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.

[bvw]

Yes. Then accept it as I said because of your personal laziness to verify it or challenge it by looking up the facts yourself. Your choice.

[DungeonMaster]

Are you saying you found places where gays get honorable mention?

[bvw]

Well, you did do some little research. That woman who wrote the article has brought her own fact-bending bias though. She has some statements that read as fact which are not fact, they are not even opinion, they are incorrect.

For one most glaring example she claims that adultery was not a crime until the 1920's and 30's. Well, here's the Bouvier Law Dictionary from 1856:

ADULTERY, criminal law. From ad and alter, another person; a criminal conversation, between a man married to another woman, and a woman married to another man, or a married and unmarriod person. The married person is guilty of adultery, the unmarried of fornicatiou. (q. v.) 1 Yeates, 6; 2 Dall. 124; but see 2 Blackf. 318.

2. The elements of this crime are, 1st, that there shall be an unlawful carnal connexion; 2dly, that the guilty party shall at the time be married; 3dly, that he or she shall willingly commit the offence; for a woman who has been ravished against her will is not guilty of adultery. Domat, Supp. du Droit Public, liv. 3, t. 10, n. 13.

3. The punishment of adultery, in the United States, generally, is fine and imprisonment.

4. In England it is left to the feeble hands of the ecclesiastical courts to punish this offence.

5. Adultery in one of the married persons is good cause for obtaining a divorce by the innocent partner. See 1 Pick. 136; 8 Pick. 433; 9 Mass. 492: 14 Pick. 518; 7 Greenl. 57; 8 Greenl. 75; 7 Conn. 267 10 Conn. 372; 6 Verm. 311; 2 Fairf. 391 4 S. & R. 449; 5 Rand. 634; 6 Rand. 627; 8 S. & R. 159; 2 Yeates, 278, 466; 4 N. H. Rep. 501; 5 Day, 149; 2 N. & M. 167.

6. As to proof of adultery, see 2 Greenl. 40, Marriage.

Further here are the sections from same on bastards and bastard (the creation of bastards), which Mary Cheney has engaged in. Yes it was crime and may still be in some jurisdictions. The 1856 defintions:

BASTARD. A word derived from bas or bast, signifying abject, low, base; and aerd, nature. Minshew, Co. Lit. 244; a. Enfant de bas, a child of low birth. Dupin. According to Blackstone, 1 Com. 454, a bastard in the law sense of the word, is a person not only begotten, but born out[side] of lawful matrimony. [...] 204. A bastard may be perbaps defined to be one who is born of an illicit union, and before the lawful marriage of his parents.

[...]

7. Bastards, generally speaking, belong to no family, and have no relations; accordingly they are not subject to paternal authority, even when they have been acknowledged. See 11 East, 7, n. Nevertheless, fathers and mothers owe alimony. to their children when they are in need. Id. art. 254, 256. Alimony is due to bastards, though they be adulterous or incestuous, by the mother and her ascendants. Id. art. 262.

8. Children born out of marriage, except those who are born from an incestuous or adulterous connexion, may be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their father and mother, whenever the latter have legally acknowledged them for their children, either before the marriage or by the contract of marriage itself. Every other mode of legitimating children is abolished. Id. art. 217. Legitimation may even be extended to deceased children who have left issue, and in that ease, it enures to the benefit of that issue. Id. art. 218. Children legitimated by a subsequent marriage, have the same rights as if born during the marriage. Id. art. 219. See, generally, Vin. Abr. Bastards Bac. Abr. Bastard; Com. Dig. Bastard; Metc. & Perk. Dig. h. t.; the various other American Digests, h. t.; Harr. Dig. h. t.; 1 Bl. Com. 454 to 460; Co. Litt. 3, b.; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t., And Access; Bastardy; Gestation; Natural Children.

BASTARDY, crim. law. The offence of begetting a bastard child.

BASTARDY, persons. The state or condition of a bastard. The law presumes every child legitimate, when born of a woman in a state of wedlock, and casts the onus probandi (q. v.) on the party wlio affirms the bastardy. Stark. Ev. h. t.

[wouldntbprudent]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. And I not only think it was "worth the try," but worth it. I don't think it's so much that I don't understand your position, especially after your excellent amplification of it in this post, but that we do have ways in which we disagree. However, I think we agree more than you may think presently.

I will write more later as I do have a couple of thoughts that might, as you have done here, further illuminate where I am coming from.

TTYL.

[scripter]

It's a complicated issue, and one that is only more complicated with anecdotal evidence alone. A brief introduction to the subject can be found here: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together.

[newgeezer]

She, eh?

That's my guess.

[Blackirish]

Your right 805 is an interesting read. We can agree its not just one thing.Another just anecdotal belief is that men tend inherit it more.....woman it's more of a choice. There was a study a read...I have to go to work I don't have time to search where woman prisons almost all develop gay relationships where men it's pretty much the same as outside....discounting violent rape a different dynamic.

[scripter]

I think it's fair to say homosexuality is heritable more in men (not inherited). I say that because the last detailed study on the subject reported 2.8% of men were homosexual and 1.4% of women were homosexual, for an average of approximately 2.1% of the total population identifying as homosexual. It's interesting that male homosexuals comprised of twice the number of female homosexuals. I could only make assumptions on why this is true.

I'm not familiar with the prison study you mentioned.

I realize you're at work but when you return you might want to take a look at Satinover's The Gay Gene?. It's longer than the previous link on development. The following from Satinover's summary is key:

Isn't homosexuality heritable?

Yes, significantly.

So it is inherited?

No, it is not.

I'm confused. Isn't there is a "genetic component" to homosexuality?

Yes, but "component" is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. This will not make sense unless you understand what, and how little, "linkage" and "association" really means.

What about all the evidence that shows that homosexuality "is genetic"?

There is not any, and none of the research itself claims there is; only the press and, sadly, certain researchers do-when speaking in sound bites to the public.

When somebody asks about genetics and homosexuality, probably the best answer would be to state the importance of understanding linkages and associations. I try to remember to point this out but there's so much to discuss its easy to overlook key points.

It's also easy to overwhelm folks with information so I'll stop here. My profile has more information.

[Lurker]

Sorry I missed your ping to me Howlin.

I agree. That statement is proposterous.

L

[steve-b]

it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it

Nonsense. Soldiers in war (to take the most obvious example) do precisely that (kill so that their side can win) all the time.

[Stone Mountain]

Thanks - very interesting...

[bvw]

You might also look up Blackstone On The Law -- there's some decent sources on the web. I'm especially troubled by Lawyer-Professor-Researcher Joanna Grossman's FindLaw article that you linked to -- its distortion of the historical record regarding the crime of adultery is total. Strange, what possible fixation of her own on the 1920's and 1930's that moved her to that complete a fabrication and failure of law research?

[Stone Mountain]

Cool. I also really liked this line from your last link: `In England it is left to the feeble hands of the ecclesiastical courts to punish this offence.

[tuesday afternoon]

No, I didn't get the reference. It had to be pointed out to me.

[tuesday afternoon]

Thanks.

[bvw]

Adultery harms so many, yet the harm is hidden from direct view. When in its hidden or discounted stages it's like a fire in the peat layers of a northern forest, or in the dry bogs of the lowlands, or a fire in coal seams of the mountains. The trees and vegetation above it die, inexplicably, their roots burnt. Adultery creates a dead zone above it. And in break outs -- the fire explodes and burns the homes of the guilty and innocent both.

It is a crime with ways of long term harm worse than the most heinious assault and battery. The wound of a physical assault heal and can be forgotten, or at least can be explained and the harm to the psyche put aside for having that explanation. The wounds heal.

Not so adultery, for the innocent. The wound never fully closes. Also not so for the being born a bastard -- that wound can take generations, many generations, to heal.

[Stone Mountain]

Also not so for the being born a bastard -- that wound can take generations, many generations, to heal.

Well some of that is because there are those out there who would call an innocent child a bastard. Why denigrate the child when you disagree with the parents?

[bvw]

I'm not. The word is a term of law.

[bvw]

How did the word "bastard" become derogatory? It describes the condition of birth and family structure, a handicap in family, a deficient status under the laws of inheritance, lack of paternal support in caring, money, situation. The absense of a legitimate father.

Most of us have handicaps of one form or another. Mine is that I was born with a weak eye and a strong eye, because of that I now have a very strong sense of perspective, but not a natural focus. When I was a kid I was called "cross-eyed" when I didn't wear my glasses and "four-eyes" when I did. I was wearing glasses in kindergarten, which few kids do even now and less did then. While at times the terms were used in mocking, by far most times they not. They were my peers of the time of childhood expressing what was noticed, what stood out about me.

Should we tell kids not to notice this thing and that thing? Especially when the thing stands out, or should we tell them to notice the exceptional thing in a friendly. open way, and not a negative, scorning one?

Scorn is NOT shown by the term used, for example once "gay" was common in kid's stories and books -- it meant happy and bright, as in "gayly colored balloons!"

Scorn is by the tone and attitude. And sometimes, one hopes rarely, scorn is the proper and mannerly thing to express. Such as when one scorns a terrible acting out -- say drunkeness, excessive gambling, violence.

And that is why today's kids in the playground show scorn with another word of this thread "gay". Why? Because a group of people organized around the bad behaviour, a behaviour which is properly scorned, adopted that word to describe themselves, and many other people not wishing to be "judgemental" made that usage a go.

So today kids cry when called "gay".

[Stone Mountain]

How did the word "bastard" become derogatory?

I don't know the specific mechanism, but of course it is derogatory now. What matters with language is current usage. Adn we all know how the word bastard is used in this society. Please spare me a dictionary definition - we know how the word is utilized.

I think it's a crumby thing to do to call a child names. I think it's even worse when it's due to circumstances the child had nothing to do with. You say you were cross-eyed growing up. Of course kids tease - all kids tease. I think it would have been different and much worse if you had been called names and shunned by adults just because they didn't happen to agree with your parents.

Scorn is NOT shown by the term used,

Of course it is. Let's be honest here. That's the way it's used in society and that's the way normal people understand it. Any more than if I called someone gay, everyone knows of course that I'm not calling him a happy person.