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.
Your question is a non sequitur. That is, it doesn't follow from anything I've said. Why are you not interested in what ex-gays have to say about homosexuality? I've provided two direct testimonies from ex-gays and links to where you can find many others.
A whore is promiscuous. To label Mary Cheney who is NOT promiscuous is both slanderous and indicative of your own ignorance and malevolence.
"The whole idea behind a democracy is to get more people on your side and not to say,"
Is THAT what you are trying to do??? Well can't say much for your technique but....Hahahah Don't bother. Every technique, tactic and sob song has already been tried, to no avail. We stand on principal, and deal in realities.
Please answer the question. It follows because you are harrasing me to read something that I don't trust, don't respect and have no interest in. If I make a list of books that you don't trust, don't respect and have no interest in - will you read them? How many times do I need to ask?
Yes, such as one's employer hiring homosexuals over others because of the way that they claim to have sex. This is a problem. Or, when one's employer tries to force endorsing sinful lifestyles down their employee's throats. That is a big problem and it is ever present in this country. Especially when the employer is a government agency.
Went right over your head. Just as I predicted :-) Maybe if you thought about it - it would help
I find it really sad, but you appear to be 100% correct.
Exactly!!! Thank you for making my point.
Again, it makes me wonder...
Yes, why are you obsessed with this topic?
No, your statement was I was a homosexual activist, which, of course is a lie you can't back up. Not that that mattered to you.
Asking you to read what ex-gays have said about homosexuality is harassing you? You made some assumptions about me and I provided some links that would help you better understand from where I'm coming, but you, by your own admission, refuse to read them. So... you don't trust what ex-gays have to say about homosexuality. Why is that?
I know. This is what is always on your mind. I'm sorry that you are wondering about yourself. I hope that you get help.
Because I think you're being dishonest. If you weren't talking about a public figure, you were talking about a poster.
And you said they were pro-euthanasia; I think they should have been able to defend themselves from such salacious charges.
I am determined to refute the gay bashing that is becoming synonymous with the GOP.
You didn't answer - why are you obsessed with homosexuality as opposed to all sins? Why are you soooo interested in this one?
It's just that you folks always use sexual innuendo when discussing gays. Ramming it down my throat being used oh... just about all the time. It does make me wonder.
What is on my mind right now is I finally got the toddler to bed, my wife and I are going to watch Extreme Makeover at 8, and that we are expecting our second child. It's not filled with concern about what Mary Cheney is doing. Perhaps we should stop everything and as a couple investigate her sexual practices as a family activity.
Yes, you are harassing me. That's the second time I've told you that. And please have the decency to answer my question.
Sanctimousness is a form of PRIDE, the greatest of the 7 Deadly Sins.
I did not identify a person and that eliminates any right they would have to defend themselves.
Why is saying a person is pro-euthanasia "salacious"? Don't such people exist?
Silly statement. You don't know me or my posting history. I speak out against adultery, and other sins, as well. Although on difference is that adulterers aren't asking for special rights to employment, etc., based on the sexual activities
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.