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.
Beleive me, Howlin, you of all people judge aplenty!
And that sense of good judgement, btw is why you are here. Because you were troubled by Clinton -- you judged "that man", and found him seriously wanting, a danger to us all.
Even Chirst "judged": he tossed the money lenders out of the Temple -- that was a real active "judgement"! Pretty harsh too, if you were some poor money lender trying to earn the week's food to be tossed out so rudely.
Sorry, you can find some other way to excuse your own lack of judgement in this case, but that saw will not fly.
And you also want to tell me (if the above is correct) that it is NOT prejudice and bigotry?
LOL-LOL-LOL
Now that song will play in my head for the rest of the night or until I "hear" another.
Ted Haggard screamed alot about the gays too. In my life, I don't have any close friends who are gay. However, I also don't obsess on it. It's not like I tell my wife that I am contemplating divorce because of the gays, they are making it really hard for me to stay married. In fact, I don't even say that we should put our son up for adoption, because now that Mary Cheney is having a kid, it's just ruined the whole experience for me.
But then again, that's just me.
Oh, I see........there's a TEAM that goes around euthaniziging people.
Is that similiar to the TEAM that goes around telling sick people they HAVE to live? :-)
Doubt it.
I wasn't talking about Mary Cheney.
You mean on this thread?
Because some of at FR are actually worried about how Free Republic looks to the outside world.
If nobody knocks down these ridiculous posts, people think we AGREE with them.
Must be gay! Who knew?
However, the government needs to draw the line at laws and ordinances that force others to believe religious doctrine. Thought control, belief control is a very dangerous policy, ask any who fought Hitler. Societies cannot be forced to ignore reality in favor of some theorcratic domination of belief system - that makes absolutely no sense.
Little Richard. :)
I doubt you will understand what I am saying - but I'll give it a try - for the record.
Anyone ever notice that homosexuals making babies is "nobody else's business," but a married Christian couple with 4 or 6 or 8 or 10 kids quickly discovers that that is everyone else's business ... "You do know what causes that, don't you?" ... "You're done now, right?" ... "You know how to keep that from happening any more, don't you?" ... "Can't you just tell him, 'No,' dear?" ... ad nauseam.
We have a perverted, sick and dying culture when abnormal people having children by unnatural means is "nobody else's business," but normal, happy, well-adjusted, married people having children the God-ordained way is a subject for public criticism and ridicule.
Who were you talking about?
Well, I "judge" that response to be not completely forthright, but taking it for what it is it says only that you admit to drinking the koolaid. Go to DU, then, that's a comfy home for the those thirsty for all the flava's.
You have no idea. I've met tourists who are afraid -- actually afraid to travel to the "red states."
That does happen all the time. In fact, I hand out condoms to anybody who has a minivan. It's just a breeding ground for large families. The extra seats means room for more kids.
Yes, good point. And there are millions of Americans that would cringe and truly feel sadness to read the posts in this thread. Loving people do not talk like that. I repeat myself - but I really doubt that they can even understand how out of touch they are.
True. And it's pretty telling, IMO; screaming like stuck pigs.
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.