Mary Cheney and her partner Heather Poe
were joined by Mary's niece Kate
and the rest of the Cheney clan
at President Bush's victory rally on Nov. 3.
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.
Were you drooling when you posted that?
Please tell me then how you explain the fact that most gays are raised by STRAIGHT PARENTS???
In order to make conservatives mad, for the most part.
"Is there a more obvious product of heterosexual behavior than the creation of children? If so then..."
...if so then why would anyone want to adopt a child they didn't create?
I hope that puts paid to this ridiculous screed.
I know.........I know........I am falling in the floor reading some of this stuff; they cannot possibly be SERIOUS!
Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review
Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk
Homosexual Parenting Studies Are Flawed, Report Says
Homosexual Parents: 'Hidden Study' Uncovered
Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children
Review of Research on Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?
Where Children Have No Voice: The"Right" of Adoption by Homosexual Partners
Dangers of Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children (Part 1)
Dangers of Same-Sex Couples Adopting Children (Part 2)
Children and homosexual adoption
Trophy children
Who says they "despise" normal families? Did they come from normal families or from homosexual families?
I'm wondering if some of these posters were raised in "normal" families.
I keep asking gay friends about all that unlimited sexual activity stuff. None of them really know anything about it -- as evidenced by rambling emails I get on a Saturday night from them on their over-clocking efforts or art collections.
Should I thank you for the ping to this thread? LOL
A homosexual "marriage" is a parody of a normal marriage. Add children to the mix, and the parody is compete. It is a polygamous relationship, with a silent partner who has no personal relationship with either of the two visible partners.
ROFLMAO!
I have never understood why hetrosexuals think gays are getting it 24/7. They're JUST people, FGS.
Why stop with asking the question re pregnancy and child-rearing?
Since, as the author states, those who engage in "homosexual behavior in large terms [wish] to throw off the weight of conventional sexuality," I have often wondered why homosexuals so often mimic heterosexuality.
For example, it's quite clear that the homosexual community divides itself into those who adopt a "male" role and those who adopt a "female" role. And, further, that most homosexual couples, especially long-term couples, have a recognizably "male" member and a recognizably "female" member.
The community has all sorts of names and conventions surrounding the two gender roles they take on; this is not an observation made by outsiders only.
So one eventually has to ponder: if a homosexual man is a man sexually attracted to another man, why does he take up with a man that in many ways takes on a "female" persona---encompassing not only how feminine he looks, how he dresses, his role in sexual encounters, but even sometimes to the point of being the primary person doing domestic chores?
If a homosexual woman is a woman sexually attracted to another woman, why does she take up with a woman that for all the world looks, dresses herself, poses herself, and carries herself as a "male" persona---even sometimes to the point of taking on a job traditionally done by men (construction work, cable guy, etc.).
If homosexual men are not sexually attracted to women, how is it that they find men dressed up as women (drag queens)---often dressed to the point that they are completely unrecognizable as men---so erotic?
Why is it that more "flaming" (i.e., feminine) a homosexual man is, the more attractive other homosexual men find him?
Why is it that the more exaggerated the feminine "qualities" a drag queen exhibits (make-up, breasts, hair style, voice)---IOW, the more stereotypically, unambiguously and overwhelmingly female-like the drag queen is---the more beloved and wanted and admired that queen is?
Why do homosexual couples so often demonstrate a heterosexual composition and dynamic ( a "male" and "female" member with respective---if archetypical or stereotypical roles/demeanors---that mirror heterosexual male and female roles/demeanors)?
Why does a man who is sexually attracted to a man who acts like, often looks like, and somehow engages him in ways that mimic a woman conclude that he is not attracted to women, rather than conclude that he is attracted to women but somehow has a maladaptation to relating to actual women?
Why does a woman who is sexually attracted to a woman who is so butch she actually can pass for a man conclude that she is not attracted to men, rather than conclude that she is attracted to men but somehow has a maladaptation to relating to an actual man?
How is it that a lesbian can be sexually attracted to a woman who has a sex change and "becomes" a man, but she still maintains she is "oriented" to women, not men?
IOW, if homosexuality is a discreet sexual identity, then why does it manifest itself so often as a maladaptation of heterosexuality?
Cases of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States, 2004
Cases of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States, 2003
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Risk, Prevention, and Testing Behaviors --- United States, National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System: Men Who Have Sex with Men, November 2003--April 2005
HIV and Its Transmission
HIV/AIDS among Women
Science and Homosexuality New Evidence Found for Childhood Family Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation
Environmental factors may influence sexual orientation
The Study The Media Ignored
How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together
Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth
Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality is Genetic
The Importance of Twin Studies
The Gay Gene?
The Fading "Gay Gene"
The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science
The Gay Gene: Going, Going...Gone
That was a very interesting and thought provoking post. And ending it with the above question is perfect.
Mary Cheney and her partner Heather Poe
were joined by Mary's niece Kate
and the rest of the Cheney clan
at President Bush's victory rally on Nov. 3.
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.