Married, with Children

What could be more natural than a lesbian with child?

Homosexuals argue for acceptance based on the naturalness of their condition -- "we were born gay", "this is who we are". The argument is basically that homosexuality has a natural integrity to it (notwithstanding that the plumbing is "all wrong"), and therefore, there are human rights associated with it. (They do not argue, for example, that homosexuality is a disorder, that like a disability, nonetheless has rights associated with it.)

One might think those arguing for the inherent naturalness of homosexuality would be quick to relinquish all rights to children. "Of course, we realize that since we are arguing for the integrity of homosexuality as a natural condition, we disavow all rights and interests in children." But one would be wrong. They want the rights that attach exclusively to their orientation (same-sex marriage being the plum), plus, they want children. They are quick to argue, in fact, that many of them do have children.

Exactly. Consider this. 1. Homosexuals can, and do, procreate (an act of ideological "backsliding"?). 2. Many more homosexuals desire children. 3. Homosexuals are, biologically, indistinguishable from other males and females, i.e., they're equipped with the same sperm and eggs and procreative abilities. All of this suggests that homosexuals are, objectively, best viewed not as a separate category of persons with special rights; they are not "them", they are "us", with misdirected or disordered sexualities.

Rights-obsessed readers will scream that to suggest disorder is unkind and discriminatory. But what if it's true? What would you call a woman who has no interest in men, is passionately attracted to another woman, yet just as strongly desires to be a mother with child?