Defending against another's 'superiority' complex

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

12/08/2006

by Jeremy Hooper

In a column in which he uses the fertilization of Mary Cheney's egg to speak to the large issue of gays having/raising children, WorldNetDaily columnist Kevin McCullough concludes today:

...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.

Hmm..okay, Mr. McCullough, so what about a hate-free explanation? Will you at least be open to learning from such a response? Well, we're not holding our breath, but here goes:

First off, gay folks don't "insist upon desiring limitless sexual activity, not governed by provincial rules and traditions." We insist on respect for the fact that our sexual activity simply is a part of biology's rules and traditions! We are not pushing to have a bizarre concept (gay relations) recognized as "normal"; we're pushing for a normal concept that is and has always been a part of life to be accepted for what it is! Homosexuality's reality is undeniable to anyone who is open to the idea. The problem is that those who speak out against us so vocally tend to also be the ones who refuse to cull their data from unbiased research and reality. They WANT to not like us because they think the Bible tells them we're sinners, so they mold and shape the data to fit their cause.

We're also fighting the heterosexist notion that our sexual behavior is "inferior." Mr. McCullough, children are NOT an "undeniable product of the superiority of heterosexual engagement," as you suggest. Children are an undeniable reality for the propagation of society, true. But in a vastly overpopulated world, it's hard to measure one's place in the social structure by their ability or desire to reproduce. It's actually surprising that those who so staunchly believe God has a plan for the world would be closed off to the idea that homosexuality fits into that plan. As already stated, the world is overpopulated and the number is on the rise. So why would it not make sense that some might be placed on this planet for purposes other than reproduction? If you are a spiritual person who accepts that homosexuality is a reality, then it is a possibility worth considering.

But getting back to the issue of why gay couples might want children -- you have to first ask yourself why ANYONE wants children. We all were once children. We all know, or should know, the beauty of life. Many of us feel that we are pretty good at this whole existence thing, and we feel we have much love to share. Yes, it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. We get that! God knows those on the "pro-family" side have said it so much, it's become like stealth code wording for "we simply don't like gay folks." But once that child is produced, it takes LOVE to raise the kid. It takes dedication, hard work, and patience. It takes finances. It takes a stable home and a willingness to put someone else's life before your own. Even though they may possess the ability to bring a child into this world, many heterosexual people cannot, for one reason or another, provide the sort of an environment that is conducive to child-rearing. Many gay people can. So in terms of gay adoption, that concept should be a complete and utter no-brainer. The actual fitness of the home should be the sole requirement, not the perceived "moral fitness." If there as even one child in need of a good home, then that it one child to many! There are loads and loads of gay people who are so filled with love and so ready and willing to know the joy of parenthood. To deny them in ways dissimilar from their straight peers is to make an assertion about their characters on the basis of bigotry. Plain and simple.

We speak first of adoption when addressing Mary Cheney's situation because it is another undeniable aspect of any gay parenting. Even if one of the partners is biologically-connected to the child (as in Ms. Cheney's case), the other partner has to adopt to obtain parental rights (which, it should be noted, Mary's partner Heather will not be able to do under the law of their home state of Virginia). But whether through sperm donation, surrogacy, or adoption of a non-biologically-linked child, the issue still becomes about the desire to raise a child. Folks of all stripes use non-tradtional means to get over reproductive obstacles. It's unlikely that many people would ask the non-biological, heterosexual parent of a child who is half-adopted why they think it is their "right" to jointly raise their loved one's kid. But when it's a lesbian who is wanting to adopt their life partner's biological offspring, people feel they have carte blanche to ask whatever offensive questions they want! Mary's womb is her own, and she doesn't have to explain it to anyone. Her love is also personal, and Ms. Poe if the person to whom she has vowed a commitment. It is nobody's right to question or deny them the freedom to legally pledge their commitment to this child. But considering these two grown, tax-paying, partners of fifteen years don't even have the freedom to legally pledge their love to EACH OTHER, who's surprised that those who are so interested in "protecting children" would try and stop them from protecting their own.

Mr. McCullough, we're sincerely sorry if you have received sacks of hate mail from activists that you consider radical. But you must realize that we don't take kindly to the propagation of the notion that we are innately "inferior." What so many of us have trouble with is how those of you who oppose gay rights can consider the vast amounts of homosexuals that tangibly populate this world, and yet not accept them as part of the spectrum of normalcy. Of course we understand that it takes sperm and an egg to produce new life. But we also understand that our lives and capacities are not geared for the sort of embryonic creation prescribed by the traditional means of intercourse, yet many of our minds, bodies, and spirits are geared to raising a pretty cool human. We only ask that you treat us like the infertile straight couple down the block, and not view our biological reality as an automatic child-rearing disqualification.

As cliché as it sounds, people and families come in all shapes, sizes, goals, dreams, backgrounds, and limitations. None of us have all of the answers as to why we (straight, gay, and everything in between) are the way we are. But we all are undeniably part of society, and we should be working together to see that our world encourages everyone to thrive. Mary Cheney and Heather Poe have made the (presumably) tough decision to raise a child as co-parents. While you may consider this exemplary of their sexual behavior's "inferiority," Mr. McCullough, we consider it an example of one of the more "superior" aspects of life -- the want and desire to spread love. Every child should be so lucky.