Moving right along...
LittleNipper wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:If she is/was a lesbian in the true sense of the word, may I ask if you were adopted?
Why do you need or want to know that?
LittleNipper wrote:Well, I guess it didn't make sense to me that a lesbian would have a child. I always felt that such a thing seems to totally undermine the ideology that homosexuals only want sex with the same sex because it is "natural" for them. Nature seems to reveal that women want to be mothers and have children. So if that is the case, they should desire a mate that would fulfill that need. And logically another of the same sex cannot do that little thing...
I'm going to rearrange your comments for response.
1. Nature seems to reveal that women want to be mothers and have children. Not always, but generally I agree. We're physically built to have babies. Not all of us are interested and that's okay.
2. So if that is the case, they should desire a mate that would fulfill that need.
Not always. Some women desire a mate and lose their mate. Some women never find a mate at all. Widowed, divorced and/or single mothers are well able to have and raise children.
So are women engaged in a same sex relationship. Social or marital status doesn't change a woman's ability to reproduce via traditional or medical means.
I met a mother whose children I taught. She was married to a member of the armed forces. They were a great couple, great parents. They still are. She is a lesbian, now divorced, who is raising her children primarily with her girlfriend though Dad is still involved. Her children are amazing human beings. They were when then were 3,4, and 5. They still are 15 years later. We've remained friends all these years. I'll admit it was a bit of a surprise (okay, it was a shock) to me when I realized that she is gay because I knew her in a different way and in a different relationship. She is happy, she is safe, she is loved and she is one the most outstanding parents I've ever had the pleasure to know. That we think highly of each other is why we're still friends. And of course, we both think highly of her babies, now becoming men.
3. Well, I guess it didn't make sense to me that a lesbian would have a child.
You are saying that you thought that who a woman chooses to have sex with would dictate whether or not she would have a child--adopted or bio or steps.
There are millions of women who are having sex with exactly no one, who have adopted, bio, and step children. Or want to have them.
4. I always felt that such a thing seems to totally undermine the ideology that homosexuals only want sex with the same sex because it is "natural" for them.
I suspect that hetero and homo sexuals both feel it's natural to have sex with whom they are attracted to. I don't see homosexuality as an ideology, but I'm okay with you using the term. In any case, like I said, why would who you want to have sex with or having sex with, dictate whether or not you want to raise a child of your own, adopted or step? If you are having sex with literally no one, you can still want to raise a child. A widowed grandmothers can still want to raise children. I've served such angels. Maternal instinct has nothing to do with who you are having sex with. I have a maternal instinct, have children and I'm unfortunately not having sex with Keith Richards or Johnny Depp. I still have children. (That probably didn't make sense, I don't care, I like both those guys.)
5. And logically another of the same sex cannot do that little thing...
Children are created via traditional means, artificial insemination and IVF. In the latter two methods, no sex or partner is needed at all.
I may have left something out. I blame Keith Richards and Johnny Depp.
I believe I'm a sinner. I'm not the one who thinks that sin is not sin, and wish others hurt because they fail to agree with my assessments.
