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 troll prepared its post to me out of spite for me having laughed at your post to him/her on another thread wherein you rightly made note that s/he is the resident a$$hole.
FOTFLOL
I think if a lot of Europeans were to read this thread - they're worst fears of what conservatives are like would be confirmed.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
It takes a really smart guy to ridicule a poster's husband on an annonymous web site, doesn't it?
*rolling my eyes*
Pathetic and laughable. I would happily match my husband's accomplishments against anyone's here on this board.
Paulat, I am sorry I offended you. My post was to the writer of the article, using his same logic, which is not something I agree with but I was putting myself in his shoes for the sake of discussion.
I think adoption and Mary Cheney's situations are two different things. Adoption seeks to find loving homes for children who are already born. God bless you for giving a home to two such angels.
The kids are a political tool for their selfishness.
I think you need a time out or whats really going on with you Im worried about you
Will you please answer my question!!!
It takes a really smart guy to ridicule a poster's husband on an annonymous web site, doesn't it?
*rolling my eyes*
I prefer ridiculing the wives and weird uncles who wear tinfoil underwear and tape magnets to their head.
When they say limitless, I think he means "without restrictions" (e.g. moral restrictions). I agree it's a bad wording choice.
All gay adoption is child abuse.
I think this basically answers the entire question.
Conduct your own test. Force yourself to become gay. See how that works out. It can't be done.
But that would be TECHNOLOGICAL, not biological.
Supporting a heterosexual marriage amendment (which I don't support, by the way) is not gay-bashing. Five knuckle-dragging freaks beating a homosexual to death in an alleyway with baseball bats, on the other hand, is.
Ok, so, by your definition, anyone who violates any law of God is a whore?
A nice comment...but it was my brother and sister-in-law that brought the two little ones to life, not me.
I wouldn't want to have these people in power! And I'm a big supporter of the President :-)
I doubt my parents accepted every behavior I showed at one time or another. And thank God they did not. You know you have a way of trying to twist peoples words which is a known liberal tactic. I am talking behavior. Of coarse they accept them as their children. That they are their children is a fact. That their behavior must be accepted is just not true. And children who demand such from their parents are not being reasonable. They must also accept their parents as their parents even if they do not have to accept their parents behavior. See it goes both ways. Demanding someone to love or accept your behavior will never work.
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.