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.
Amen to that! Read my tagline, anyhow.
The question, if you want to call it that, is preposterous.
I probably know gay nerds. They did drag me to see Aeon Flux.
BTW, great tagline!
The rectum was not created by God to be probed by the penis.
How do you know this?
Failing those, shut up.
At least, I think that would do your reputation some good, if not your own general good.
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?Excellent questions. As you perceived, homosexuality is not a substitute for the natural sex relationship, but a perversion thereof. Therefore it appears as a distortion of the true relationship.
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?
Well, if you are saying there is anti-Americanism in the world, with that I agree.
It is what it is and it is largely baseless.
However, that is different than implying that the people on this thread with whom you disagree are the cause of any anti-Americanism in the world.
Not one on record for pedophilia has ever been cured.
Untold others cured before they acted?
I tire of such conversation.
Okay, I get right on that. In the meantime, will you quit telling people to vote democrat if they don't agree with you?
Didn't think you could.
Didn't want to answer it.
I know you will probably think I am being sarcastic here with my questions, I'm really not. I have read your posts about Europeans who said they were frightened to go to red states, and from what I read, you seem to be greatly bothered by these people's imaginary fears. Do you think the Europeans who told you this have reason to be fearful to go to red states? You said this saddens you, why is that? One more question, are you a liberal or conservative?
Thanks for the post.
Do you think all families who have gay members automatically become people who accept their behavior and condone it. I think not. And why should they????
Yeah, me and four thousand plus years of social, moral and ethical development. That's my opinion. Not flava of teh month, I guess, sorry!
What I'm picking up isn't "anti-American" but "anti-conversative American." I could be wrong on this, but I do hear foreigners mention "red states" an awful lot.
I agree. But that doesn't mean that your taking one side is the correct side. I referenced a recent study by the man who championed taking homosexuality OFF of the mental disorder list. You have referenced nothing until now and it's what your husband told you.
And if you think that having a PhD means that you're always correct your badly mistaken (or you would have to agree with the study that I cited - by a PhD with tens of years of experience even). Do you not understand how politically correct universities, especially the social sciences departments, are?
If they're liberals, they should stay home, or else they might decide to live in a red state. How's THAT for offensive?!?
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.