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.
Agree on the pedophilia thing. The recidivism rate is astounding. The only thing you can do is lock them up for 25 years each time. I would suggest death, but that would only encourage them to kill their victims who could witness against em.
Back to the topic. People are seriously way too obsessed about it. I am going now to spend time with my wife, and leave these folks here to worry about what's going on in Mary Cheney's bedroom.
GOOD on you! Enjoy your evening. I am celebrating the Chargers' win!
I agree. The problem here is that many could care less what the Bible says. Take the Episcopal church leadership for example. They elected a Bishop who is an admitted adulterer, homosexual, alcoholic, who abandoned his wife and children. 1 Timothy is clear regarding church leadership. There are those who claim the be Christians yet mock God's word and then there are those who don't believe. Maybe they are the same after all.
What so often happens in discussions such as these is the defenders of the dangerous lifestyle choices resort to name calling, as has happened in this thread.
Just wondering, do you really think Europeans are being fed an accurate picture of the "red states"?
I don't know where they are getting their information.
Tell us why.
Let's try and reframe the debate so that we can get away from the personal attacks.
I personally don't care for the hypocrisy shown around here regarding Mary Cheney's child. Had it been someone else on the opposite side of the political aisle, I doubt there would be as many supporters.
But as for the reframing...should a society seeking to prolong its existence ENCOURAGE homosexuals to adopt or raise children in stead of heterosexuals?
And before I end this post, let me answer the question of "How many homosexuals were raised by straight parents?" with another question:
How many of those straight parents abused - verbally, physically, mentally or otherwise - their children? And did those abuses lead to their homosexuality?
"one who voluntarily abstains from marriage."
So, celibate Catholic priests are eunuchs?
There are no such persons as ex-gays.
There are bisexuals and there are celibate gays. Then, there are horny prisoners.... :)
Homosexuality cannot be "cured" just like pedophilia cannot be "cured."
You have a low tolerance for head slamming.
You are wrong; having babies, even out of wedlock by liberals, is nothing to stop the world for.
How many of those straight parents abused - verbally, physically, mentally or otherwise - their children? And did those abuses lead to their homosexuality?
You're not insinuating that Lynn and Dick Chcney abused their daughter, are you?
I have a cousin whose mother turned out to be a lesbian after she and my uncle divorced. She fought to not allow my uncle to see him as he grew up. Needless to say, we don't see him too often but when we do, he's probably one of the most vicious (I won't go into details) and effeminate(sp?) young men I've ever met. There's no way anyone could convince me that this poor kid might have had a chance at a normal life had he been given the chance to be with his father and the rest of our family. She most definitely screwed that kid up for life...
Uh, maybe from the European media? Maybe from the LSM here in the U.S.?
Maybe read the article linked in post 248 and correct your thinking?
An excerpt: Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, a psychiatry professor at Columbia University who led the study, said he cannot estimate what percentage of highly motivated gay people can change their sexual orientation.
But he said the research "shows some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that."
It's terribly pathetic.
If you intentionally deny a child his biological mother and father, you are not thinking of the child's best interest.
Homosexuals live a lie because they deny the truth with "we are your two mommies" or "we are your two daddies". It is a biological impossibility and Jesus is all about TRUTH!
OMG! Do you know anything about "studies?"
He has not concluded anything solid. He knows ONLY bisexuals can convert to straight.
That is not entirely true. There are a handful of males with XX genes and females with an XY pair. I'm not quite sure how that happens, but it's remotely possible that a male XX offspring (or even an XY female, if one "parent" is XY) could ensue from such a bizarre procedure.
I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for over nine years before leaving California. Two of my landlords were gay, and I shared a house with one of them for a year. The small town where I have lived for the past twelve years has been called a "gay Mecca." There is a lot to dislike about homosexuality, but I can't recall ever hearing a gay person say that he or she despised normal families.
Exactly!
Who knows -- a lot of people have a dozen cities around the world they bounce around from on fairly regular circuits. They know every street in the cities, but can't tell you what's 10 miles outside.
One French couple I met was afraid to going skiing in Utah, a Dutch guy was afraid to go to Nashville ("there are many guns there, in Tennessee, yes?")and, a hipster Japanese couple was scared to death of Texas, and so on, and so forth.
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.