But this seems more fitting for this thread:
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.
Good.
Then let's leave the unfounded views of European tourists out of this discussion.
I have no idea. Perhaps the Queer by Choice crowd?
Some of you people just have the NEED to believe it can be cured; that it's purely a choice.
According to what ex-gays have said, their same-sex attractions were not a choice. My position aligns with theirs and the experts.
Sorry, just something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Must have slipped out.
I have tired of you.
I see your NEED to feel superior to homosexuals, believing it is their choice.
1. The fact that your husband is a psychiatrist doesn't exactly qualify you as an authority on anything, in case you missed that little detail. Medicine is not learned by osmosis.
2. Our brightest lights in medicine don't normally go into psych, so take what a any psychiatrist tells you with a grain of salt. They typically have the worst critical thinking skills of all clinicians and the longer they spend in their respective fields, the more removed they are from the actual physiology of medicine.
3. There is *no science* which implicates a gay gene. None. That fact alone means that everyone born on planet earth is born heterosexual.
4. Given this, there is no biological obstacle to a theoretical cure and there certainly can be ex-gays. It may take electro convulsive therapy to get them there given the severity of the event that screwed them up in the first place, but it's certainly possible.
Thanks for playing, have a nice day.
Andrews Sullyvain and other homosexual activists constantly bring up the red herring of the infirtile couple.
When an infirtile couple adopt, BOTH are required to assume legal responsiblity. An adoption agency does not adopt to the father but not the mother or vice versa. The child is generally never told of the adoption. The child only knows it has a normal mother and father family unit.
The homosexuals who adopt or artificially produce children are starting with an intentionally difficient childood. The child in Mary Chenny's homosexual sitiuation is intentionally denying the child a father. In fact her sex partner is nor even a LEGAL part of the child's life. Unless the state is in the minority which allows homosexual's sex partners to adopt she would be legally precluded.
In addition the child will always grow up know his/her mother placed sexual gratification over giving a child the best environment in its creation.
Nice try. I'm saying that the electorate regected the gay-bashing, holier-than-thou, condemning, punitive attitudes that are so much on display on this thread.
But this seems more fitting for this thread:
And I'm agreeing with you!
Do you think gays should be stonned, killed or just jailed?
What don't you tell us what your profession is, so we can all decide whether you are or are not the "brightest light" in it.
A man, instead of trying to understand a woman and her sexuality, instead goes for the guy who will generally have the same kind of appetite as he does. I remember reading about how homosexuals generally aren't all that effeminate in their actual appetites. They still want sex the same way a guy wants it - they're still turned on by the visual, etc. They just want it with a guy.
Sorry if this sounds disjointed, this is kind of chain of thought.
I'm a conservative.
I'm bothered by the comments because I view the United States -- every single one of them -- as my home. I have memories of people I've met and places I've seen in nearly every state. And not to get too poetic, but I can still taste the food of these places, hear the different accents.
This stuff is very real to me.
No, I'm not saying that red states are like bad neighborhoods. I'm saying that everyplace has its own bad neighborhoods, the towns of red states, included.
Foxtrot Oscar, troll.
While there is no Gay Gene, some science *does* point to other neurobiological factors.
Think 'hormones', not 'genes'.
I live in a red state.
I don't think I needed THAT visual.
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.