Why Would Gays Want Children?

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 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.

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.

Still, there must be simple clear terms that are understood to describe those conditions. Otherwise the bad behaviour and the consdition needing some special treatment are ignored, which will bring about the real harms associated with such ignorance. The condition and the action will still happen, and will happen more often for not being safeguarded by simple clear understandings in society.

What are you asking, that there be no discussion of the condition or of the action among the non-intellectual, among those people not capable of using complex euphemisms and cicumlocutions? What an elite attitude!

Look, since the terms "bastard" and "bastardy" were thrown out and replaced or just dropped, we have had a radical rise in just such a condition, with all the harm there can be to the poor bastards who are innocently birthed into that condition by those who should know better than to engage in bastardy.

But without any term at all for that action now, that action once known as "bastardy", the most effective social block against such bad action is removed.

In rush to sound and look pretty and kind, we hide the dread consequences before the act. The dread consequences still take place! And the actions increase for lack of a social block. The child born "out of wedlock" still lives a lifetime of being in that degraded condition of a child -- without a father. With no inhertitance except the psychic pit made by that absense.

And the mother -- for most of them the consequncces after never stay hidden, no matter how many layers of euphemism are had before hand. Such social prettiness had by euphemism ends up being ticket to poverty and struggle, despair.

All for lack of the honest simple terms: bastard and bastardy.

No matter what term is used for the child or for the actions of such selfish women and men, those terms would over time become derogatory terms, just as "gay" did. Why? Because they describe a a degraded condition of a person or a degrading action made by a person.

Sure. I just think it's a bad idea to call an innocent child derogatory (as you are now admitting) terms. I understand how language evolves. I understand the etymology of bastard. That still doesn't mean that calling a child a derogatory name is a good idea or productive at all.

What are you asking, that there be no discussion of the condition or of the action among the non-intellectual, among those people not capable of using complex euphemisms and cicumlocutions? What an elite attitude!

Puh-lease. It is completely possible to discuss issues such as this without caing little children bastards. I do it all the time.

But without any term at all for that action now, that action once known as "bastardy", the most effective social block against such bad action is removed.

I have no belief that calling children bastards will remove any social blocks, except that social block that most of us follow not to denigrate a child, particularly for circumstances completely out of his control.

And the mother -- for most of them the consequncces after never stay hidden, no matter how many layers of euphemism are had before hand.

Call the mothers what you want - at least they had some volition in determining the circumstances they find themselves in. Children have none.

I just think it's a bad idea to call an innocent child derogatory (as you are now admitting) terms.

Whether the child is innocent or not name-calling or using derogatory terms against the child is a highly unsucessful activity.

Notice I said "against the child". When the term is used against the child. The term can also be used FOR the child. And that pro-child usage of the term "bastard" needs be used more in our society, where we to be wise.

Words have their proper place and are a tool for understanding and remembrance, and a aid to motivation and planning in order to get things done. Abseent a simple clear term upom which to associate acquired knowledge and understanding the handicap on, a young child is left to confusion and uncertainity as to what that handicap is, and then unable to focus and concentrate to deal with that handicap and ameliorate it.

It is the manner used that the term becomes hurtful. And that is so of any term!

I tried to make that case to you with the word "gay", a truly joyful word, stolen by a vile group and now almost solely associated with that group's very own mal-behaviour.

Let's review a few points. One -- it is not the word or term that is derogatory and hurtful, it is the manner in which the word is used.

Two -- Any novel word or euphemism employed to mask a bad or perverted behaviour will in time become so associated with that vileness that the word itself will be considered to be as rude as the old term which it once replaced. That is the usual case. The case of "gay".

Three -- Sometimes for a while, years, but not forever, the pretty euphemism will obscure the badness or harmfulness or of the behaviour, or the curse of the handicap. This obscurity causes a harmful social amnesia, for the society forgets for a while the real long-term harms that accrue from the behaviour, or the particular special needs of those so cursed as an outcome of that behaviour.

In a simple and more short-term example it is like missing that the stovetop may be hot to the touch the new ceramic stovetops do not get red, or have flames. Until one relearns how to identify a hot stove, fingers get burnt.

That social amnesia was brought on by use of an obscuring euphemism. One glaring case of it is that dicessed here. Of bastards and bastardy.

Four -- It is of great importance to individual health and well-being, in addition to that of society, to have simple clear terms to describe these conditions.

Especially for the ones most harmed -- the bastards. They have to know their situation in order for them to deal with it, and to counter its curse.

Give them a fighting chance, damn it!

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.