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…

Excerpted from ‘ACLU Solstice Barn’ Substitutes for Nativity, published Dec 6, 2006, by WorldNet Daily:

In tongue-in-cheek deference to the American Civil Liberties Union, students at the University of Texas displayed an “ACLU Solstice Barn” on campus, featuring politically correct figures.

“We’ve got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for ‘homosexual marriage,’ and of course there isn’t a Jesus in the manger,” said Tony McDonald, chairman of the Young Conservatives of Texas branch on the Austin campus.

Continue reading at WorldNet Daily…

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 Gay demands shift from equality to special endorsement, by Michael Medved, published Dec 6, 2006, by Townhall:

[Discussing the homosexual adultery of Ted Haggard, Jim McGreevey, and Eugene Robinson…]

In high profile cases, in other words, we seem far more willing to forgive and forget faithless behavior if that infidelity involves a homosexual connection. This amounts to the granting of a special dispensation, a privileged position, to same-sex attraction—giving more latitude to gay relationships than we’d ever grant to straight romances. The justification for this attitude involves the notion that gay men who leave or destroy their families for the sake of homosexual affairs are simply discovering, at long last, their true identities after years of repression– coming to terms with “who they really are.”

But what about those aging heterosexuals who may also suddenly discover– at age sixty, say—that they’ve been repressing their true identities? Couldn’t they also argue that it seemed suddenly inauthentic to remain trapped with a sagging partner of similar age, when a powerful, undeniable inner voice and the evolutionary imperative demanded they connect with nubile twenty-somethings eager for experienced and wealthy companionship?

In fact, every study of human sexuality would suggest that far more men feel tempted to heed their deep-seated, undeniable authentic desires to cheat with other (particularly younger) women than feel drawn into relationships with other men. Does this greater incidence of heterosexual temptation make it more – or less– “natural” and worthy of respect than homosexual impulses? The tendency to forgive, or even endorse, same-sex attractions while condemning the vastly more common opposite gender desires, amounts to the granting of a preferential position to homosexuality.

One of the most common arguments for gay marriage also carries with it the implicit assumption that gay relationships count as inherently superior, more durable and more meaningful than their straight counterparts…

The idea of special recognition for gays and lesbians also applies to the efforts to grant homosexuals “protected status” as part of our civil rights and hate crimes legislation. No one would ever advance the idea that other common sexual behaviors based on deep-seated urges – such as chronic womanizing, or nymphomania, or obsessive addiction to pornography, or masochism – deserved governmental defense against discrimination or expressions of disapproval.

As the national argument continues to rage regarding the proper social and governmental response to homosexuality, some of the advocates for radical change have unobtrusively but unmistakably shifted their campaign from a request for equal treatment to an assertion of innate superiority. They demand for gay impulses not the same treatment accorded to heterosexual desires, but far greater latitude and acceptance, along with uniquely privileged social sanction and legal endorsement.

Continue reading at Townhall…

This article is the first in a series by my good friend here in Illinois, John Biver, of the Family Taxpayers Network. We often hear that it’s only the “fundamentalist Christians” on the “radical right” who oppose normalizing homosexuality and that we Christians are determined to impose our belief system on everyone. Well, it’s not only conservative evangelicals and Catholics who recognize the problem; John Biver’s excellent series of articles proves that there is also a strong secular argument against elevating homosexuality to normalcy. — Peter LaBarbera

The following article entitled Right and Wrong Isn’t Dead Yet, by John Biver, was originally published Jun 14, 2006, by Family Taxpayer Network:

Public opinion polls showing the progress of the “gay rights” movement are much like the poll numbers showing support for abortion in the early 1990s. Back then only the most principled political candidates ran as openly pro-life. The rest, especially those in squishy districts, kept their mouth shut out of fear of alienating what was a growing pro-choice majority.

Today – it’s a new deal. Recent polls show a reversal of earlier trends. The pro-life side improved their work, sharpened their arguments and has become more effective than ever in making the case in defense of the unborn. Websites like that of Feminists for Life’s are good examples of where that debate is going – and that’s bad news for the pro-aborts.

Certainly medical technology helped pro-lifers as well. As ultra-sound technology improved, pictures and videos made it more difficult for the other side to get away with using terms like “fetal tissue.” Other medical advances helped prove that babies were viable far earlier than poor old Justice Blackmun thought was possible.

Similarly, those who understand the serious threat to the social fabric posed by the extremist “gay rights” agenda are really only now starting to get their act together. Pop culture and the mainstream press might still be the loudest voices in the arena, but they’re no longer alone. As alternative media and the Internet mature, the proper context of the debate will be set and the defense of traditional morality will improve.

Just as technology aided the pro-lifers, the information age will aide in the debate over “gay rights.” For example, hiding the physical health consequences of certain behaviors will become increasingly difficult.

Whether they like it or not, for example, certain body orifices weren’t designed for all the uses they’re being put to. Mother Nature is stubborn and won’t make adjustments for those unable to resist strong compulsions.

by Sonja Dalton

CosmoGirl! editors have become “conversant with queer issues,” according to a pro-lesbian website.

In an article entitled CosmoGirl! Includes Queer Peers (published Aug 8, 2006, by afterellen.com), writer Rose Yndigoyen says,

“Over the past few years, CosmoGirl! has subtly but steadily included stories from and about lesbian, bisexual and questioning girls, as well as coverage of LGBT issues amid the more traditional teen magazine fare of quizzes and heartthrob interviews.”

Ms. Yndigoyen offers this sample of Cosmo’s foray into lesbian love stories for adolescent girls:

When my family moved to a small town in Illinois, I’d been having mixed feelings for about a year. All I could think about was who did I like — boys or girls? One day at my new school, I was in the locker room.

All the girls were taking showers when one of them saw me looking at some of them and made mean comments about me being a “lesbo.” Everyone left in a hurry after she said it, except for this one girl. I didn’t notice that she was there so I got dressed, sat on the ground and started bawling my eyes out.

Suddenly she came up and put her arm around me — she didn’t have to say anything. I could tell from that moment there was a connection. Later on, after a long talk about my feelings, I told her I felt comfortable with her and had never felt that way with a girl. Then she kissed me.

I almost pulled back, but I stopped myself and put my hand on her face. I never wanted it to end, and I knew at that moment I’d never forget it, because it was my first kiss with a girl.

Wonder why Cosmo is writing about lesbian teenagers? Ms. Yndigoyen explains:

• 60 percent of CosmoGirl! readers revealed that they have a friend who is gay or bisexual, and
• 63 percent of readers support “gay marriage.”

by Donna Garner

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a leading gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender lobby organization, has just come out with its list of companies, products, and services which have “homosexual friendly” policies.

The HRC has actually done a great service for those of us who believe in traditional family values. All we have to do is the OPPOSITE of what HRC recommends.

Following is a partial list of the companies, products, and services which we who believe in traditional family values need to patronize because they are not caving into the radical homosexual agenda. When we buy these products, we need to commend the management and tell them that we will patronize their companies, products, and services so long as they do not perpetuate the homosexual agenda:

Let’s buy from the following:

• Radio Shack
• Exxon Mobil
• Domino’s
• Kroger
• Toys R Us (and subsidiaries)
• Ore-Ida
• Bayer (includes Aleve)
• Avon
• Little Tikes
• Newell Rubbermaid
• Graco
• Barron’s
• Wall Street Journal
• Host Hotels and Resorts
• Cracker Barrel Restaurants
• Bridgestone
• Firestone
• Auto Zone
• Nissan
• Donna Karan
• Men’s Wearhouse

Donna Garner is a Texas education advocate who taught for almost 33 years, and served as a writer/consultant for Scott & White’s “Worth the Wait” sex education curriculum, among other endeavors. She and her husband have been married for 43 years, have two sons, two daughters-in-law, and five grandchildren.

Excerpted from When the Gender Line Isn’t Clear?, by Dr. Albert Mohler, published Dec, 2006:

As a society, we are falling (or diving) deeper and deeper into gender confusion. A considerable percentage of the policy-making elite has bought into the ideology of fluid gender and absolute self-expression. Once that idea takes hold, the reality of cross-dressing kindergartners becomes inevitable.

This is where the Christian worldview runs into direct collision with the new sexual ideologies. Christians see the reality of biological identity as a gift–one important way the Creator has told us who we are and how we are to glorify Him with our lives.

Continue reading at Albert Mohler…