We hear this all too often: fags can't make babies therefore we can fuck with their rights (or something along those lines).The bigots who hate gays are going to hate gays no matter what we say, do, even if we achieved the impossibility of actually getting pregos and having little gay bambinos on our own without the DNA of the opposite sex. So this argument that is being presented by the bigots can be rightfully ignore and dismissed because this "breeding test" of sorts is obviously so unrealistic to achieve that of course the bigots are going to use it as a means to deny gays the rights that are afforded to everyone else. The use of this test is by no means reflective of an interest in procreation and replacing the human species, but it is due to a deep seeded hatred and in most cases a pathological anxiety of homosexuality.
Bottom line we homos know that we cannot have babies with each other. (Duh!) And that's actually fine by us. Being a homosexual man I crave and I am sexually attractive to the masculine male and all of what that entails which includes the sexual functions of the masculine male. Since I can only speak about male homosexuality I would say: fine, we cannot have babies because we are men and that's what I am attracted to. Men do not have babies, women do. Men who are attracted to persons who can have babies are indeed heterosexuals because part of the woman's sexual functions is that of giving birth to little people. Being attracted to men means being attracted to all the attributes of a man which include the inability to have children and instead has the capacity to ejaculate semen (and isn't that what gay men love?).
So if I or any other homosexual man want our partners to actually have our babies we cease to remain homosexual and thus we become attracted to the sexual functions of the woman and not of that of the man's. And from there you are now an "ex-gay" or a former homosexual, or as the bigots like to call a person "who has escaped the evil homosexual lifestyle." But if this quackery were to be true than by all means nature would demand that homosexual men become sperm donors by changing their brain chemistry in order to pound some pussy and produce some fetuses (who are more valued by the bigots than humans who are already alive and born). But nature seems to not be interested whether or not gay men can hold an erection long enough to spew some come into a woman's vajayjay. Nature has hot wired us homos to instead be sexually aroused with those of the same sex, is it a cruel experiment by nature? Probably, but again I must stress that nature holds no moral ethics unlike human creatures. Nature does what it wants whether some douchebag celibate hermit in a religious dress and pointy hat likes it or not. And since Nature lacks human moral ethics we can therefore not try to impose any and just let it be.
We can be more productive if we just accept the facts of Nature and just move on. Just accept the fact that gay men cannot have babies. Yes we accept that fact, and yes we are okay with that because it is part of what it is to be gay. But we cannot accept this fact as some sort of means test in order to acquire rights. Rights are innate and unalienable and derive from Human Natural Law which dictates that human progress is centered around having better living conditions by prescribing that laws of the land be accepting of human nature and able to change and reform itself to better accommodate all human beings with different characteristics that do not cause harm but those that arouse human stability (like marriage). Ascribing human breeding as the sole purpose of Human Natural Law misses the point of Human Natural Law because we therefore deny basic human rights to anybody that doesn't breed, which would include heterosexuals who for whatever reason could not or were not able to have children of their own.
The breeding test is just another meager attempt by the bigots to claw at whatever straw they can in order for them to feel religious and socially superior to fags. Plain and simple.
