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.

[gidget7]

"Your opinion. But the government has no place in telling individuals who they can sleep with and what kind of sex they can have."



No one is suggesting that. And the government cannot anyway. Nor should they be in the business of sanctioning or endorsing, or indoctrinating, or making laws regarding the thoughts or words of the general public. Nor should the government bring children into it, which by allowing adoption into an environment that is not best for the child. Which they are doing in a lot of Social Services orgs.

ALL children are the future, if they are raised in environments that are unstable, they grow up to be unstable themselves. Who is going to take care of them? who is going to be the responsible ones for the next generation, when children are raised to be unstable adults?

I don't know why I bother, since as has been said, no opinion here is going to be changed.

[Stone Mountain]

And there are still laws making the bearing of children out of wedlock illegal.

In the USA? Where? When was the last time this law was enforced?

[trisham]

Without "judgement" we would dissolve into anarchy. And on a strictly moral issue, all churches would probably have money changers in the vestibule.

***********

Exactly. I believe there may be a misunderstanding of "judge not, lest ye be judged". It is not for us to decide the fate of a man's soul, but it is permissible for us to understand and as a society disapprove of his behaviour. "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

Many, such as me, might consider this to be a "civilizing" effect.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

...some of us at FR are actually worried about how Free Republic looks to the outside world.

If nobody knocks down these ridiculous posts, people think we AGREE with them.

Exactly so!!!!!

Ah...an incredibly telling statement as well as incredibly shallow.

In the traditional adult world...its understood that doing the right thing is often the "unpopular" thing. Thats why doing the right thing is hard and the wrong thing is easy. If I based my moral decisions on "what other people think" I'd probably be dead, in jail or would have hurt a great many people.

I suppose I've finally figured all you Bots out, and I'm SOOOOO glad you are being quite boisterous on this topic...because your true colors shine through.

For you all...winning elections, defending GW Bush, and defending the Republican Party are more important than being right/doing the right thing...even when it is at odds toward traditional family values. Wow...this is the future of the Republican Party.

Thank you ALL for being so demonstrative to this end.

[DungeonMaster]

But then again, that's just me.

Good plan because the gay lifestyle could never impact your son in any way. /sarcasm.

[trisham]

In the traditional adult world...its understood that doing the right thing is often the "unpopular" thing. Thats why doing the right thing is hard and the wrong thing is easy. If I based my moral decisions on "what other people think" I'd probably be dead, in jail or would have hurt a great many people.

*************

Unfortunately, you are quite right. Doing the wrong thing is so much easier than doing the right thing. I've heard that excuse that some have made about "people outside Free Republic thinking this is what Free Republic is all about" a lot lately. It's used to justify some pretty unlikely viewpoints, given the stated perspective of the owner. There seems to be an almost anarchical attitude among some here, which seems more to belong to the other side.

[DungeonMaster]

Well, in situations like this, I like to quote the long passages in the four gospels that Jesus devoted to homosexuals. I will quote them all here.

Prostitutes get all kinds of honorable mention in the bible. Gays get none.

[wagglebee]

It is not for us to decide the fate of a man's soul, but it is permissible for us to understand and as a society disapprove of his behaviour. "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

Exactly! We are judging actions, not the people themselves.

[wagglebee]

Prostitutes get all kinds of honorable mention in the bible. Gays get none.

You're joking right?!

[wagglebee]

This might interest you on all of those who think that becoming more liberal is a good strategy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735897/posts

[little jeremiah]

"This is about anti-sodomy laws between consenting adults."

There are many psychologists and academics - among them the noted "ethicist" Professor Doctor Peter Singer - who advocate that all the examples I mentioned b legally allowed.

They are not different.

Adult incest = consenting adults. Bestiality = an animal can't give consent. Necrophilia = no need for consent. So why shouldn't those be legal? Some people want these types of sexual acts to be legal - they are attracted to these acts and see no reason other than outdated moral bias to be prohibited from them.

Give me one reason why those acts should be illegal.

[little jeremiah]

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

>>>>Yeah, but so are the straight men. Or at least they would be if they could...

I guess you and I know a different type of guys.

[wagglebee]

It is, however, worth noting that Peter Singer would also like to have these people put to death the moment the byproducts of their lifestyle (i.e. AIDS, hepatitis, rectal cancer, etc.) develop.

[Stone Mountain]

I guess you and I know a different type of guys.

Really? You know straight guys who don't want to get laid as often as possible? I guess I know a few. But not many.

[little jeremiah]

The men I know as friends are faithful to their wives, if married, and lead chaste lives if unmarried. I don't hang out with doglike men who care nothing for moral behavior.

[little jeremiah]

Very good point.

[napscoordinator]

Scripter writes: "Try watching the I Do Exist video. It's the story of 5 ex-gays. What they say is their same-sex attraction wasn't a choice because they were confused about their sexuality. Go ahead and listen to what ex-gays say about homosexuality."


How much were they paid to act in the show? Actors are always paid and besides they found five who supposedly changed. Wow in a country of 300 million.....I am so impressed.

[Stone Mountain]

Give me one reason why those acts should be illegal.

Adult incest = consenting adults.

I actually don't think this should be made illegal. Socially and religiously discouraged? Absolutely. But I don't think our government has any cause to stop two consensual adults who wish to have sex together. Lots of disgusting things are legal - not because our government approves of them but because it makes less sense to try to legislate and prosecute crimes like that, and if there isn't any 'victim,' it generally isn't worth it. So, no, I'm not pro-incest. But I am pro-consensual adults.

Bestiality = an animal can't give consent.

I put animals into the same category as children in this case. A being that isn't capable of giving consent should not be forced to have sex. I would keep bestiality illegal as part of an animal cruelty law or laws.

Necrophilia = no need for consent.

I disagree with this. People have an interest in what happens to themselves, their families, and yes, their bodies after death. So there is certainly a need for consent. A more interesting question would be, what if a person gave permission for another to perform necrophillia on him after death? Not sure how this would work - there are health and disease issues on top of the moral issues. I believe this is something that would be so incredibly rare, though, that it wouldn't end up being a huge issue.

So why shouldn't those be legal? Some people want these types of sexual acts to be legal - they are attracted to these acts and see no reason other than outdated moral bias to be prohibited from them.

I don't want (adult consensual acts) to be made legal. I want them not to be illegal. And I shouldn't have to point this out, but I am not attracted to any of these acts at all - they are pretty sickening. But lots of people do stuff I consider sickening, and as long as they aren't infringing on anyone else, I think they should be allowed to do so.

[Stone Mountain]

I don't hang out with doglike men who care nothing for moral behavior.

Bully for you. I went to college; I have worked at many companies and have met many many people. Most guys want to get laid as often as possible. Married or not. I didn't say anything about fidelity - married men often want to have sex with their wives a whole lot. Often more than the wife would like. Face it, most men want sex and like it a bunch. I'm surprised that this would be a revelation to anyone, but there you are...

[napscoordinator]

I would not want to marry one. I saw one couple on your fake website that you provided and one of the guys was gay and the other was lesbian and they married each other. Please tell me that you seriously believe that they are straight just because they are married.....please don't tell me you are that gullible.