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.
The author make ONE BIG ASSUMPTION which is wrong.
He equates a theocracy would be the only way to ban homosexuals, this is wrong.
There are MANY and superior reasons to oppose homosexuals which has nothing to do with religion.
Other than that, the article is spot on.
Who is FOR homosexuality?
Some of you people just have the NEED to believe it can be cured; that it's purely a choice.
Most of them do accept their children.
After all, somebody accepts you, don't they?
I sincerely wonder why it doesn't puzzle more people that homosexuals are people who are attracted to persons of the opposite sex, so long as those persons are only mimicking the looks, demeanor, and behavior of the opposite sex.
PhD? My husband is a medical doctor, you fool.
You have a NEED to believe homosexulaity can be cured, when in fact, it cannot. Ditto for pedophilia.
That was a pretty funny statement that they made. As if we are supposed to be horrified if Europeans don't want to travel to the mid-west. More of the "well, if Europeans are doing it we should" stuff. Yeesh!
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?
I don't think they have reason to be fearful of traveling to so-called "red states." I should say, anymore reason to be fearful than traveling to LA or NYC. Everyplace has "bad neighborhoods."
To say it saddens me is an understatement. I've traveled a lot around the country -- probably more than most people -- and I love all of it. As an American, I'm proud of all of it.
Of course they mention "red states." No doubt that's how the anti-Americanism gets packaged and fed to them in their own LSM.
And of course conservatism gets equated with Americanism. We're not as conservative as conservatives would like, but compared to the rest of the world, America is a quite conservative nation.
My point is you seem to be agreeing with them, as if you might tremble if you had to drive a rental car through Texas or fly in to Tennessee.
Don't you agree that what foreign tourists formulate about our country has actually very little to do with what conservatives in the red states are all about? And, since that's true, that it's not relevant at all to the impact of this debate?
You are a complete jerk. I have tried to respond several times, but can't get the words out.
My two beautiful nieces are the result of "struggles with infertility."
I damn you for any slur on their parents!
I like large American families at this point in time. How else are we going to prevent demographic conquest by Mexicans and muslims?
Oh, BTW, how's THAT for offensive?!?
Read the article. How can your husband stand your repeating yourself over and over?!? He will be gone within a few years.
If what I've posted is so easily discredited and ignored, then by all means, post something that refutes the facts in post 21. You first responded to that post with "Some people will never be persuaded by bigotry and prejudice." So by all means, point out the bigotry and prejudice that is apparently so prevalent within the facts I've posted.
If Free Republic has taught me anythingit is this: In a contest between politics and science, bet on politics.
I'm not agreeing with them. I've hitched through Texas, from Dallas to Del Rio in my younger days, and probably covered 10,000 rental miles across the state over the years.
Who said I am non judgemental? I despise homosexuality and pedophilia.
There is NO PROOF that either can be cured.
I recall that my husband investigated a study in Great Britian which claimed to gave fabulous results. Trouble was, the participants were court ordered and if they didn't do well in the study, they were imprisoned, so they all BS'd the researcher.
In studies, follow the money to see what results are desired.
Good questions!
Me, too.
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.