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.
It appears to be factual to me, apart from the lesbians not being fulfilled stuff. Homosexuality defies reproductive biology.
I think that there are two groups of gays.
One group is just a bunch of people who happen to be attracted to their own sex. They just want to live normal lives, and don't want to bother anyone. They have no agenda, they just want to live in peace. I bet most of our gay and lesbian friends fit into this category.
Then there is the radical activist wing that wants to destroy traditional society as we know it. They are the ones who've infiltrated the Catholic Church to take it down from the inside, and the ones who continually attack the Boy Scouts. They are in your face and revel in astonishing and disgusting the common man and woman. They are more sociopaths than anything else, and have created the "gay agenda" as a means to promote their Cultural Marxism.
I would guess that the negative reactions to many of the posters on this thread are to the second group, not the first, and that's why there is such disconnect amongst us Freepers on this thread.
I would also posit that Mary Cheney is a member of the first group, but is being played as a useful idiot by the second group.
But he said the research "shows some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that."
It says from gay to straight not bi to straight. Words mean things.
I sure wasn't. My mother and father divorced when I was about three years old. How about you?
"Incorrect. There have been several articles on FR talking about how scientists are developing ways to turn female eggs into sperm and vice versa. So down the road it could be conceivable for two women to "create" a kid with their own DNA."
False. Even if through some complex medical procedure the female egg could be "altered" in such a way - that would only demonstrate that two women are INCAPABLE of producing a child EXCEPT through extraordinary, unnatural medical intervention.
Such procedures would be "artificial" in the sense of "humanly contrived and lacking in natural quality."
Thus, St. Paul had the correct word for such same-sex sexual relations, calling them "against nature."
Gay activists can rage against God's creative design and demand to have their sexual behavior considered "normal," but in the end they cannot and will not succeed - even if they may appear to be winning up until the End.
The electorate rejected them? Are you saying the most recent election was a referendum on homosexuality?
Gay marriage gets shot down every where, except the courts.
Hello. ONLY bisexuals can swing both ways.
Can you be forced to become homosexual?
Not really saying much -- inside any group you're going to find the same thing. Though in my experience, most people just want to live their lives.
I gave you an exact quote from a professor who performed the study. He confirms that gays can become straight. Maybe you don't know what that means? If you don't it means people who were once attracted to their SAME sex are no longer that way. They are now attracted to the opposite sex. That is going from gay to straight.
Open your mind to the possibility.
So it's a bad thing to lament the situation the child will be growing up in?
You're not insinuating that Lynn and Dick Chcney abused their daughter, are you?
No. But how many homosexuals were abused as children?
I cannot repeat myself enough: there is no "cure" for homosexuality, just like there is no "cure" for pedophilia.
Bisexuals can be attracted to both genders. Prisoners engage in homosexual acts. Man has a capability for such things sexual, but homosexuality cannot be cured.
A homosexual can close his eyes and pretend he's engaging in a sexual act with a man, when his partner is a female. Is that tantamount to a cure? No, it is not.
But you are not offering ANY proof to back up your claims.
The burden of proof is on you.
Good one, bump
Yes you can. But good job of repeating yourself anyway.
Now give references because no matter how much you repeat yourself you're still wrong. I gave you proof and a reference. You repeat yourself. Which method normally convinces you?
I don't have to prove anything to any of you and surely not by any so called "study."
Sexuality cannot be changed, except in cases of bisexuality.
Good grief. Can you be forced to become a homosexual or a lesbian? How about a pedophile?
I have no idea and neither do you.
This child will be raised in a loving family. That's the situation you don't seem to be able to deal with.
How about a "leg man" to a "breast man?"
I would agree. Most of the gays I know are pretty embarrassed by Pride Parade antics and the more stridently political homosexuals.
But, of course, it's not these more reasonable folks who are pushing the agenda.
I have responded to all of your harassing posts. Will you please show the common decency to answer my question. If I make a list of reading materials for you - that you do not respect, do not trust and have no interest in - will you read them?
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.