Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids

AOL News ^ | 17/10/10 | Paul Kix

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Not really. Gay men and lesbian women frequently have children of their own.

[TXnMA]

Thank you. That’s outside my sphere of knowledge. Openly queer folk don’t seem to hang around much out here in the Texas Piney Woods... ;-)

[naturalized]

I remember when psychologists understood that homosexual conduct was a mental illness. Now the inmates are in charge of the asylum.

[CSM]

How does a “gay” person have children? If they are gay, then their “natural” sexual desire precludes them from procreating, therefore they would not pass on their genes. However, if they have a “natural” desire to procreate, shouldn’t their sexual desire support that?

Which “nature” are they denying?

[Neoliberalnot]

Gay parents molest kids thereby leading them to gay liberation, a life of deviance, and a host of venereal diseases to lay waste the public health. Sick and getting more sickening.

[DMG2FUN]

Homosexual parents? That is an oxymoron. To produce a child you need two things. Male and female. Not male and male or female and female.

[captbarney]

Funny

[MrB]

Kids growing up in a household where both “parents” have a mental illness are more likely to have a mental illness.

Yep, sounds right.

Just like the hidden correlation between molestation and abuse with the propensity to be a homosexual.
They are not “born that way”, they are traumatized “that way”.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Lol. Some things we prefer not to know I guess. Homosexuals often marry and have kids before they come out. I know a gay man and his “partner” that are using a surrogate to have their own baby. Frequently lesbians will use artificial insemination to have their own biological children.

It is sad that children are pawns in their debased lifestyle.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

See post 69.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

“See post 69.”

Neo, this post was meant for CSM. Sorry about the error.

[CSM]

I am aware that all of these scenarios exist, however that doesn’t answer my question. In all of those situations, which nature is being denied? Are they denying their natural desire to procreate by engaging in sexual relations that make procreation impossible or are they denying their natural sexuality by denying same sex relationships when they have children?

If it is in a homosexual’s nature to be attracted to the same sex, then why would they also have a natural desire to procreate? The two “natures” can not co-exist.

[nmh]

Where is the DUH alert?

Of course they will have the inclination to be “gay” after they are molested by the parents and have “gay”parents as their example. Yes, the percentage of “gay” parents molesting their kids far out passes the percentage of heterosexuals parents molesting their biological kids or step kids. Yes,it's true! It's shocking.

At best “gay’s make up at most 1-3% of the population and still their percentage compared to heterosexual parents EXCEEDS, percentage wise, the percentage of the heterosexual crowd. That SMALL percentage of “gays” is having a ball out there as they victimize innocent kids and keep perpetuating their emotional issues on them. What's wrong is right and what's right is wrong. Oh, all in the name of "compassion".

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

I think you are confusing reproduction with sexual desire. A lot of heterosexuals have no desire to have children.

[CSM]

“A lot of heterosexuals have no desire to have children.”

True, and there is a variety of reasons for it. However, they do not have a “nature” that prevents it. (as a whole, not the few exeptions.)

My point is that the homofascists are fighting for procreation (adoption and marriage) policy support of their sexual “nature.” So, they must have a desire to procreate, which is usually an innate desire. In other words, they have a natural desire to pro-create/parent.

If they have a natural desire to procreate, then it can not be their nature to be homosexual. By my thinking, by fighting to procreate (adoption and marriage) that they are admitting that their sexual lifestyle is not their nature, instead it is their chosen lifestyle.

[Eleutheria5]

No, you need three: Willing gay guy, willing Lesbian gal, and a turkey baster. It has been done.

[nightworker314]

that assumes an extremely simplistic genetic model for homosexuality. it is quit possible that several genes that influence other traits (such as, say, empathy, and kindness) also influence predisposition towards homosexual attractions. In which case, any given gene would have evolutionary value; it is only when every gene is present in an individual do they tip over into homosexuality.

here’s an article that takes this position:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/mt0r1667527314x5/

Also, born that way does not necessarily entail that a it’s genetic.

[TXnMA]

"Also, born that way does not necessarily entail that a it’s genetic."

AH! So... if it's "not genetic", being born homosexual must be a plain old "birth defect" -- right?

"empathy, and kindness"... Nnnnnooo... How about selfishness and perversion...?

[antidemoncrat]

Amen to that.

[cradle of freedom]

And here is where politics comes into the picture because artificial insemination of lesbians is legal due to a liberal judge's pronouncement. Elections have consequences in so many ways.