One of the few intellectual buzzwords of the dark ages of the 1990s that has not declined in usage is heteronormative, or judging queers by the standards of normals. As in, "Who says marriage should only apply to man and woman?" This concept is going to eventually run into trouble, though, because it concedes that there are vast differences between homo and hetero behavior; it only says we shouldn't use that as a basis for different treatment.
However, the main thrust of the argument for gay marriage, etc., is that They're Just Like Us behaviorally -- except for same-sex desire -- and so, on a similarity basis, they should get to do whatever we get to do.
The solution that the supporters seem to be arriving at is using the approach of "boo heteronormativity" among those who know the score about gay deviance (gays among themselves, for example), at a hush-hush level, and shouting They're Just Like Us when addressing a broader audience that is naive or defiantly ignorant about gay deviance (like the liberal majority who've never been to a gay club and seen bodies pile into the designated "dark room" for faceless fondling, fellating, and fucking).
Gays are of course profoundly different from normal men and women, and not only in ways that are irrelevant to issues like gay marriage, gay adoption, or whatever. Their striking differences make them even less eligible for such privileges. Here I'll just illustrate the most obvious and relevant -- that they don't have a nurturing instinct.
First, girls begin training for motherhood early on. They just can't wait to cultivate their maternal instincts. In our society, one of the first outlets they find for this urge is taking care of dolls as though they were real babies. This is a perfect test case for whether gays have a nurturing instinct, as they do commonly play with dolls and other girly toys when they're little. However, in all articles and reports I've ever read, it's only been the fashion and beauty dolls that they were drawn to. Maybe they like to imagine that someday they will be the one enjoying the spotlight of attention, making all those other bitches jealous by looking so fierce.
They never say that they like to play with a different kind of girl's doll -- the one that simulates childcare. And it's not because there aren't any in supply. A huge hit among young Baby Boomer girls was the Betsy Wetsy doll, which wet itself after being fed some liquid, requiring the girls to change her clothes. During the late '80s or early '90s, any TV show I watched that targeted both boys and girls would always run a commercial for this doll:
Apparently Baby Alive is still going strong, and now comes in a variety of lines. The fact that girls pester their parents into buying this stuff, let alone eagerly play with it, befuddles my male mind. What's so fun about feeding a baby and changing its diaper? Maybe you could, like, feed it blood and worms and stuff -- that might be cool. Baby Dead-Alive! Something like that is how you'd have to market it to boys.
At any rate, these dolls are all part of the universal female fascination with mothering. However, since gays didn't play with these kind of dolls when they were little, we conclude that, unlike females, they have no real interest in nurturing children. We know they tend to be interested in dolls and girl's toys in general, though, so we've "controlled for" that. It is specifically the nurturing role that turns gays off of Betsy Wetsy and Baby Alive.
Some gay men continue to collect dolls into adulthood, but again they are the fashion/beauty type, not the childcare type. "Ewww, like omigod, that is such a breeder's toy."
From taking care of dolls, little girls graduate to the real thing -- babysitting -- as early as middle school. That is, back when people still trusted each other enough to hire babysitters. They still make up the vast majority of nannies, au pairs, etc. I googled around and found no mention of a stereotype about gays being more likely to work as babysitters, unlike gay designers or hairstylists. Not from gays themselves, not from normal guys making fun of gay differences, and not from women praising gays for their differences.
There are some gays who babysit, but they must not be more likely than normal men, who babysit as well. One of my babysitters growing up was a high school dude who spent his time teaching me and my brothers the make and model of various sports cars (his was a Datsun 280ZX, with t-tops), showing us The Terminator on home video, and other stuff meant to show us the ropes of guy-ness. Obviously not maternal like my chick babysitters sometimes were. From what accounts of gay babysitters I read, it didn't sound like they were into it for maternal reasons either.
I've already brought it up, but the very term "breeder" reveals the contempt that faggots have toward family formation and child-rearing. Now that they're trying to push for mainstreaming their deviance, they can only use it among themselves, lest the rest of the society get wise to what little regard they have for marriage, family, childcare, and so on. Normal females, from young to adult, refer to women with offspring by the affectionate term "mommies," not a boorish slur like "breeders."
I know it must seem like a joke that someone is bothering to provide multiple examples to prove that gays have no nurturing instinct, but that's the sick world we live in. Young people especially have no idea what gays are like; they just "support their rights" from a distance. Just 20 years ago, your only response to someone saying that gays should be able to adopt would've been, "What are you, fucking retarded?" Everyone would have understood what you meant. Now the audience of any debate or argument you get into will want to hear specific examples, and it's better that we have them ready in that case. From childhood through old age, gay males have zero interest in nurturing children.
That raises the question of why the tiny number who do adopt make the choice? I reflected on that in the post below. Basically, to obtain a steady source of emotional validation, and on top of that the status contest points -- "I just dare you bigots to look at me funny for adopting." That must also be why they become teachers -- not to nurture, but to become the star performer before the audience of students. "They love me, they really love me!" When it comes time to feed and change a baby, though, forget about it. That kid is going to grow up in a home without a maternal figure.