forced as a lifestyle onto school children is absolutely correct. Here in MA, since the Supreme Judicial Court took the matter out of the hands of the voters and created a 'right' to homosexual marriage, it is now considered just another lifestyle, and homosexual activists are going into classrooms under the guise of 'counselors' or 'social workers' and introducing subjects having to do with homosexuality. In the Newton MA school system a few months ago, a woman who is a school social worker came into a third grade classroom, and showed the kids a picture of a family; mother, father and child. She asked the kids what they saw in the picture, and one little boy raised his hand and said "It looks like a mommy and a daddy who doesn't want to be a man anymore, and their little boy". The social worker just smiled, then went into the whole idea of sex change operations.

Needless to say, this was a set up by the school which knew about the little boy's family situation, and made it possible for this woman to come into the classroom, unbeknownst to the parents, and introduce this topic, which was totally inappropriate for third graders. They knew this woman, though a school social worker, was also an activist and member of GLESN, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network. They did this under the excuse of making the little boy feel more 'normal', regardless of the fact that none of the kids knew anything about his family situation, and neither did the parents of the other children, until the school did this. They found out when one little girl, whose mother had just had a little boy told her she was worried that her baby brother might be turned into a little girl, and explained why she thought this. The mother was horrified, but when she complained to the Principal, she got the cold shoulder. She even brought it up in a Parents Association meeting, after which the Principal loudly rebuked her because the man involved happened to be sitting in the group. The woman knew she would never get anywhere with the Principal, so she had no choice but to go to the expense of putting her daughter in a private school. When she went to the school to inform the Principal that she was withdrawing her daughter, the Principal, in front of staff and several parents and teachers said, "GOOD!".

Now you may think it's an anomaly, and attribute it to some small group of activists, but this is happening all over the state, and when parents complain, they are harassed out of the school, or in the case of David Parker, in Lexington, are arrested, then kept off the school preperty by court order, simply because he asked that his son be allowed to not participate in activities in the classroom that showed homosexuality as 'just another lifestyle'. He was not telling the school that they shouldn't do it, because he knew that wouldn't work, he was simply trying to protect his son from what he considers a sinful lifestyle. The arrogant Principal and Superintendent of Schools kept this man from having anything to do with his son at school because they were only interested in pushing this new 'right', no matter what the parents of the children in the elementary school might think about it.

Most folks in this country would not care what folks get up to behind their bedroom doors, but they're just sick of this 'lifestyle' being forced on them and even worse, their children, when it is a VERY small minority of people involved in it. You claim we're judgemental, and I guess we are. We're exercising good judgement in pushing back when these folks want to overturn laws without allowing citizens to have any say, and threatening people with 'hate speech' for daring to voice an opposing opinion, which represents what the majority of people in this country believe.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

So, why does God create defects?

Again, if you really want to know try reading the Bible. Based on your past comments it is obvious that yo are ignorant when it comes to the Bible and God so I'll try to help you.

The answer from the Bible is that God does not create defects. Simply because you judge someone or something as defective doesn't mean that God does. For example, a child with Downs Syndrome is not defective. He ends up teaching the rest of us many more life lessons than we could ever teach anyone else. With regard to that particular issue we could be considered defective.

Keep having a great life!

[tuesday afternoon]

Funny. The gay men I know are definitely into non-stop sex.

[AtomicBuffaloWings]

If I understand what lesbians do, by the way, they would seem to be the people with the "dirty mouths."

Heck, if you're alluding to what I think you're alluding to, then I have a "dirty mouth" too.

[tuesday afternoon]

Boy, Heather sure looks butch.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Read the bible, did 12 years of parochial school.

So, using your downs syndrome thing, why can't the same apply to a gay person? Or, is that just too much to ask for you to just accept that others lead different lifestyles and leave it alone at that.

Its bed time, I enjoyed the debate.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Awesome post. And great job of clearly explaining why some of us are so fed up with people forcing their homosexual agenda down out throats.

Good night.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

So, using your downs syndrome thing, why can't the same apply to a gay person?

One is genetic and has been proven so, scientifically. The other is not - it is a behavior.

[MHGinTN]

You spittled out, "So, why does God create defects?" Just to clarify, do you in fact believe that God creates defects? And are homosexuals defective?

[Gabz]

I'm so glad you think I'm reasonable - it's such a nice thing, as far more consider me, well, unreasonable :)

My final comment on the issue for this evening is I have no use for the "homosexual agenda" being shoved down anyone's throat.......but at the same time I also have no use for the "my way or the highway" gay bashing agenda being shoved down anyone's throat.

I am by no means perfect and I pray God will forgive me for the sins I have committed, but none of us are perfect. I have a hard time with people comdemning others for little else than disagreement.

On that note, I wish you a good night. There is a NASA rocket launch here tomorrow morning and I want to be up to watch and hopefully get pix of it.

thanks for the good conversation, I will check back here late in the morning.

Night.