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.
No I would not criticize Chelsea Clinton. I do not get my kicks trashing politician's children.
It is perfectly OK to be prejudiced or bigoted towards "behavior". We show prejudice towards all manners of other anti-social behaviors, why can we not show prejudice against homosexual behavior?
First it is clearly anti-social as the behavior cannot sustain a society (which is the whole premise of the article.) Second, homosexuality is clearly a "behavior". Homosexuals are self-defined by "what they do" -- not who they are.
What in the world are you talking about? Are you saying you don't trust what ex-gays say about homosexuality? I've posted links from experts in the field as well.
And I won't stand by and defend a lifestyle I find repulsive because I support that person's father.
You've got quite a dirty mouth on you, buddy. Wash it out.
That is fact based.
I will be totally honest. I think you folks are closet cases to be blunt. Those of us who aren't the least bit attracted to the same sex don't obsess on it. It's the ones who scream the loudest who are both repulsed and attracted to homosexuality. You don't treat it as any greater or lesser than any other sin unless you have a problem. So many anti gay crusaders have turned out to be gay that to be honest, the more outspoken a person is, the more I question their true sexual preference. The bible calls for killing homosexuals, and adulters and rapists, and people who worship false idols and a whole bunch of things. Yet, you folks obsess on the gays. Relentlessly. There is a lot of idolatry and adultery going on. (crickets chirping)... but oh those gays. You all have so much to rail against with them. Ted Haggard was just the latest. I find homosexual sex kind of yucky. So, I don't tend to think about it. You folk think about it all the time. You write manifestos about fisting, and drag parades, and you do it all so well for our benefit. I suggest you keep it to yourselves, in a dark room, with the door shut, so nobody can see what you are doing when you document all that outrageous behavior. Sweetiepie.
Oh jeez. That is your opinion. It is simply ridiculous to say that Mary Cheney - a person - has not been trashed on this thread and by the original article here. And I think it is just as ridiculous to say that homosexuals, by nature - abuse children. That is really slander. Your post is out in left field regarding what is really being said here.
No.
Now answer my question.
Who were you talking about?
Read the post again. You clearly didn't understand it. And I ask you once more - if I give you a list of books that you don't trust, don't respect and and are not interested in reading - will you read them?
Well said.
Just wondering, do you really think Europeans are being fed an accurate picture of the "red states"?
I once was travelling in Europe and expressed a profound distaste for a particular city I had never visited. The Europeans around me were surprised and queried me on my opinion---to which I rattled off a list of things I'd seen/read including crime and so on. They were aghast! They assured me that that was all a bunch of hooey. And I did go to the city and found that they were correct.
But I was 17 years old at the time. I'd wager your "European tourists" are a little more saavy than I was at the time?
Where exactly did I do that?
I've done nothing on these thread but mock you sanctimonious fools.
Repulsed? Good grief. As if your repulsion will have any affect on Mary Cheney or anyone else but you.
Why is it so important to you?
Wow, you're getting mean.
Thank you!
A lot of us do wonder what the obsession is about?
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.