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.
I don't need your answers. I already know you're wrong.
What you fail to realize is that I've actually read what ex-gays have to say about homosexuality. And you refuse to read what ex-gays have to say about homosexuality.
You ask her again, because every mom and dad of a large family I know has had to deal with that condescending garbage.
BWAHHHHHHHH
And you think we are nuts?? Oh my that is hysterical!!
Then by all means, continue demonstrating a profound ignorance on the subject.
I'm not the one who has reams of links to homosexual articles, bud.
And calling me a homosexual activist just shows how utterly vacuous your arguments are.
I'm an advocate of HUMAN DECENCY.
She's having a baby; leave her alone.
Unless, of course, your own life is so miserable you need to beat up on others to make youself feel important.
LOL. Do you have any idea how bizzare you sound telling me that I don't know my own sister as well as you - a complete stranger - do? :-)
Nah... there is no Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John in front of them. I am in no way suggesting that Jesus approved of gays, or endorsed the gay lifestyle.
What I am suggesting is that the obsession on gays when Jesus certainly did not obsess on that one issue by certain Christians is a bit bizarre. Jesus spoke about idolatry, helping the poor, worship, healing, prayer alot. The tone of people makes it seem like the gospels were filled with nothing other than Jesus screaming about the homos.
The new director of the Christian Coalition resigned just after taking office. He wanted to do christian outreach, ministry to the poor, witnessing to the less fortunate and the like. He was told, Homos and abortion are our gig and we aren't branching out. He lasted a month.
David Kuo, who was bashed alot here, worked for Falwell, Robertson, and John Ashcroft. Before he did the White House Faith based thing, he decided to start ministering to the poor. He is opposed to abortion and homosexuality, but was discouraged and dismayed when that was all anybody wanted to deal with it, and to just skip Jesus' message. He isn't a liberal. It's ironic that you are now considered a liberal if you believe that homosexuality isn't the greatest, no, the only sin we have to worry about. I am rambling, but quite frankly this crap is annoying. There are people in the neighborhood of every poster here bitching about the homos who need a warm blanket, a kind word, a hot meal, to be served, and to be loved.
Hating others is like junk food for the spirit, it does not nourish the soul.
Ohhh... Good one. When rational discussion goes against you start the name calling. That will convince people. LOL!!! (Tip: that works MUCH better on DU than FR)
Then I have to thank you in advance for not wasting any more of my time.
Uhhhh actually, we live in a Republic.
I've encountered it three times in the past year from European tourists. They are afraid to travel into America's heartland.
Take it, leave it, etc.
The truth is that homosexuality is abnormal and sick. (How many sex partners does the average male homosexual have in his lifetime?) The truth is that kids deserve to be raised by a loving mother and a loving father.
That's not "prejudice and bigotry," whether you call it that or not. It's just truth. You can run from it, but you can't hide from it, and neither can we as a society.
It is a free country - if you want to promote bigotry and prejudice - you are free to.
If you were not insignificant, you'd be dangerous.
I'm not trying to reach you - you are unreachable. I'm voicing my distaste for your seeming titilation with prejudice and bigotry toward others. And absolutely, I will continue to.
I believe you are right. My daughter has 5 children and I've even heard those same remarks coming from their own great-grandparents no less!
FR food fight ping ;^)
Yes, the majority poster to this thread posting pro homosexual propaganda is certainly an activist.
I'm an advocate of HUMAN DECENCY.
No you're not. Encouraging people to take on lifestyle **choices** that kill them 20 years early is not humane or decent.
FR food fight ping ;^)
On that note, I'm off to work.
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.