The New York Times article linked below details arrangements made between 10 homosexual men and various sets of lesbian women to produce children without regard for God’s design for marriage and family: “People are in many cases redesigning ‘family.'” The writer aptly calls it “a kind of fatherhood that would seem to curtail both its joys and responsibilities.” The unrelenting focus on self-self-self is striking.

“R.” is a white homosexual man who, with the help of a turkey baster, created a daughter with “M.” “M.” is a black lesbian woman who was in a relationship with a white woman and desired a biracial child.

“Having a child of his own, he thought, would mean creating a relationship more intense and involved than what he had with his siblings’ children. …[H]e had no ambition to be a primary parent and …was happy to renounce his parental rights.”

In other words, little consideration was given to the needs of a child, but only to what was in it for him.

The white woman was later impregnated by a homosexual black man to produce biracial twins. When the women split up, they were awarded joint custody. The black woman has a new lesbian partner and the white woman is now living with a man and has born a fourth child. “R.” is building a relationship with his daughter but admits that “She probably didn’t know exactly who I was.”

When asked if there was any downside to fathering in this way, another homosexual sperm donor, Guy, answered “yes, missing the kids.” Revealing, isn’t it, that he thought only of the downside for himself?

Mark, a homosexual man, fathered two children with Jean and Candi, a lesbian couple.

“Each birthday and Christmas, he deposits a $1,000 bond for their education. Like any good father, he said, ‘I want to see them do well.'”

Is that all it takes to be “like any good father”? I don’t think so…

David, a homosexual man, is honest enough to admit “I’m far too selfish a person.” He has fathered two children (the old fashioned way) with Vicky, who is in a lesbian relationship with P.J. Despite a close relationship with the women and children, when the elder child was diagnosed with neuroblastoma, a deadly cancer, and endured difficult surgery, grueling stem cell transplant, and radiation, well, “cancer was not something the family had planned on.” David remained focused on himself:

“‘…I’m pulling myself back, because I’m not — I didn’t sign on for —.’ He stalled. He still had his bills to pay, his house to pay off and all his other affairs. Most significant, he said, ‘this wasn’t a responsibility that I necessarily took on. You know? This was where the untraditional part of the family arrangement came into question or got defined or whatever. Because that’s not what my role is here.’ “

Can you even imagine???

And what dreams does David have for his sons?

“For David, the admittedly vain actor, one of the supreme joys of fatherhood is the idea that one day his sons might see him on television. He imagines them turning on the TV and pointing him out to their friends: ‘There’s my dad!'”

Perhaps Alan Keyes characterized the proud “gay” movement well as “selfish hedonism,” despite all the flack he took from the liberal media. This is narcissism, appalling selfish disregard for the children involved, and a focus only on the unmet desires of the homosexual adults. Please read this article and remember it when you hear how homosexuals want to have families just like yours. — Sonja Dalton

——————————

The following is excerpted from Gay Donor or Gay Dad?, by John Bowe, published Nov 19, 2006, by The New York Times:

R. described himself as “a man in his 40s, voluntarily employed in the arts,” a situation made possible, he explained, by a private family income. His six-foot frame is fit and slim; his eyes, blue and bright. He dresses in a cultured but casual way, an aesthetic captured in his speech, in which phatic blips like “kind of” or “sort of” are interspersed with terms like “Richter-esque.” As in Gerhard, the German painter.

In an effort to become a parent of a sort, R., who is gay, agreed, 11 years ago, to donate sperm to a lesbian couple aspiring to pregnancy. A few years before, R. became friendly with a woman — white and upper class like himself — through the gay activist world. They weren’t good friends, he said, “just friendly.” The woman had a partner, a middle-class black woman, whom R. knew less well but who seemed solid.

The couple decided that the black partner would become impregnated with a white man’s sperm so that the baby would be biracial, reflecting the appearance of both mothers. They approached R. about being the donor. (Like all the subjects I spoke to for this article, R. asked that I not use his full name — R. is his middle initial.) It seemed like a good fit, R. said. “My life and my family background and my socioeconomic position kind of matched the profile of the nonbiological partner.” R. and the white woman even looked somewhat alike.

R. had always loved being around kids, particularly his niece and nephew, whom he saw often. But like many gay men, R. never thought of himself as a likely candidate for fatherhood. He always felt that parents opting to raise a child alone were choosing a rocky road, and at the time, R. himself had no long-term partner. He did, however, have an ex-boyfriend who had started a donor relationship with two lesbians; it seemed to be going well. He quickly became taken with the idea. Having a child of his own, he thought, would mean creating a relationship more intense and involved than what he had with his siblings’ children. “I guess I felt that maybe I wanted to have some kind of more lasting relationships in my life,” he said. “I said I was interested.”

Continue reading in The New York Times…

Obviously, we’re saddened at the spectacle of the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, living in an open lesbian relationship, and now bringing a child into a home that is fatherless by design. In our view, this is another case of the “gay” movement putting its wants (in this case, having a child) above what’s best for children. “Two mommies” or “two daddies” will never substitute for a home with a married mom and a dad, and it is sad when men or women model immoral homosexual behavior before innocent children in a home setting.–Peter LaBarbera

The following is excerpted from Mary Cheney and Partner Are About to Be Moms, by Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts, published Dec 6, 2006, by Washington Post:

Mary Cheney, the vice president’s openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are “ecstatic” about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.

…Cheney, 37, was a key aide to her father during the 2004 reelection campaign and now is vice president for consumer advocacy at AOL. Poe, 45, a former park ranger, is renovating their Great Falls home. [Photo HERE.]

…In November, Virginia voters passed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions; state law is unclear on whether Poe could have full legal rights as a parent of Cheney’s child. The circumstances of the pregnancy will remain private, said the source close to the couple. This is the first child for both.

Continue reading in Washington Post…

Excerpted from Mercer Assemblyman Acknowledges He’s Gay, by Deborah Howlett, published Dec 05, 2006, by The Star Ledger:

The state lawmaker pushing to give same-sex couples in New Jersey the legal right to marry has acknowledged he is gay.

Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer) said yesterday he has never hidden his sexual orientation, but his sponsorship of the marriage equality bill seemed to raise the question in the minds of others.

“I’ve just never made an issue of it,” Gusciora said. “If someone asks me, I tell them. No one ever asked me publicly before.”

… Nationwide, 350 federal, state and local elected officials are openly gay, according to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a group that supports the campaigns of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered politicians…

Gusciora introduced a bill to create government-sanctioned “civil marriage” for everyone…

Continue reading at The Star Ledger …

Excerpted from Final Seal of Approval for Gay Marriage Bill, published Nov 20, 2006, by Business Day:

…“The bill has been signed by the acting president,” Mukoni Ratshitanga, a spokesman in the president’s office, said.

The law, which allows for civil unions to be solemnised by way of either a marriage or a civil partnership, had been widely opposed by religious groups, conservatives and traditionalists.

The government has defended the new legislation for representing a wider commitment to battle discrimination.

“In breaking with our past … we need to fight and resist all forms of discrimination and prejudice, including homophobia,” Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula told members of Paliarment earlier this month, when the bill was passed by the National Assembly.

Continue reading in Business Day…

From Democracy, Washington Post Style, by Cliff Kincaid, published Nov 27, 2006, by Accuracy in Media:

The Washington Post says that democracy means that the people should be ignored and state legislatures should obey the dictates of the courts. Its October 26 lead editorial in support of a New Jersey Supreme Court decision redefining traditional marriage actually carried the sub headline: “A court’s order on same-sex partnerships leaves plenty of room for democratic decisions.” In other words, “democratic decisions” have to be made in the context of what is allowed by the court. This editorial makes a mockery of true democratic decision-making and is an embarrassment to the journalism profession.

The Post, of course, is in the camp of the radical homosexual movement. As the editorial states, “For those, like us, who support same-sex marriage, such steps are welcome.” Unfortunately, this bias goes beyond editorials in the paper.

Many news organizations, including the Post, contribute big bucks to the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association. Even Fox News gave the organization $10,000.

Peter LaBarbera of the group Americans for Truth, sent a letter to Fox News chief Roger Ailes asking that he balance that contribution by providing an equal amount of money to a group critical of the homosexual agenda. LaBarbera believes that the media “should play it down the middle on homosexuality and other controversial issues, not serve as a cheerleader for the ‘gay rights’ cause.”

However, a key leader of the NLGJA disagrees. Eric Hegedus, NLGJA national president, says that quoting a critic of homosexual rights is comparable to quoting an official of the KKK when writing about civil rights for blacks.

In addition to Fox News, LaBarbera identified the following media or media-related organizations as financial sponsors of the recent NLGJA convention: Miami Herald, McClatchy Co., CBS, CNN, Gannett Foundation, Hearst Corp., US Newswire, ESPN, NBC Universal, ABC News, Nielsen Media Research, UBS, Los Angeles Times, South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Tribune Company.

Excerpted from Howard Dean’s Fruitless Outreach, by David Limbaugh, published Jun 2, 2006, by Townhall:

At least Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean is colorful; you’ve got to give him that much. But he’s not the guy to be leading the charge to reunite the Democratic Party with so-called “values voters.”

The Washington Times’ Greg Pierce reports that Dean was outraged when he heard that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist intended to call to a vote a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Dean called opponents of homosexual marriage “bigots.” He said, “At a time when the Republican Party is in trouble with their conservative base, Bill Frist is taking a page straight out of the Karl Rove playbook to distract from the Republican Party’s failed leadership and misplaced priorities by scapegoating LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) families for political gain, using marriage as a wedge issue.” It’s not only morally wrong, it is shameful and reprehensible,” said the enlightened Dean.

Now flashback a week or so and picture Dean on the set of the evil bigot Pat Robertson’s “700 Club.” Dean appeared as part of his effort to reclaim “values voters” for the Democratic Party. On that program Dean reportedly said the party’s platform provides that “marriage is between a man and a woman.” Later, Dean had to apologize to gay rights leaders for incorrectly stating the party’s platform position.

Surely I’m misreading one of these two reports. Which is it, Howard? Or, perhaps I should say, “Which face will you be wearing today: the bigoted or the enlightened one?”

Continue reading at Townhall…

Published Nov 21, 2006:

Mr. Stone importunes Illinoisans in his commentary “Gays Kept Separated” (Nov. 19, 2006) to legalize same-sex marriage, arguing that maintaining sexual complementarity as an essential criterion for marriage represents discrimination and the imposition of faith practices.

My understanding is that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a state religion, not to prevent religious values from informing political decisions. Since people from many religious faiths and no religious faith have long agreed upon the essential place of sexual complementarity in the nurturance of the next generation, laws that reflect those convictions hardly seem a violation of the Establishment Clause. One could argue that those who attend houses of worship that support legalized same-sex unions are similarly attempting to enshrine in law their religious beliefs.

The idea of a separation of church and state no longer points to the importance of protecting religious freedom from the intrusive power of the state but instead refers to coercively eradicating religious expression from the public square. Only secularism, a worldview as shaped by myopic, dogmatic, unproved assumptions (as some argue religious views are), will be tolerated.

Mr. Stone expresses concern with what he perceives as discrimination. Illegitimate discrimination refers to unfavorable treatment of others based on ignorance. Discrimination, however, can also refer to discriminating between right and wrong, in which case it is an essential personal and civic activity. Conflating the two meanings of discrimination, or asserting that all negative judgments reflect prejudice, represents demagoguery. Principled opposition to homosexuality no more embodies illegitimate discrimination than does principled opposition to polyamory or adult consensual incest.

The analogy between race and homosexuality is specious at best. Science has in no way proved that homosexual attraction is biologically determined. Even “queer theory” which emerges from the homosexual community denies that sexual orientation is inherent and immutable. But most important, the contribution of biological influences to the development of an impulse is irrelevant to a moral evaluation of consequent conduct.

Clearly, Mr. Stone has no compunction against imposing morality in that he seeks to impose his moral view that gender is irrelevant to marriage, which leaves age, consanguinity, and numbers of partners as the remaining criteria. But why should he or anyone else be allowed to impose those particular moral strictures on all of society? If I love and am attracted to my brother or five people of assorted genders, why should an intolerant, prejudiced society be permitted to impose those moral views on me?

Historically, society has determined that since marriage is fundamental to the health of society, it is the right and responsibility of society collectively to define marriage. That society has made mistakes and included criteria that were not fundamental to marriage (as with anti-miscegenation laws) does not mean that society has been wrong on all criteria. Tradition, sociology, biology, psychology and, yes, religion have held that both men and women are crucial to the fulfillment of children’s needs. The importance of both sexes points to their fundamental differences which even homosexuals acknowledge when they express a preference for their own gender. Since there is almost universal agreement that men and women are fundamentally different, heterosexual unions must be of a different character than homosexual unions. And throughout history, societies have embodied in law the belief that heterosexual unions contribute something essential to civic health unmatched by homosexual unions.

Laurie Higgins
Deerfield, Illinois

Excerpted from Israeli High Court Orders ‘Gay Marriage’ Recognition, by Michael Foust, published Nov 21, 2006, by Baptist Press:

The land where Jesus once walked soon will recognize “gay marriage.”

In a landmark 6-1 decision, Israel’s Supreme Court Nov. 21 ordered the government to begin recognizing “gay marriages” from other countries, such as Canada. Although the decision doesn’t give homosexual couples the ability to “marry” within Israel’s borders, it nonetheless puts Israel at odds with countries such as Great Britain and the United States, neither of which recognizes foreign “gay marriages.” In fact, the U.S. government doesn’t even recognize “gay marriages” that occur within its borders in Massachusetts, the lone state where it is legal.

Four countries — Canada, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands — have legalized “gay marriage,” and a fifth one, South Africa, is expected to do so within days.

The ruling by the High Court of Justice — the name for Israel’s highest court — gives homosexual couples the same legal benefits as traditional couples, including tax breaks and the ability to adopt, The Jerusalem Post reported. The decision forces the government to register the “marriages” like it does any other marriages.

“We don’t have a Jewish state here. We have Sodom and Gomorrah here,” lawmaker Moshe Gafni told Israel’s Army Radio, according to the Associated Press. “I assume that every sane person in the state of Israel, possibly the entire Jewish world, is shocked, because the significance is … the destruction of the family unit in the state of Israel.”