“Why are Christians obsessed with homosexuality?”

You’ve heard this refrain ad nauseam. “Why are you fixated on other people’s sex lives?!”  “Why are you so one dimensional? Can’t you talk about anything else?”  Thetargetgays catalyst on my recent post was this: “…..do you set homosexuality aside as a single target, just ’cause you feel like it?”

Let me give it to you straight. Pun absolutely intended because my editor has a keen sense of humor and if you can read my posts without the rose colored lens of hostility fastened firmly on your visage you would realize that. I focus much of my attention on the gay marriage debate and all that goes with it because it is this subject on which supporters of natural marriage are routinely demonized and sidelined. And, in my ever so humble opinion, this is the area where Christians need to be better equipped to lovingly and firmly present their case. However, because there is so much LIFE happening over here in my myopic narrow little world I have actually written about numerous topics throughout my 18, ohmyword EIGHTEEN month blogging odyssey.

I’ve written on orphans, communication, prayer, homelessness, human trafficking, several posts on abortion, persecution, biblical interpretation, the Jewish concept of the Messiah, apologetics, prostitution, friendship, discipleship, meekness, mercy, prodigals, hypocrisy, military chaplains, listening to God, “fearing” the Lord, trusting God, being the church, gender differences, several posts on methods of engaging the world, evangelism, and the reliability of scripture.   If I go on I might be accused of bragging. So I will stop but methinks you get the program.

My dear readers. If you are still with me do click on one or, if you are feeling indulgent, a few of the links above.  How many comments do you see after them?  Five?  Fifteen?  Maybe more than 25? (and that’s almost surely an abortion post.)

Now.  Have a look at the comments after one of the posts below.  By comments I mean sometimes vitriolic, disdainful, arrogant, intolerant and downright mean responses. If you are still being generous with your time do note the nature and number of comments:

Is being gay a sin?

Wrong Side of History? (The Death of DOMA)

Would you attend a gay wedding?

If gay marriage, what then?

Cake or No Cake- Arizona’s Religious Freedom Bill

Notice anything strange? Anywhere between 50-200+ comments on the gay marriage posts.

Now that you’ve had a chance to review the examples for yourself, I have a question. (Only for you, because I believe I may already know the answer.)

Is the issue that Christians only talk about gay marriage?

Or is gay marriage the only subject about which opponents want to hear?

53 thoughts on ““Why are Christians obsessed with homosexuality?”

  1. Maybe nobody cares about the other stuff as much because they don’t feel like y’all are trying to impose a restrictive world view on them that prevents them from living out who they are despite it not harming others? I’m just guessing out loud here.

    • Perhaps, dear friend. But the statement “Golly, you guys sure talk about a lot of stuff because obviously you are striving to implement the full range of biblical commands but when you talk about gay marriage it really chaps my hide” would be a bit more accurate than “you are obsessed with gay sex”, wouldn’t you say?

  2. “Or is gay marriage the only subject about which opponents want to hear?”
    If you were blogging about how slavery is fine because it’s your interpretation of the Bible, I would object and comment on your post. If you were blogging about how the death penalty for adultery is fine because it’s your interpretation of the Bible, I would comment on that too. The other subjects you write about, such as prayer, are irrelevant to me. I don’t speak to invisible beings and don’t receive any information from them, and I don’t know anyone who is negatively affected by this practice. I do know gay people who suffer as a result of the teachings you promote, so I feel the need to object to and comment on those posts.

    • Violet,

      Do you know you know gay people … or former gay people … who have been radically hurt by the gay lifestyle? I do. And I would suspect that those people are around you and you are just choosing to ignore them.

  3. I totally agree with your worldview and appreciate so much your articulate and insightful thoughts. I am thinking that counter legislation as a balancing point should not be necessary. It being struck Dow. Is a good reason to move to constitutional strike down pro gay laws that lead to Christian intimidation. I think this is a good acid test against these laws. Hmm it’s been a long time since I’ve heard that term mentioned in the same breath as the gay laws. Are there any legislators or lawyers reading the huge volume of responses and what is our process to take action? We share and then rant because we have not been shown due process to effect change. In fact, we need a new generation of politics that gives an articulate message and while I’m on the subject, how about this…refuses to engage in name calling and slander campaigns? Let the ‘other party’ play in the mud. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

    • Thanks for reading and commenting friend. No, we certainly should not need counter legislation. As I stated in my post Cake or No Cake about the proposed Arizona law: “The law is actually redundant because all this “freedom to associate” business comes from our founding documents. It is a crying shame that we are so far adrift that laws are being enacted to shore up what is already established.” Our call to action is to remove any legislation that adds unnecessary layers to what the constitution has clearly established- it is wonderfully and simply sufficient to protect us if only we would see it rightly.

      Yes yes yes. We do need a new generation to present the conservative message in a way that is palatable to this generation- namely we need to get better at independent media because the mainstream won’t represent us accurately.

      Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with us!

  4. Im not a regular reader of the New York Times, but I hear they regularly report on gay-related topics. I wonder if they are accused of being obsessed with homosexuality?

  5. To Violetwisp: I humbly submit that you missed the point, to wit, that Askme is not “obsessed” or “fixated” on the issue of homosexuality, and she has provided ample evidence to back this assertion. Moreover, the same could (and should) be said of Christians in general. Because the vast majority of Christians are not “obsessed with homosexuality.” (If you have concrete proof to refute this, I would very much like to “hear” it.)

    Now, to another important point worth mentioning: We live (ostensibly, at least) in a free society in which different people and groups with differing perspectives enjoy (again, ostensibly, at least) the freedom of speech. This necessarily includes Christians, who are opposed to gay marriage and the active homosexual lifestyle in general because they believe it sin. So the question naturally arises, “Is there really any need or place for ‘vitriolic, disdainful, arrogant, intolerant and downright mean responses’ to blog articles by one individual on the subject? And since it is quite evident there are those type responses ~ not only here but in many venues of communication ~ another question arises? “Why?” Perhaps Askme is correct in asserting that “gay marriage (may be) the only subject about which opponents want to hear,” and to which they want to respond … often in nothing less than anger, animosity and downright (if barely cloaked) hatred.

    • I don’t think I did miss any point. I simply answered her question. I’m not obsessed with homosexuality either – I write about feminism, vegetarianism, gun control, giant flying machines and sanitary pads. I also comment on posts on those and many other themes, and I explained why I comment on her homosexuality posts – without anger, animosity or hatred. Okay, sometimes I’m a little bit angry. But the point of view she promotes is so cruel, it’s difficult not to get emotionally involved. I know people who have tried to live a heterosexual life because they thought their natural homosexuality was somehow ‘wrong’; I know people in other countries who live homosexual lives under cover, hiding their relationship in fear from other people; and I know young people who have been confused, distressed and suicidal about their feelings. For all the love she tries to promote in her writings, this interpretation of Christianity perpetuates all the harmful situations I mention, so I find it difficult to ignore.

      • O.k. Point well taken. YOU are not obsessed with homosexuality either. This is the same point she in making. I added to that by surmising that the majority of the “Christian” world is not obsessed with the issue either. The interesting and most frustrating point of departure comes from the overwhelming, angry responses to any divergence of the now-largely-acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle. In my own admittedly personal, subjective opinion, it is as if there is an obvious bias in both the mainstream media and academia toward, or in sympathy with, homosexuality and their whole agenda. Consequently, the frustration. The professing Christian ~ or Muslim or Orthodox Jew, etc. ~ can comment on any number of different issues without the same level of vindictive reaction. Why is this the case? Or is it? Obviously, I may well be mistaken in my assessment, but as of yet my sympathies still lie with Askme.

        • “The professing Christian ~ or Muslim or Orthodox Jew, etc. ~ can comment on any number of different issues without the same level of vindictive reaction.” I can sympathise with the emotional reaction. Homosexuals still face the death penalty in many Muslim countries, and serious hatred and discrimination in many others. They are a minority group who have been discriminated against throughout the history of human society, and who only in recent years, and in certain parts of the world have had the opportunity to live openly, without fear and with the people they love. It’s sad they’re still having to fight for acceptance in the areas of the world where they’ve finally got legal recognition, and I would imagine frightening that vocal religious groups still condemn their lives as evil. Given that history, I can’t think of any other subjects that are similar in terms of the nerve they touch, can you?

          • Oh Bigot how can you stand it–these people say the same thing over and over and it was not true the 1st 200 hundred time it still isn’t. @ violetwisp, hit every cliche. Do they belive the stuff they spout? Are people getting dumber–deevolving? Back in my day the gay communty said this crap but most did not buy into it.

            I wish they would spare people the phony urgency and danger. You are not in the middle east–nope you in some 1st world suburb trained to imagine that spouting cliches will make really matter comparatively speaking. Touching. But please– Get a grip and get a world view and for God sakes get educated. Women are put to death in Muslim countries at a rate of 100 to O homosexuals–does that bother you? How many females have been put to death in the pan Muslim world this year–wanna take a stab at that? No no you trendy misogynist. You don’t give a rats butt end.Yet, here you keep going feeling hip and cool and like it matters–so important “death” sexy to feel all that pity. So please cut it out. More heterosexual men have been put to death for having sex with married women that homosexuals have been put to death. Sorry Gays are not even in the oppression Olympics over — educate yourself instead of roaming the internet looking to whine and to cry crocodile tears. Muslim marry through arraigned marriage–you crying they don’t get to love who they are married to–nope. See you really do not care, The ignorance you brandish provides the illusion. I know, you are outraged, simply outraged, horror can’t love out in the open. I would suggest that other countries do not really need this racist kind of arrogant white POV that is engendered here. And that is exactly how they see it. Like I said–the most oppressed evah–such suffering has never been known in all human history. Oh and if you imagine gays are going to change Islamic law–think again sweet pea. Read some history.

          • Thanks for your interesting point of view on the world. I think perhaps you lost the thread of the discussion here – it’s specifically to do with why people get passionate about arguing against the Bigot on her homosexuality themed posts. When she starts encouraging the mistreatment and murder of women in Islamic countries, I will defend their rights too.

          • Love the missive–and the derail too. You have it down pat. I have not seen the Bigot call for anyones death–but keep gas lighting–the danger the injustice. If you knew how absurd you sounded and how smug. Bla bla bla religious group do this, they do that, bla bla. I grew up in the gay community, raised by gay parents I know every bit of the horse pucky they lay for anyone who will buy it. OMG Wesboro Baptist is gonna get us (look scared and pass the merlot). The fact is in a free country people can disagree and have religious beliefs. The only bigots left are lbgt–and whooping misogynist too.

          • Motherhood: I don’t think I’ve “met” you before, but hey there 🙂 I just wanted to say that, independent of the discussion, this line “OMG Wesboro Baptist is gonna get us (look scared and pass the merlot)” made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the laugh 🙂

      • “The other subjects you write about, such as prayer, are irrelevant to me.”
        Of course you may not be interested in subjects such as discipleship, trusting God, and prayer. But you refrain from commenting on even the posts about significant social issues- trafficking, homelessness, orphans/adoption. Not even a “like” on those when I am encouraging everyone to resist platitudes and take personal action. Why is that Violet?

        “I’m not obsessed with homosexuality either – I write about feminism, vegetarianism, gun control, giant flying machines and sanitary pads.”
        I did a quick scan of you last 20 posts. 16 of them spend at least a line or two attacking religion and most of them were wholly consumed with Christian bashing. That, my dear, looks an awful lot like and obsession with Christianity.

  6. @Thinker, you should think harder: “not harming others?” The fact is gays can’t reproduce without others. So it really isn’t between just two adults now is it. They would if they could (and they tried until they got kicked out) set up poor brown women to serve as reproductive slaves. Women died in India. So harm–yeah they harm but so what. You can imagine yourself open minded and hip. Where did you think the little babies were coming from or perhaps you did not think, or care or are just a vile racist that thinks brown women want to be reproductive slaves to rich white men because that’s what brown people are here to do–serve the white man.

      • Oh thanks Bigot. I stop by sometimes and read. Yes, Robert and I and you I assume share some common points. I’m waiting for the others to “come out” although nobody is going to call us brave.No party for us. I do think that many are realizing that this needs to be stopped. So I think from buzz I am hearing others will weigh in. Growing up in the gay community with out and proud gay parents confirms that our experience matters. The narcissism, the misogyny the contempt for heterosexuals, Christians (and I am not a Christian)the general antisocial ideology, not to mention the threats, and aggression that kids have to live with every minute of every day needs to be known. It is so creepy Gay men will put women in cages as breeders given half the chance and at the same time cry a river and threaten suicide because they are the most oppressed evah in the history of humanity–a bunch of manipulative liars, trawling for some incident of gay bashing in outer Mongolia. Personally I did not care one way or the other about the SSM. But the child thing is a whole other story. I happen to think that “marriage” and the deconstruction of it proceeded SSM. Just IMHO. I think the risk is (even worse) than being a threat to anything “traditional” the risk is enslaving women and selling babies and massive amounts of unreported child abuse. You find me one gay that ever reported anyone in the gay community for child abuse

        • I’m really grateful that you chose to comment here. I need to do a post on how the “right to marriage” in many places (and even here) has morphed into a “right to parenthood.” I know that R.O. Lopez writes much about the similarities to slavery in the sense that the child no longer belongs to her natural parents but is birthed solely to be given away. If you have any links, please share.

          Do you blog? If so, post a link. Otherwise, I would love to hear your story if you are willing: askthebigot@hotmail.com

          • @ Bigot, absolutely, it has morphed into the right to sell humans and use as slaves 2 women’s bodies–1 to harvest eggs (their love of eugenics–the uber mench comes to mind) and 2nd to use the uterus, blood syply and all other organs. Women and society do not owe them other humans. Sorry guys that’s not in the contract–marriage is between 2 people leave women and children alone. It is the insane male arrogance but they really want and will be so sad and it is not fair. Good god, that goes a little beyond “between two People” and “the right to love another person” These men have already caused the deaths of god knows how many impoverished 3rd world women. Now they want to have commercial surrogacy more available here–the elitism, the classism the hatred of women. The medical people that support it are like carpet baggers and the lawyers–ugh. They think they can dismiss every objection on by howling fundy Christian–while at the sametime they demand female slaves be made available to them and infants sold–insanity. I hope people wake up soon. I don’t blog–a bit of Ludite. I will send my story–stats this week.

          • I’d be interested to see your sources for this. Do you see this as an exclusively homosexual male market or do infertile heterosexual couples contribute to it as well?

          • Infertile heterosexual couple contribute also but only extreme cases of infertility in heterosexual couples can’t be helped by reproductive medicine. So percentage wise it is much smaller. If you can’t have a baby and your partner can’t either you do not get the right to use poor women–using other peoples bodies in ways that can kill them and then buying another human is a big no no.

          • There has been very little research done. You have to peice it together but why bother. You think 3rd world brown women and poor white here should be reproductive slaves to wealthy men. You think humans should be sold. Don’t bother getting informed it does not suit neo-liberalism.

          • I’ve tried to explain to Violentwisp that changing adoption from a privilege to a right changes the priority from finding safe good homes for children to providing humans to other humans, thus creating a slave trade. Be you two or more men, two or more women, or a heterosexual Christian male/female couple, you do not have a right to a child you can not produce yourself. Her knowledge and understanding of rights, both logically and philosophically, is very limited and rooted in desire and emotion, not reality and rational thought. She cannot define what rights are and are not. She held up the UN charter on human rights as if that was some sort of end-all, be-all answer when I asked her if she knew what a right was and could, in her own words, define a right. I almost peed myself laughing.

          • @Hewho, a right is anything they say it is because they want it, because they deserve it, because they are entitled and will take it by force. The do not have to define anything–“because I say so” is their total argument. Violent–is just that violent and a misogynist, classist, racist, elitist–that is the new progressive movement. Then they have a pity pageant–“we are being killed every nano second”–Their position is–Women do not exist except to be enslaved, because they hate women and can’t see them as human. They want to create a whole sub class–called human females. As a movement LBGT has started to look sociopathic and not unlike past movements that also claimed they would be on “the right side of history.” That kind of megalomania is a harbinger of what is yet come. But the truth is they do not control the future. Enough women will die and enough children will come forward that anyone that was dull witted enough to follow this trend will spend the rest of their lives slinking around and shamed and outed as people that championed the ensalvement of women and the sale of kids–Tyrants are not real popular among the people they destroy.

            Children do not exist as human either–just a commodity trival things they have “the right” to have on the their long tedious list of rights. Adoption should be in the best interest of the child not because someone wants a child. What adults want is not the main issue. The child’s rights are the issue. And children do have basic human rights even if LBGT does not recognize that. Whether or not they will be good slave owners is beside the point. They good be great and have bought happy happy slaves. The point is we do not traffic in humans. The point is another human life that is not related to you biologically is not a “right” and if the biological relationship is based on the tenets of slavery and exploitation and domination not rights either–those rouge militia troops that raped the village women do not get paternal rights either. LBGT in the west is proving itself as the worst human rights violators in the last 70 years. But from their POV women and children are not human so they would deny my assertion.

          • Indeed. The heart wants what the heart wants, and the hand wields the club to take what the heart wants. The most base and ancient form of rudimentary human thought, sate desire, and they like to think of themselves as progressive. It would be funny if it wasn’t for the killing and enslaving.

          • My child is adopted and, yes, I am privileged to be his mother and no, I never had (and still don’t) have the “rights” to him…..I have the blessing of him.

          • Agreed, dear friend. My boss at the adoption agency used to say “We do not exist to serve the parents. We exists to find a home for every child.” Of course the adoption process is tedious but when being granted a human being should we expect it to be speedy? Detaching a child from her biological parents and reattaching them to strangers should not be “easy” legally because it certainly is not “easy” for her emotionally.

        • Mother: I agree with you that the deconstruction of marriage preceded SSM…Gay parenting is certainly not the only kind of parenting that deprives a child of what nature intends and it’s important, I think, to say so.

  7. You really do a nice job on this blog. I’ve enjoyed reading you.

    I don’t obsess over homosexuality at all, in fact, I think a sin is a sin is a sin. Homosexuality isn’t any different then casting proof of your heterosexuality all over the place. The reason gay marriage becomes such a focus is because it is one thing that is threatening to traditional marriage and families, a cornerstone of Christian faith.

    From a totally secular perspective, interpersonal relationships between men and women are a building block for healthy local economies and communities. For centuries marriage has also been a tool to protect women, to ensure they are financially cared for and our children are looked after. Crimes against women were perceived as property crimes and as such women were protected by fathers, husbands, family lineage. Today crimes against women are still perceived as property crimes, but they are now crimes against the state. The state is now replacing the family structure and redefining marriage without giving much thought to the role of marriage and how it has functioned as an economic tool, as protection for women, as security for children. We know that absent fathers have a tremendous impact on their kids, emotionally, psychologically, financially, and crime wise. Redefining family to mean single parenthood has many drawbacks that we did not see coming.

    I understand that gays just want to get married, to have what they perceive as equality, but no thought, no discussion, about how redefining marriage may impact the rest of society is being allowed. Traditional marriage is declining, divorce is increasing, and gay marriage becomes yet another nail in the coffin.

    • Hi Insanity. Thanks for the comments and I completely agree! That is my main beef with same sex marriage policy- that it brings brokenness for the child. I’ve written about the decline of marriage in general related to poverty in a couple places, specifically here: https://askthebigot.com/2013/03/15/marriage-poverty-and-self-control/

      You, and Mother above, are both correct that marriage has been under attack for decades. We have transferred so much of the meaning of marriage onto whether or not the adults are fulfilled that why not redefine it so that more adults can be fulfilled? But you have hit the nail on the head- natural marriage, has a unique and indispensable function within society. With the break up of the family, government becomes father (provider/protector) and mother (caretaker/educator). And in all those areas, government is found wanting.

      • One of the main problems is the distortions that have been accepted as true. You have a bunch or wealthy Gay men who own property, have big bank accounts and have been vetted through the most elite institutions in the country crying they are oppressed. This new civil rights movement was not met with water cannons and police dogs in the street it was at the Farmers Market and then went for an appletini. People have not questioned any of it although I think they are starting to. So what we have is a situation of smoke and mirrors. In this alternate reality it is a human rights violation to not provide live humans for sale (parts or whole). It is worthwhile to note that the countries that have enacted the draconian laws against homosexuality are the same countries where these guys were buying babies and using the local women as reproductive slaves. Gay rights is de facto male rights and these men have no use for women and do not see them as even human–only as breed animals. And now these men call for aid to be cut off to these countries so the can starve and deny medical help. They will kill women and children into submission–like I say if feminist think the old patricharchy was bad they haven’t see anything yet.

        • Friend, I have been thinking of your comments throughout the weekend. Do drop me a line when you have a chance. And thank you again for taking the time to comment here.

          • Pspruett–I looked at most of it. What people need to realize is that LBGT is de facto a very rich very elite white male movement. It is seeped in and driven by misogyny and contempt for the poor unwashed masses and people of color. It is the new classism trying to pass as oppressed by creating phony discrimination. The comparison to civil rights is just offensive and absurd. I do think people are starting to catch on that by and large LBGT are abusive thugs playing up the drama and posturing.

            Long story short, screaming rich white dudes are at this exact moment demanding for aid to be cut to African countries. What is aid? It is food and medicine for pregnant women and children. So in fact they are calling for genocide. So liberal minded of them. Blackmail on the backs of women and children—very compassionate. Oh that is their human right? They make no secrete of this. I am waiting for The World Health Organization to denounce them directly for the genocide they are trying to enact. They will starve people, they will watch mothers die giving birth to aids infected babies and then will cut shipments of formula and food aid. This pretty much confirms the real nature of the movement– it has all the hallmarks of the brainchild of psychopaths, megalomania.

            Along a similar line they want to legalize and make cheaper the sale of eugenically created infants. Which again is really tied to the fact that as a male rights movement they seek to destroy all women’s dignity and erase women as a legal protected group. Ironic given that the marriage argument was based in human dignity. But not really a surprise given they do not consider women human.

            Nothing new–they are not different than any other male power movement–the Huns, the Nazis. They created a situation in which the elite minority can destroy the weak in the society and the elite can claim the weak deserved destruction because either they will not serve the elite or they because they are “ignorant.” How much more before people will step up and say no you can’t put women in cages as your breeder animals. Bawaaaa but we want babies—oh yeah right.

        • Mother, you say many things that would be taken as extreme and absurd by most supporters of gay rights, and you probably lose many an ear because of it. There are many factions in any movement, and those supporters not themselves involved in homosexuality tend to imagine only the most innocent motives in the appeal to rights and tolerance. However, my exposure to this topic and its history proves you right in that there is a faction that is uber-male with an alarming ideology and goals.

          I remember the first time I encountered the writings of a gay community where the men were claiming that homosexuality was not just the moral equivalent, but superior to heterosexuality — the new evolution of man. In fact, the X-Men movies are a kind of metaphor of the fear and persecution by the sexual Neanderthals of the new breed of super men (mutants). Of course, there’s that pesky need of the opposite sex to reproduce, but as the 1987 Gay Manifesto says, we can eliminate the family unit and breed perfect boys in the genetic laboratory. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3023834/posts)

          I have a question, though. You include all of LBGT in your broad net, which includes many females. How do the women play into this misogynistic agenda? Also, do you recognise different subgroups in the gay movement, or do you believe that all of them are directly or indirectly working toward the ends that you mention?

          • The short answer is I do not conflate Gay men and lesbians. As I said I was raised in the Gay community I know one from the other. And conflating them is a huge mistake that the men hope people make and uncritical (neoliberal) women go along with. I do not conflate lesbians and gay men. When I use the word gay I mean men and when I speak of women I use lesbian.

            Perhaps they would claim my assertions are absurd but one only need to cast a critical eye on what they in fact do and name who they do it to. I would say to anyone trying to claim that I am absurd–prove me wrong. They can’t because I am right–so they will call names (ad hominem)–still I am right. They will argue a diversionary tactic—gaslight or derail with some sob story. I’m still right. They are cutting aid to women and children to blackmail. They openly advocate turning poor women into reproductive slaves. These are not things I made up. They are taking place.

            So, yes there is an L in the alphabet soup but lesbians get used as window dressing and are by and large powerless. The men that make up the lions share of the alphabet have not only the numbers but also the power and the money. Just like the society at large. LBGT–they hope people conflate men and women because that makes them look egalitarian which they are not. If you look at something like The Advocate and count how many words written by men and how many by women the power line is clear, look at the photographs–how many men to how many women. IMHO lesbians are the political and cultural harem of Gay men—they serve them like handmaidens. Bottom line LBGT is a male power structure and it seeks to erase women’s rights–all women’s rights. It cannot survive and create “families” unless it as an elite and classist organization it also seeks to oppress the poor by framing them as “bigot, haters, violent, it is classic forms of exploitation and oppression. The only difference is that powerful men now claim they are oppressed and thus have the “right” to legally erase all protections for women. Can you imagine any group advocating for women to be commercial breeding stock or supporting the sale of humans? No it is simply outrageous—except these men are doing it—openly, no closet no shame. Cash on the table human trafficking. There are not enough euphemisms to cover that up for long.

            As I have said I have no issue with marriage–really what do I care about anyone else’s domestic choices? And as SCOTUS pointed out–everyone deserves dignity. And I would add that turning women into breeders and harvesting eggs from them destroys all women’s dignity and creates a slave class and a master class. What I pointing up is not rooted in some religious belief—I am not Christian. I am not crying sinner repent. I am using their exact same standards of equality and tolerance and pointing out that they are as a movement misogynist, classist, racists and seeped in elite privilege—They will with their entitlement and power damage truly oppressed groups—women, children and the poor. No woman straight or lesbian should imagine supporting this is in anyway remotely ethical. But women can also be misogynistic, and racist and reap benefits from classism.

        • Mother, I’m open to what you are saying, but could I get some references to those who are openly advocating for poor women to be used for breeding purposes? I know there are those who look to pay poor women in other countries for their unfertilized eggs for research purposes (and other uses). Are you saying they support this also for their own purposes? Or perhaps want to pay poor women to be surrogate mothers?

          Also, could you give any detail on what you mean by being “raised in a gay community”?

          Thanks for you feedback.

          • All the egg sale and the harvest and the fertilization and the implantation is unregulated and very under-researched. One source is The New York Times–they ran a piece in the fashion section about the changing the surrogacy laws in NY State so that it becomes commercialized. Surrogacy is reproductive slavery. Payment for eggs or wombs or infants is human slavery. They do not use the correct language to define what is going on. Also look on line at some of the Indian feminists they are vocal and got many breeding centers closed down.

            One of my parents was gay and raised us (I have sibs) in a house with a same sex partner. They were both active in the community and the house was located in the gay area/ neighborhood.

          • They would probably say that it’s a voluntary thing (you know, it’s all about “consent”) and that the women are being compensated, but I sympathize with your point. If poor women were being offered money in exchange for mere sex, then the abuse might be clearer for some. But isn’t egg harvesting and surrogacy even more personal and invasive? I know there are health risk with the process of egg harvesting, and I’ve even heard homosexual advocates claim that the risks of sodomy pale in comparison to the risks of pregnancy.

            I sometimes suspect that the far left actually prefers to have an impoverished class for the various useful political purposes they can serve, and, as you argue, for the biological ones as well.

          • Yes,I have to be honest– I don’t exactly take what they say as an ethical position that reflects humanity toward women and children—just commodities. Society does not owe anyone life threatening access 2 other peoples bodies or another human life. Noone can’t claim this does/will not cause life long aguish and grief to the women involved and they can’t assert they have any rights to do so. It is all based in misogyny and classism and money. So slave owners always say the slave is happy are we going to go back to slavery? The whole thing is the wealthy and the greedy exploiting poor women. The fact they pay something does not change the exploitive nature and the end result that it takes dignity away from all women. In reality they hate the poor. In gestational surrogacy the eggs come from Ivy League college girls and are then implanted in the wombs of poor women–women who have very few opportunities to feed and care for their own children and need the money. So it is eugenics–they feel that the poor are biologically inferior because they value their own elitism.

            The procedure is invasive, requires anesthetic, as it would be too painful to bear otherwise. They have to go into the ovary and harvest the eggs–this is a surgical procedure. Egg harvesting is risky as are the drugs used to produce super ovulation–these lead to cancer and other life threatening conditions. Many have not been in use long enough to even begin to know the long-term affects. And these are being used not on infertile women but on healthy women and girls. Women off the street can’t go and just demand to be given super ovulation drugs for no reason because they are dangerous. But in the unregulated billion-dollar industry that feeds the supply chain of humans for sale and profit this is standard. The white coats like in the Milgram experiment are backing it and making fortunes.

            Taking the eggs from one female and using the womb of another is done to erase women and say there is no such thing as mother. If you take that to the logical extreme it challenges, “All men created equal” Here are the Uber kinder—the superior race. The far left has a moral compass that is spinning out of control. They are the products of the new elitism that denies women are in fact a biological reality and that mother is also real and not just a breeder animal. This in turn takes denies children basic human rights.

Comments are closed.