The ‘Gay Infertility’ Myth

Infertility and Incompatibility are not the same thing.

By Nancy Flory Published on April 26, 2017

On April 22nd, USA Today published an article titled “The Psychology of Infertility.” The article highlighted three couples who could not have children. The couples chose to have a child through in-vitro fertilization (IVF), adoption and surrogacy. While music played in the background, the couples talked about the trouble they had conceiving. There was only one problem: One couple was made up of two men. “We don’t have a uterus,” they explained.

Got it? It seems that two men can’t conceive a baby! And their problem, we’re told, is one of infertility. Really. Dan and Will Neville-Rehbehn had to spend thousands of dollars to find a breeder, that is, surrogate, to bear them a baby. The men “contributed” the sperm, according to the companion story.

Twenty years ago, their video would have been a skit on Saturday Night Live. Now, it’s a news story on USA Today. And that news story is doing its darnedest to fob off on readers the “gay infertility” myth.

Infertility and Incompatibility are not the same thing.

Not the Same

Infertility and Incompatibility are not the same thing. Most insurance companies get this. That’s why they refuse to perform infertility treatment with same-sex couples. Both men, and both women, in these pairings can be quite fertile. That is, each one could have children with someone of the opposite sex. The fact that no one can conceive a child with a person of the same sex isn’t infertility. It’s a basic fact of biology.

The heartache that compatible (that is, male-female) couples endure is just not the same problem as two men or two women trying to “conceive.” It’s like comparing the fact that someone can’t flap his arms and fly with someone who is paralyzed. To identify the problem of infertility with a universal fact of biology is an insult to couples really struggling with infertility.

Insurance Companies are Right Not To Pay

And at least on the surface, some “gay parent” activists admit as much. Still, they continue to fight against it. One frustrated attorney railed against insurance companies that refuse to pay for infertility treatment for same-sex couples. She wasn’t even happy with those that pay for treatment after lesbians have undergone testing for infertility. “[Lesbian couples] will never be treated ‘equally,’ there will always be an additional financial burden to prove they are infertile,” said Emily Hecht-McGowan, Esq., the chief policy officer at the Family Equality Council. “To expect a lesbian couple to get pregnant on their own — it’s not going to happen.”

Well, she’s right about that.

United Healthcare refused to treat a lesbian couple because it defined infertility as an “inability to achieve pregnancy after 12 months of unprotected heterosexual intercourse.” According to the New York Times, the couple said the “subtext of the United Healthcare policy is that a lesbian could get pregnant by having sex with a man, she just chooses not to.”

Well, yes. If a woman chooses not to have sex with a man, she will not conceive. That doesn’t mean she can’t conceive. It means she has chosen not to do the one thing that would allow her to do so.

Required Infertility Testing is Reasonable

Shannon Price Minter, the head of the legal division at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, complained that it’s unfair that lesbians must be tested for fertility before treatment. “To me,” she complained, “the central injustice is that when a person has a known condition that precludes them from becoming pregnant, such as a woman who has had her ovaries removed, there is no requirement to go through a period of unprotected intercourse before being recognized as requiring fertility treatments. …”

That’s not a riddle. You only undergo testing when you don’t know the medical problem. In her example, the woman already knew she had her ovaries removed. Why would she test to see if they were working?

In contrast, a healthy lesbian may or may not have a medical issue. Therefore, doctors test them. It’s reasonable for an insurance company not to pay for costly infertility treatments when there is no medical problem.

Against God’s Design

Healthy men and women who are in a same-sex relationship do not, by and large, have a medical issue that precludes them from conceiving. There’s no “infertility” problem. They don’t have faulty reproductive organs. They’re just not using them as they’re designed. That is, in the way that can even lead to conception.

Individual gay people may be infertile. But “gay infertility” is a myth. USA Today just hopes you won’t notice.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Patmos

    “And their problem, we’re told, is one of infertility.”

    Just change the definition, that way these people are no longer insane! It’s that easy.

    • anne55

      I’ve known many families raising children and who also are couples with differing sexual orientations. They’ve all been excellent parents.

      From the Canadian Psych. Associate (2006)
      141, avenue Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5J3
      Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement
      Canadian Psychological Association

      In 2003, the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) issued its response to public debate about the effect of marriage of same-sex couples on children. CPA’s review of the psychological research led us to conclude that the children of same-sex parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in terms of their psychosocial development, their gender development and
      their gender identity. In 2005, the CPA voiced its support to the House of Commons of Bill C-38, legislation legalizing marriage of same-sex couples.
      The current federal government has committed to asking Parliament to re-examine the legalization of marriage of same-sex couples. In response to this intention, many individuals and groups, both in favour and against marriage of same-sex couples, have brought their opinions and positions to the public. Because public opinion continues to involve concern about the rights and needs of children, CPA has reviewed recent research and re-affirms its 2003 position and 2005 support of
      marriages of same-sex couples and their families. According to Herek’s extensive review of the literature in 2006, the research on which opponents to
      marriage of same-sex couples rely, look at the functioning of children in intact families with heterosexual parents compared to those children raised by a single parent following divorce or death of a spouse. They do not include studies that compare the functioning of children raised by heterosexual couples with the functioning of children raised by same-sex couples. In this group of
      studies, any differences observed are more accurately attributable to the effects of death or divorce, and/or to the effects of living with a single parent, rather than to parents’ sexual orientation. These studies do not tell us that the children of same-sex parents in an intact relationship fair worse than the children of opposite-sex parents in an intact relationship. Although the research relied on by supporters of marriage of same-sex couples is not without its methodological flaws (as can be made the case for almost an area of scientific inquiry), it is based on comparisons of children with same-sex and opposite-sex parents. Herek points out that this
      group of studies is more relevant to the marriage debate and the findings of this group of studies are very consistent. A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as
      parents than are their heterosexual counterparts. The opposition to marriage of same-sex couples, on the grounds that it fails to consider the needs or rights of children, does not consider the most relevant body of psychological research into this topic or draws inaccurate conclusions from it. Further, opposition to marriage of same-sex couples often incorrectly pre-supposes that, by preventing marriage of same-sex couples, no children will be born or raised within families where parents are of the same sex. Such argument ignores the reality that children are, and will continue to be, born to and raised by parents who are married, those who are unmarried, those who are cohabitating, and those who are single – most of whom
      will be heterosexual, some of whom will be gay, and some of whom will be lesbian. Further, the literature (including the literature on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples appear to rely) indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union. As the CPA stated in 2003, the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way in which society treats them than because of any
      deficiencies in fitness to parent. The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based
      on other systems of belief or values. CPA continues to assert its 2003 position that the psychological literature into the psychosocial adjustment and functioning of children fails to demonstrate any significant differences between children raised within families with heterosexual parents and those raised within families with gay
      and lesbian parents. CPA further asserts that children stand to benefit from the well-being that results when their parents’ relationship is recognized and supported by society’s institutions.
      Herek, G.M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective. American Psychologist, 61, 607-621.

    • anne55

      Also, look up this research:
      Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society
      Elizabeth Short | Damien W. Riggs | Amaryll Perlesz | Rhonda Brown | Graeme Kane
      • August 2007
      Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)
      Parented Families: A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society

    • anne55

      Also, this one. The all pretty much agree.

      This is a summary of a very long article:
      INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE

      ARGUMENT

      As the Sixth Circuit recognized, “[g]ay couples,
      no less than straight couples, are capable of sharing
      [loving, committed] relationships. And gay couples, no
      less than straight couples, are capable of raising
      children and providing stable families for them.”
      DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388, 405 (6th Cir. 2014).
      Nonetheless, some proponents of state laws that
      exclude same-sex couples from marriage argue that
      this exclusion reflects meaningful differences between
      same-sex and heterosexual relationships, or between
      the parenting abilities of same-sex and heterosexual
      couples. These claims stand in sharp contrast to what
      scientific research shows about same-sex couples and
      their families.
      Scientific evidence strongly supports the
      conclusion that homosexuality is a normal expression of
      human sexuality; that gay men and lesbians form
      stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to
      5
      heterosexual relationships in essential respects; that
      same-sex couples are no less fit than heterosexual
      parents to raise children, and their children are no less
      psychologically healthy and well-adjusted; and that
      denying same-sex couples access to marriage is both an
      instance of institutional stigma and a contributor to the
      negative treatment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.
      In short, the claim that allowing same-sex couples to
      marry undermines the institution of marriage and
      harms children is inconsistent with the scientific
      evidence.
      The body of research presented below
      contravenes the stereotype-based rationales that the
      Equal Protection Clause was designed to prohibit and
      that some opponents of same-sex marriage use to
      justify anti-same-sex marriage laws. The research also
      demonstrates that the Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and
      Kentucky marriage laws unfairly stigmatize same-sex
      couples by discriminating between them and married
      heterosexual couples.
      Because there is no scientific justification for
      excluding same-sex couples from marriage, Amici urge
      this Court to reverse the decision below.” End quote.

      Look up the entire brief under:
      Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574
      IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
      JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al., AND BRITTANI HENRY, et al., Petitioners
      v.
      RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al.,
      Respondents.
      VALERIA TANCO, et al. Petitioners
      v.
      WILLIAM “BILL” HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, et al.,
      Respondents.
      APRIL DEBOER, et al., Petitioners
      v.
      RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, et al., Respondents.

      GREGORY BOURKE, et al., AND TIMOTHY LOVE, et al., Petitioners
      v.
      STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY, et al., Respondents.
      On Writs of Certiorari to the United States
      Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
      Brief of the American Psychological Association, Kentucky
      Psychological Association, Ohio Psychological Association, American
      Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American
      Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, Michigan Association
      for Marriage and Family Therapy, National Association of Social
      Workers, National Association of Social Workers Tennessee Chapter,
      National Association of Social Workers Michigan Chapter, National
      Association of Social Workers Kentucky Chapter, National Association
      of Social Workers Ohio Chapter, American Psychoanalytic
      Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American
      Medical Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners

  • SophieA

    Ah, science that the looney left marches “for” but fails to accept the truly settled science of those pesky biological facts of life. Biological reproduction deniers!

    • They saw Life Of Brian and took to heart that scene where Eric Idle wants to be a mother, and they say he has a right to be a mother. That was a joke. Males don’t have a right to be pregnant. There is also no right to use surrogates, sperm donors, or even have premarital sex.

      • Micha_Elyi

        Yes, it was a joke. However I do encounter many people under age 40 who speak and behave as though Monty Python skits are historical documentaries.

      • anne55

        My first grandson is about to be born via surrogacy to my son and his wife. Are you saying he has no right to life? I would beg to differ.

        • Sonny’s Mom

          And what about your discarded grandchildren, or the ones that will be used for experimentation? Or the multiple implanted embryos that survived, normal and healthy, but were “reduced” (destroyed in utero) so that your son or daughter would end up with just one? Are you saying THEY had no right to life?

          “But even if the egg and sperm come from husband and wife, serious moral problems arise. Invariably several embryos are brought into existence; only those which show the greatest promise of growing to term are implanted in the womb. The others are simply discarded or used for experiments…. While a little baby may ultimately be born because of this procedure, other lives are usually snuffed out in the process.” (USCCB, “Begotten Not Made”)

          • anne55

            I am telling the truth.

        • They had no right to create him that way. Obviously every baby has a right to life, but adults don’t have a right to a baby. If we ban surrogacy, babies created that way would be taken by the state and adopted by law abiding parents.

          • anne55

            It is totally legal. And, I got an obviously deleted email in my inbox (did you know when someone writes, posts, then deletes, it still goes to the recipient’s email?) Sonny’s mom ALSO wrote:

            “And what about your discarded grandchildren, or the ones that will be used for experimentation? Or the multiple implanted embryos that survived, normal and healthy, but were “reduced” (destroyed in utero) so that your son or daughter would end up with just one? Are you saying THEY had no right to life?
            “But even if the egg and sperm come from husband and wife, serious moral problems arise. Invariably several embryos are brought into existence; only those which show the greatest promise of growing to term are implanted in the womb. The others are simply discarded or u sed for experiments…. While a little baby may ultimately be born because of this procedure, other lives are usually snuffed out in the process.” (USCCB, “Begotten Not Made”)

            First, no one is discarding anything. No one is using anything for experimentation. Multiple embryos were NOT implanted, just one. So, obviously, no reduction. There were a lot of accusatory, mean statements here.

            I think it is ridiculous and mean that you would refuse a couple their own child simply because of fertility issues. Science has been able to help them which is great. They are having ONE child, via ONE implant. And, everything is going well. There were too many mean assumptions here and I got the message, even tho deleted by the sender.

            I think it might be wise for people without access to the facts to MYOB.

          • anne55

            If you ban surrogacy, there would be no babies created this way to adopt.

            Parents using IVF are NOT breaking the law. They, and the surrogate, go through a MUCH MORE rigorous screening process to go through the procedure and become parents than people who ‘just have their own’/

          • If we ban surrogacy, then hopefully no babies will be created that way, but the only way the ban would be effective is if people that broke the law were not rewarded with the child nevertheless. It is just like with baby stealing. The child is usually returned to the real parents, but more importantly it is taken from the abductors, even if it has to go straight into foster care and will be torn from the family it has known.

          • anne55

            Surrogacy is either legal in most states, or there is no specific law that addresses it.

            Often, but not always, it is the actual biological child of the parents involved.

          • Yeah I know. But being a genetic parent doesn’t guarantee custody. Sometimes it is better to separate kids from their biological parents, sometimes even if they are fine parents. If a married couple finds they can’t have children, they are still every bit a valid marriage to be respected as having fulfilled the expectations of marriage and should feel no pressure from society or family to make babies. Babies need to be welcomed not wanted for babies to have agency and dignity and not become products sold to consumers.

          • anne55

            Legal documents are signed ahead of time. You hear about the rare case where there is a custody dispute, but that is most often when the surrogate is the egg donor. Separating a baby from it’s own parents that love and want it would be cruel and ridiculous. Especially given all the extra effort that has gone into having the child.

    • anne55

      It ain’t settled in the direction you imply. Show me the evidence of that.

  • Paul

    My neutered cat has an infertility problem as well, shocker!

  • alive in the river

    Man… this world is crazy. Maybe I should identify as a squirrel so I don’t have to pay taxes! Who’s to say that I’m not a squirrel? I think I’m nutty enough!

    • Paul

      I’m thinking let’s become native American and get our own reservation

      • john appleseed

        Well, even their self-description “Native American” is nutty.
        I’m a white Native American whose ancestors came from Europe between 70 & 150 years ago.
        Better: Aboriginal North American (or Aboriginal South American).

        • anne55

          You and your family are immigrants. Just like mine.

          • Knowledge Transfer

            You don’t understand the difference between normal and abnormal sex so you don’t see the difference between legal and illegal immigration. Go Sandra fluke yourself with a strong letter to follow.

    • anne55

      Hey, maybe Trump is really a squirrel!!

      • Knowledge Transfer

        Maybe your mom is really a guy!

  • Autrey Windle

    Please, God, make it stop…

  • Micha_Elyi

    Did Christians err by replacing the true though blunt word ‘pervert’ with airy circumlocutions in order to avoid hurting anybody’s feelings? Have we exchanged speaking truth with charity with speaking falsehood with cowardice?

    • ImaginaryDomain

      Yep…we sure do. That picture speaks a thousand gross and unnatural words. Foul, abhorrent, decadent, lost, degrading….shall I go on? The worst part is that their will be a baby involved in all of this nonsense. We have truly lost our way and we can’t even speak out against these atrocities lest we get labelled a bigot, hater, or worse, we lose our jobs and our livelihoods.

    • Knowledge Transfer

      Amen! There is no such thing as a homosexual. All there is are boys and girls who eventually become men and women a tiny few of whom along the way [a puny yet perilous 1.6% of the general population] who when most vulnerable and at young ages are groomed by older perverts into sodomy – the authentic homosexual monogamy. It’s the only way perverts can reproduce themselves. We pamper perversion and pacify perverts rather than making such evil fear good. Christians have been transformed into cowards. What kind of a sane society would allow an always fruitless and often fatal 1.6% of the general population to enslave the remaining 98. 4%? Who in their right mind would in any way permit a malignant hair on the tip of a dog’s tail to wag the entire dog? Who in their right mind would allow a malignant melanoma to metastasize by treating the malignant melanoma as if it were a minor skin rash or a temporary case of teenage acne?

      • anne55

        This has been something that has existed throughout recorded human history. Homosexual behaviors even exist in the animal world.

        • Knowledge Transfer

          Rape; pillage; plunder; murder; theft; arson; etc. etc. have always existed. Nevertheless, we don’t publicly celebrate such evils save for the grave publicly celebrated evil known as the CRIME AGAINST NATURE [SODOMY] which has through premeditated “homosexual” pretense and propaganda [hocus-pocus and houdinism] has morphed into a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. Wake up!

          • anne55

            Remember the Bible’s admonition to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself” and “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

            Love is greater than hope or faith.

            I think that includes everyone.

          • Knowledge Transfer

            You are so easy and so lost. Love can never mean making the loved one easy and comfortable in GRAVE sin especially grave publicly celebrated sin. It can always only mean the opposite by leading or driving the loved one out of or away from GRAVE sin. Thus, pampering fruitless and fatal perversion by pacifying lifeless and lethal perverts isn’t love. It’s hate! Ezekiel 33:8-9 is instructive: “If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his ways he [the wicked man] shall die from his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death. But if you warn the wicked man, trying to turn him from his ways, and he refuses to turn from his ways, he will die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself.”

        • eddiestardust

          But are humans just animals or are we different….

          • anne55

            Scientifically speaking, we ARE part of the animal world.

        • Knowledge Transfer

          Wrong! And 2+2 isn’t always 4.

        • Knowledge Transfer

          You have to lower yourself to the level of soulless animals to justify your pathetic perversion. Therefore, you are inhumane and dehumanized.

          • anne55

            You don’t give “soulless” animals enough credit.

          • Knowledge Transfer

            You are a soulless animal. You are so low that you could walk under the belly of “the” serpent while wearing a top hat.

          • stillnotregistering

            and you, knowledge transfer, stand in judgment slinging arrows …

          • Knowledge Transfer

            If you don’t like being the target, stop pampering grave publicly celebrated evil and stop pacifying grave publicly celebrating evil doers. We have not only the irrefutable right but even more importantly the immutable responsibility to rebuke vs. salute evil in order to protect the good from the evil.

          • stillnotregistering

            Readings skills need brushing up knowledge transfer?

            Where did i pamper or pacify evil doers?

            Or do you mean YOU, who goes around judging others, and admitting it (lmao, “if you don’t like being the target”)! We’re commanded not to judge, still you do it, what does that make you? Disobedient, for starters.

          • Knowledge Transfer

            If we can’t judge, how then can we forgive since forgiving requires making judgments to forgive? Do you practice; promote or salute sodomy – the homosexual monogamy – and the infamous Crime Against Nature which has grown into a Crime Against Humanity?

            The massively distorted concoction of “Judge Not” only applies to one’s private sins which are between the sinner and God. Judging people based on perceptions or appearances without proof is wrong as in “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” False judgments can destroy someone’s good name and reputation which are irreplaceable. “Judge NOT” means refusing to gossip and spread rumors which are false or unproven. “Judge Not” deals with private sin.

            Likewise, when sin [especially GRAVE SIN] is publicly celebrated, we are called to judge. Otherwise, those who display silence and cowardice will in turn be judged because they made grave sin easier. When grave sin is treated as if it wasn’t grave sin, or not sin at all, then all lesser sins become all the more abundant. Eventually good and evil become indistinguishable and pandemonium [the capital city of HELL] reigns supreme.

            Clearly, your original post to me proved that soothing the insolent and impenitent grave sin of SODOMY – one of the 3 sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance – is your motivation. I’m sure that your answer to the second question cited above will prove me correct.

            I just judged you according to Ezekiel 33: 8-9 [among many other Biblical certitudes] which states: ” If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die [meaning going to Hell], and you do not speak put to dissuade the wicked man from his ways he shall die from his guilt,, but I will hold you responsible for his death. But if you warn the wicked man, trying to turn him from his ways, and he refuses to turn from his ways, he will die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself.”

            Obviously, then, JUDGING IS LOVING! What you know – aside from common opinion which is often times prone to and grounded in hearsay, sensation and habit and which, therefore, can’t be trusted to be grounded in irrefutable truth- could fit into the head of a pin with enough room left over for each of the 7 billion + world wide inhabitants each to own 100 quadrillion 859 centillion square mile farms.

          • stillnotregistering

            you may have the last word … smh

          • Knowledge Transfer

            God has the first and last word.

          • Knowledge Transfer

            Evil aggressors thrive on appeasement. Appeasement is cowardice. We are called to wage war against evil so that evil learns how to fear good. Some people respond to the kiss; some require good swift kicks properly placed; others prefer the sword.

        • Beth Van

          Homosexual behaviors, yes, but even the pagans only considered it an alternative sexual activity, something “on the side”, so to speak, not a replacement for heterosexual sex and marriage.

      • anne55

        There are brain differences between gay and straight men. I don’t know what research has been done on lesbian women, but I do know there has been research on men. When a baby is born, the first thing you look at is male or female? In most instances the baby grows up to be the sex they are identified at birth. Physical sexual anatomy occurs very early on in embryo development. But, there is a whole other aspect of sexual development that occurs later on in embryonic development and that is the effects of hormones and chemicals on the brain. Who knows what happens? Researchers may have some answers but I am not aware of the research on this. All I know is that fetal sexual development is more complex than it might appear and it also has an effect on the developing brain. Many parents report that their ‘different’ children expressed these differences from a very, very young age. The homeless and suicide rate, particularly among transgendered youth, is particularly high — and much appears related to society’s unaccepting attitudes toward them. This would seem VERY unChristian to me.

        Even Pope Francis says:

        Quote” “Pope Francis put his shoulder to the doors of the Catholic Church and shoved them open a little wider Friday, calling for the church to be more tolerant in practice while not changing any official doctrines.

        He urged priests around the world to be more accepting of gays and lesbians, divorced Catholics and other people living in what the church considers “irregular” situations.
        “A pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws … as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives,” Francis writes in a sweeping paper outlining his stance on family matters.
        He urges more common sense and less unthinking following of rules.
        “By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and growth,” he writes.” End Quote.

        Pope to church: Be more accepting of divorced Catholics, gays and lesbians
        By Richard Allen Greene, CNN
        Updated 4:22 PM ET, Fri April 8, 2016
        Pope Francis urges greater acceptance of homosexuals

        • Knowledge Transfer

          Pretense and propaganda is all you have. You are impervious to reason; lacking in a functioning conscience and invulnerable to regret. You exaggerate exceptions to eviscerate norms. Psalm 97:10 says it best: “The Lord loves those who hate evil.” The sin of Sodom is one of the few sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. It is unadulterated evil. Sodomy is to normal, natural and healthy sex what Anorexia is to normal, natural and healthy dieting. It is the equivalent of playing in unflushed toilets.

          Pope Francis isn’t a pope. He is a pervert who aides assists and abets perversion. He is a liberation theology practitioner which is a fancy term for a COMMUNIST. Also, he is Jesuit – an order that has in the main been transformed from the Society of Jesus into the Society of Judas. He and far too many priests; prelates and so called princes of the church now can’t be trusted to lead groups even in silent prayer. Referencing Jorge Bergoglio [aka Captain Confusion] as someone for whom you use to justify the unjustifiable is evidence of your convolutional confusion.

          Christian love means leading or driving the loved one out of and away from perdition not making them easy and comfortable in publicly celebrated GRAVE SIN that when left in a state of insolence and impenitence will guarantee perdition.

          • anne55

            Well, I might say the same about your viewpoint. I am basing my comments on research. Are you doing the same? Or only on your gut feelings?

            Do you know what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about some of the sites you read as good news?

            “WORLDNETDAILY”:

            WorldNetDaily is an online publication founded and run by Joseph Farah that claims to pursue truth, justice and liberty. But in fact, its pages are devoted to manipulative fear-mongering and outright fabrications designed to further the paranoid, gay-hating, conspiratorial and apocalyptic visions of Farah and his hand-picked contributors from the fringes of the far-right and fundamentalist worlds.”

            AND concerning Breitbart:

            “Since its founding in 2007, Breitbart News Network has grown to become one of the most popular news outlets on the right.

            Over the past year however, the outlet has undergone a noticeable shift toward embracing ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right. Racist ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant ideas –– all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as the “Alt-Right.”

            The Alt-Right is a loose set of far-right ideologies at the core of which is a belief that “white identity” is under attack through policies prioritizing multiculturalism, political correctness and social justice and must be preserved, usually through white-identified online communities and physical ethno-states.

            The Alt-Right has received a lot of mainstream media attention over the past six months or so with media outlets such as the Washington Post and the National Review covering the subject.”

            And “Eagle Rising” (from Media Bias Fact Checking site):
            QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

            A questionable source exhibits any of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence. Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. See all Questionable sources.

            Bias: Extreme Right

            Notes: Eagle Rising is an extreme right wing biased news website. Most information is sourced to other right wing or questionable sources and there are numerous conspiracy theories espoused. Eagle rising has been cited as fake news by other sources.

            Me now:

            For someone who’s name is Knowledge Transfer, may I suggest reading from a greater variety of sources for mind expansion?

          • Knowledge Transfer

            You need a brain transplant.

          • anne55

            Hey, you can look up what sources people read simple by clicking on their name. Unless you make it private, it is all right there. I’m always interested in how people form their world views. Seeing what they read says a lot.

          • Knowledge Transfer

            anne55 and perversion.

          • stillnotregistering

            “For someone who’s name is Knowledge Transfer, may I suggest reading from a greater variety of sources for mind expansion?”

            … says the guys who cites Southern Poverty Law Center as though they were credible or unbiased.

            lmao

      • anne55

        A form of this article is available from multiple news sources, but I am printing just one.

        Study Says Brains of Gay Men and Women Are Similar
        Brain scans provide evidence that sexual orientation is biological

        Scientific American
        By Nikhil Swaminathan on June 16, 2008

        I am only copying a part of the article, but you can look it up.

        Quote:
        “Researchers using brain scans have found new evidence that biology—and not environment—is at the core of sexual orientation. Scientists at the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA that gay men and straight women share similar traits—most notably in the size of their brains and the activity of the amygdala—an area of the brain tied to emotion, anxiety and aggression. The same is true for heterosexual men and lesbians.

        Study author, neurologist Ivanka Savic–Berglund, says such characteristics would develop in the womb or in early infancy, meaning that psychological or environmental factors played little or no role.

        “This is yet another in a long series of observations showing there’s a biological reason for sexual orientation,” says Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who was not involved in the study. “It’s not just a reflection of people’s behavior, nor is it a choice, nor is it something in their rearing environment. [The study] shows that it’s something that people are born with.”

        This article also says the same is true of lesbians and heterosexual men. That was news to me.

  • anne55

    It may, or may not, be a problem with traditional infertility. Probably it is typically not.

    Here is what the NYTimes had to say. And, FYI, even for heterosexual couples treatment is often not paid for…it depends on the state you live in.

    Should Same-Sex Couples Receive Fertility Benefits?
    By STEPHANIE FAIRYINGTON NOVEMBER 2, 2015 2:55 PM

    Quote:”“In my opinion, it’s unfair because they are treating same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples,” Dr. Amato said. “Same-sex couples have to pay for the 12 or six months of trying on their own. The insurance companies are making a distinction between what they would call ‘medical infertility’ and ‘a medical problem for lack of a male partner,’ and I would argue that ‘lack of a male partner’ should be enough to justify an indication for medical treatment.”

    To be sure, many heterosexual couples are also forced to endure the heavy financial burden of fertility treatment because their insurance companies won’t pay for it. Only 15 states, including New York, California, Illinois and Texas, mandate some form of fertility coverage, and many insurance companies don’t cover any fertility treatments.

    “In the U.S., about 85 percent of all infertility care is paid out of pocket,” said Judith F. Daar, a professor of law at Whittier Law School in Costa Mesa, Calif., and chairwoman of the reproductive medicine society’s ethics committee. “And only about 50 percent of all people who experience infertility actually visit professionals to follow up, because of the financial stranglehold.”

    • Knowledge Transfer

      Is an electrical extension cord with two redundant plugs or two redundant receptacles the same as and equal to an electrical extension cord with one complimentary plug and one complimentary receptacle? Is redundancy ever the same as and equal to complimentary?

      • anne55

        What I’m saying is, just because it is a gay or lesbian couple involved, you can’t assume there is not an infertility issue. Likely not in 99% of cases. But, you don’t know peoples’ medical histories. AND, I agree with doctor Amato’s point of view.

        • Knowledge Transfer

          Can an extension cord with two redundant plugs or two redundant receptacles ever work?????

          • anne55

            We are talking about people, not objects.

          • Knowledge Transfer

            It’s called logic. Here’s more logic: Can two redundant vaginas ever be the same as and equal to one complimentary vagina and one complimentary penis? Can two redundant penises ever be the same as and equal to one complimentary penis and one complimentary vagina?

          • anne55

            Your logic, not the law. Look, no one is denying that two people who love each other have the same anatomy. That does not mean they won’t be good parents. Apples and oranges.

          • Knowledge Transfer

            Answer the question asked. Sodomy isn’t love. It’s hate because it is always fruitless and often fatal. Normal men , as an example, love their fathers; grandfathers; brothers; teammates; male coaches and teachers etc. but suck love would never consider sodomy as an expression of such love. Only the moronic or malevolent would conjure otherwise.

            When it comes to sex; [actually anti-sex] reproduction; parenting; adopting; role modeling; and unlimited and unsupervised access to children – the homosexual prey of first choice – so called homosexuality is what equality always isn’t; what love never is; and what normal, natural and healthy can’t ever be!

          • anne55

            Then how do you explain the science of biological brain differences in people (from my earlier post)? Or all the research that says kids in homosexual families turn out just fine?

          • Knowledge Transfer

            All of your bogus fact-free claims have been thoroughly debunked. None of them have been validated by credible peer reviewed consensus. If you don’t have the facts, you simply make up facts. Children raised by homosexuals are groomed by homosexuals and suffer terribly as a result. It is premeditated madness and orchestrated child abuse focusing on only what the homosexuals want not what children need. Two men can never become a father and a mother. Two women can never become a mother and a father. Such a convoluted concoction is moronic; malevolent and Marxist.

            One of the 45 goals written as part of the Communist Takeover of America [read into the Congressional Record on January 11, 1963] is: “present homosexuality, promiscuity and degeneracy as normal, natural and healthy”. Of course, with homosexuality we receive promiscuity and degeneracy in one perverted and poisoned morality wrecking package aimed at ruining the USA from the inside out. Just a few cogent questions: 1) if homosexuality was normal, natural and healthy, why pray tell would it ever need to be presented as if it was normal, natural and healthy – wouldn’t such a presentation be superfluous and wasteful? 2) if presenting homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy was good for America, why would it be a key goal within a plan for the Communist Takeover of America? 3) homosexuals [men and women combined] represent a puny 1.6% of the general population…is it normal, natural and healthy for 0.8% [homosexual men] of the general population to be vagina-phobic; and is it normal, natural and healthy for 0.8% [homosexual women] of the general population to be penis-phobic? 4) if 98.4% of the general population were homosexuals, how long would it take for humanity to make itself extinct?

            You want to force fit something that can’t ever fit. You want something that will always be abnormal, unnatural and unhealthy to become normal, natural and healthy so that you can “feel”
            normal, natural and healthy. Yet your feelings aren’t based on facts. When your feelings are not based on facts, such feelings don’t exist. Forcing yourselves on innocent children to make yourself feel better is selfish; self-consumed and terribly wrong. Why would [save for the moronic; malevolent and Marxist] anyone dare to conjure allowing children to be taken by abnormal, unnatural and unhealthy homosexuals when 98.4% of the general population are normal, natural and healthy as compared to the always fruitless and often fatal 1.6%?

            The article in question shows two giddy homosexual men with the we can’t wait to start grooming look on their face awaiting the surrogate to give birth. Since homosexual men sometimes have sex with women and visa versa, why didn’t these perverts simply have sex with the surrogate and avoid the other superfluous IVF steps? Also, if homosexual men are so proud about being homosexuals, why do they often times fly into rages when someone merely describes the principal homosexual act? I refer to the Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson who made a benign comment: “As a man I prefer a female vagina etc,”. Rather than complimenting Phil Robertson for helping explain what drives homosexual pride, the sodomites and those who salute sodomy, tried to get him fired or removed from the Duck Dynasty cast leading to a huge homosexual failure. If homosexuals are so proud of being homosexuals, why did they react as if they were ashamed of what it means to be a homosexual?

          • Knowledge Transfer

            Two men can never be one mother and one father. Two women can never be one mother and one father. Only the moronic or malevolent would conjure such abuse.

          • Knowledge Transfer

            Perverts aren’t people when they practice perversion. They are inverted and perverted anti-sexual degenerates.

          • anne55

            That doesn’t sound like it belongs on this Christian site.

          • Knowledge Transfer

            Truth is Christian. Shinning the light of day on evil liars is what charity looks like.
            Playing nice with evil is evil. Evil needs to learn how to fear good because when evil
            fears good there will be peace on earth and good will toward men.

        • Knowledge Transfer

          Convoluted comment.

      • Sonny’s Mom

        Thank you! I have often thought of this image… place two electrical plugs together and see what happens. When no electrical spark is generated, is that “discrimination”?

        • Knowledge Transfer

          Thank you! There are innumerable other valid logic based examples.

  • chrissymann

    Look at the look on these men’s faces. The devil can’t wait to get his hands on the baby. Deplorable, Disgusting, Reprehensible and Beyond. 🙁

    • Wow. What a wicked, evil imagination you have. And you obviously have superhuman powers. The “look” on their faces is an expression of joy. The fact that you see it as the “devil” simply means you are homophobic, and ignorant of the fact that your family and friends are populated with homosexuals, men and women. And when you express these homophobic thoughts, you are hurting them and causing them severe emotional pain.

  • Oh the bigotry! How dare you say the human anatomy was made a certain way for certain reasons.

  • Sonny’s Mom

    At least they’re finally being honest. The radical lgbt have ALWAYS called us “breeders”.

    • Who exactly are the “radical lgbt”? ALWAYS? Really? Always? Breeders? Since society expects married, heterosexual couples to reproduce, isn’t the term breeder simply accurate?

  • Loren Miller

    I thought the USA Today article was a joke. America doesn’t have a sin problem; America has a critical thinking problem. It is really scary that a national news publication can seriously conflate incompatibility with infertility?!?!? This is grade school biology?!?!? And the world calls Christians anti-science!?!?!?

  • Gary

    If you can’t conceive a baby naturally, God is trying to tell you that reproducing is a bad idea for you.

    • You are so right. And God is surely telling all these heterosexual couples who force their insurance companies and employers to spends many thousands of dollars trying to interfere in God’s obvious wish that those heterosexual couple NOT procreate should just shut up and accept God’s admonition. Also, those infertile heterosexual couples should NOT be allowed to adopt, because that too is a further attempt to usurp God’s desire that they not become parents. In fact, the Bible explicitly states that the act of sex is only to be for the specific purpose of procreation, so all these sinful permanently infertile couples are deliberately sinning, therefore should have their marriages annulled. Also, before couples are allowed to marry, no matter the age, they should be required to have fertility tests. If they pass the fertility tests, they have two years to reproduce before their marriage license lapses, their non-productive marriages dissolved. What? No? That’s not what you meant? But that IS what you are saying. You can’t have it both ways. The fact is homosexual men and women have been parents since homo sapiens have been reproducing. And this piece is an unabashed homophobic pile of subhuman feces. The overwhelmingly majority of married heterosexuals reproduce without much forethought, just being aware it is expected of them. The result is unwanted children who are emotionally starved and psychologically abused, physically abused, abandoned, and unfortunately, sometimes killed. Any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, who has a persistent desire to be parents should be celebrated, not condemned.

  • This article is on target. You are so right. And God is surely telling all these heterosexual couples who force their insurance companies and employers to spends many thousands of dollars trying to interfere in God’s obvious wish that those heterosexual couple NOT procreate should just shut up and accept God’s admonition. Also, those infertile heterosexual couples should NOT be allowed to adopt, because that too is a further attempt to usurp God’s desire that they not become parents. In fact, the Bible explicitly states that the act of sex is only to be for the specific purpose of procreation, so all these sinful permanently infertile couples are deliberately sinning, therefore should have their marriages annulled. Also, before couples are allowed to marry, no matter the age, they should be required to have fertility tests. If they pass the fertility tests, they have two years to reproduce before their marriage license lapses, their non-productive marriages dissolved. What? No? That’s not what you meant? But that IS what you are saying. You can’t have it both ways. The fact is homosexual men and women have been parents since homo sapiens have been reproducing. And this piece is an unabashed homophobic pile of subhuman feces. The overwhelmingly majority of married heterosexuals reproduce without much forethought, just being aware it is expected of them. The result is unwanted children who are emotionally starved and psychologically abused, physically abused, abandoned, and unfortunately, sometimes killed. Any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, who has a persistent desire to be parents should be celebrated, not condemned.

  • wimvincken

    Sorry, there are no words needed to know that there is no issue of fertility between a couple of two men. It’s common sense.

Inspiration
Have Hope! God Can Turn Your Messes Into Order
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us