Posted on 12/10/2006 2:01:49 PM PST by wagglebee
Is there a more obvious product of heterosexual behavior than the creation of children? If so then isn't it somewhat peculiar that those who shun the behavior of heterosexuality so deeply crave the product that it brings?
This week as I read the news that Mary Cheney, the 37 year old daughter of the Vice-President, was pregnant, I had many such questions running through my head.
I'm not supposed to mind you.
I'm not supposed to be allowed to think such things.
I'm not supposed to openly wonder what such conclusions might mean. Such wondering might bash the belief structure that men and women are completely interchangeable with one another. Yet I wonder them nonetheless. (Call it an ever growing desire to know the truth of the matter.)
Let's face it in America today if we bring up such obvious inconsistencies we are immediately branded and labeled a bigot. I was repeatedly labeled such this week for asking six additional questions arising from the fake act of two women supposedly "becoming parents." Argue with me all you like - the truth is Mary Cheney's baby will share DNA with Mary and the male DNA donor. Genetically he/she will share nothing with Cheney's partner Heather Poe.
So here's the next item I'm not allowed to bring up... Two women who desire children can not achieve satisfaction, because their sexual union is incapable of producing it. And this is fully true - even if all parties involved have healthy, fully functional reproductive biology.
When I mentioned this earlier in the week homosexual bloggers like Andrew Sullivan took exception with the notion and accused me of being hypocritical of the issue when it comes to infertile couples. Yet it is the critics who are being inconsistent.
If a man and wife struggle with infertility, it is because of biological breakdown. What God designed to work a certain way short circuited. He has low sperm count. She doesn't produce eggs as she should. They have trouble getting the two together. The biological dysfunction is not voluntary, they attempt sexual intercourse, time and time again but because of the faulty genetics in the machinery they are unable to complete the conception. And should medicine ever develop a cure for whatever that specific breakdown might be - there will be no problem for the couple, through natural sexual engagement to have another child.
Not so with Cheney and her partner. If they were to choose to engage in sex acts a thousand times over, their biological machinery would never produce what is needed - but for a different reason. There is no dysfunction in this case. Instead the reason the sexual engagement does not work is because the necessary parts are not even present. It is the equivalent of screwing a nut onto a bolt, by using a hammer. They just don't fit.
So after a cacophony of naughty e-mails being sent to me describing thousands of positions a male participant or a turkey baster can be used to impregnate a woman who only has had sex with women, I'm supposed to be intimidated so as to no longer ask these questions.
But they're good questions.
And doesn't the sick attempt at humor reveal what the purpose of my questions was from the very beginning?
In normal relationships the privacy and intimacy of the act of procreation is a spiritual and beautiful thing. In the sexual acts of women who sleep together that adequacy will be something they always long for and never have the satisfaction of knowing, thus undermining the fidelity of what they believe their relationship to be.
In our culture we don't think about our actions from the viewpoint of the One who created us. Rather we obsess about our rights to do what we want, how we want, and as often as we want.
But children are never about what we want. Raising them is about supplying what they need. Britney Spears does no one a service when she gets pregnant on the cheap in a marriage that doesn't last only to end up not providing a father for her children while flashing her nether region for paparazzi. Like wise how moral is it for Mary Cheney to bring a child into society who from the outcome is told that her second mommy is the equivalent of a true father?
There is a reason for homosexual activists to have kids; it is part of the great deception that no one is to question. By having children in the picture the attempt to complete the circle and to convince the world that such a family unit is normal is all important.
Since we do not live in a theocracy it is unreasonable to maintain that Americans will not all make the same choice when it comes to morality and sexual behavior. However that reality has nothing whatsoever to do with whether sexual behavior should be considered moral that extends beyond moral boundaries.
And since homosexuals insist upon desiring limitless sexual activity, not governed by provincial rules and traditions, why would they want children?
Children are the undeniable product of the superiority of heterosexual engagement. And since homosexual behavior in large terms wishes to throw off the weight of conventional sexuality, I am curious as to why they would desire to reinforce the inferiority of their sexual behavior.
And no amount of hate-mail from small minded radical activists will stifle the curiosity from which I seek to learn.
Children are the undeniable product of the superiority of heterosexual engagement. And since homosexual behavior in large terms wishes to throw off the weight of conventional sexuality, I am curious as to why they would desire to reinforce the inferiority of their sexual behavior.
Perfect!
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Thank you for that post; I am so glad that someone can articulate what I feel on this particular subject. Well done!
"Instead the reason the sexual engagement does not work is because the necessary parts are not even present. It is the equivalent of screwing a nut onto a bolt, by using a hammer. They just don't fit."
Incorrect. There have been several articles on FR talking about how scientists are developing ways to turn female eggs into sperm and vice versa. So down the road it could be conceivable for two women to "create" a kid with their own DNA.
"There is a reason for homosexual activists to have kids; it is part of the great deception that no one is to question. By having children in the picture the attempt to complete the circle and to convince the world that such a family unit is normal is all important."
Oh please. This smacks of Hiterly's "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" charges. I'd chalk up the desire as being more personal - wating a "normal" family for themselves rather than a worldwide effort of brainwashing.
Great article. Thanks for posting it.
For a long time I didn't comment on Mary Cheney out of respect for her family and the fact that she kept a low profile and didn't seem to make her homosexuality an issue. She seems to be abandoning that position.
Why would they want a "normal" family when they despise "normal families"?
Why Would Gays Want Children?
For the same reasons heterosexuals want children, I would guess.
Next to the limitless sexual activity, they expect the rest of us to pin a medal on them, and so assuage their guilty consciences.
Children who are "raised" by gays are sure to be the victims of physical and mental abuse. What are gays going to teach a child, the various techniques of sodomy? How to spread disease? How to be a normal parent, who reproduces and therefore propagates homo sapiens on this planet? It should be illegal for gays to have a child in their custody.
The left's agenda for years has been the complete destruction of the traditional family. They pushed through the "sexual revolution" to negate the need for marriage and there is still no emphasis on heterosexual marriage. They want homosexual marriage because it will "cheapen" the meaning of marriage for the rest of us. Same with children, the push is for heterosexuals to enjoy sex, but not have children.
Incorrect. It is a fact the sexual engagement does not work because the necessary parts are not even present. That is a fact. What you've done here is changed the subject and blurred the lines. You can talk about all the down the road possibilities that, through technology we might be able to do this or do that. What the writer said is true: The sexual engagement does not work because the necessary parts are not even present.
A question worth posing: why are scientists wasting likely public money turning eggs into sperm?
It's also worth noting that no male will ever be conceived by such a practice.
Good that you used the term "create" instead of "procreate" because without the proper anatomical parts, it ain't gonna happen "naturally". That was the point of this article.
Scientiest have also realized that they can cull ova from aborted female fetuses. Then the psychological implications of such a move, set in. Offspring of such a match, when seeking to find their biological mother, would have to contend with the fact that she had never been born.
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
What a preposterous statement; and that's saying something considering all the crap that's been written about this subject this week.
So they can pretend they are normal.
This article takes the cake for being the most outrageous article of the week.
Lighten up...this stuff is hysterical.
How? Because she chose to have a baby?
Preposterous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.