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.
You chose to write a VERY long post to me - that did not in any way threaten me - but was not relevant to my belief system. In others words it was essentially a rude thing to do. That's why I asked the question - does it even occur to you to ask or do you just assume your world view is of interest to everyone?
AIMS
The long-term goal of Gay Liberation, which inevitably brings us into conflict with the institutionalised sexism of this society, is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. This can only be achieved by eliminating the social pressures on men and women to conform to narrowly defined gender roles. It is particularly important that children and young people be encouraged to develop their own talents and interests and to express their own individuality rather than act out stereotyped parts alien to their nature.
As we cannot carry out this revolutionary change alone, and as the abolition of gender rotes is also a necessary condition of women's liberation, we will work to form a strategic alliance with the women's liberation movement, aiming to develop our ideas and our practice in close inter-relation. In order to build this alliance, the brothers in gay liberation will have to be prepared to sacrifice that degree of male chauvinism and male privilege that they still all possess.
To achieve our long term goal will take many years, perhaps decades. But attitudes to the appropriate place of men and women in our society are changing rapidly, particularly the belief in the subordinate place for women. Modern conditions are placing increasing strain on the small nuclear family containing one adult male and one adult female with narrowly defined roles and bound together for life.
Monogamy is usually based on ownership-the woman sells her services to the man in return for security for herself and her children-and is entirely bound up in the man's idea of property furthermore in our society the monogamous couple, with or without children, is an isolated, shut-in, up-tight unit, suspicious of and hostile to outsiders. And though we don't lay down rules or tell gay people how they should behave in bed or in their relationships, we do want them to question society's blueprint for the couple. The blueprint says 'we two against the world', and that can be protective and comforting.
But it can also be suffocating, leading to neurotic dependence and underlying hostility, the emotional dishonesty of staying in the comfy safety of the home and garden, the security and narrowness of the life built for two, with the secret guilt of fancying someone else while remaining in thrall to the idea that true love lasts a lifetime-as though there were a ration of relationships, and to want more than one were greedy. Not that sexual fidelity is necessarily wrong; what is wrong is the inturned emotional exclusiveness of the couple which students the partners so they can no longer operate at all as independent beings in society. People need a variety of relationships in order to develop and grow, and to learn about other human beings.
Whew, what a relief - they admit that sexual fideltity isn't ALWAYS wrong.
So, I assume you do choose to look at most things as either/or - black/white - us vs them. Doesn't make you afraid of anyone who isn't a part of your *club*?
On a forum such as this? Ummm, let me think.......
Nope.Never.
Not for one second
Not even one time.
Come to think of it, it has never ever crossed my mind since I joined here in 1998.
Has it ever occurred to you what the purpose of this place is?
Your "questions" are in the realm of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
They cannot be answered.
My question to you, however, can be easily answered:
Are you afraid to read what homosexual leaders and thinkers themselves write about the homosexual rights movement?
And if you do read them, I'd be very interested in your comments.
Hey, the Bible is not only THE science book, it is also THE dictionary !!! You'll never need to buy another book !!
I have read through this entire thread - there were only 3 responses when I first openned the thrad and then I lost my connection and stuff like dinner came into play..LOL
I do not know why I am so appalled at the utter bigotry shown my so many of the psters and posts.......but I am.
Sunsong is perfectly correct - to many of these people it is black ro white/us vs them. What utter nonsense.
It is NOT to study religion! I see it as a place to further the idea of limited government by electing people (through majority vote) who will support that idea in Congress or the WH.
And if it is the way you usually look at things - doesn't it make you more fearful of those who are not part of "your side"?
I will look forward to reading your comments in the future.
What moral relativists don't see is that your attitude of disgust or hatred toward people like me is just as absolutist - actually more so - than the moral stance we take. We're perfectly willing to debate facts, read what the opposition says, etc.
I don't hate homosexuals at all. What I hate - and I admit it - is the lies of the homosexual agenda.
It really looks like some don't like or can't handle the fact that lesbians having kids is something that a man can't control.
Its so interesting to see all the fear and hate here that gets conveniently masked in a christian wrapper.
Of course, as conservatives, aren't we all just supposed to leave people alone? (unless of course, its something we disagree with)
Why are you afraid to read the words of homosexual leaders and spokespeople?
Do you believe in right and wrong that exist as objective reality, or do you think people create their own right and wrong?
If you think that people create their own right and wrong, why do you not like the fact that my right and wrong may be different in some ways than yours?
You raised the sin issue on this thread and wondered why it seemed an obsession. I happen to think it is a very important question and one that is not easily addressed in one line sound bites. My post attempted to put your post, questioning the position of sin on the issue, in perspective with the Word of God.
And, in any case, much of the debate here stems from religion and many conservatives see our country's success as being a blessing from God because of its inhabitants desire to be obedient to God. It is not possible to fully separate politics from conservatism. But you should know that if you have been here a while.
Look at Cheney's daughter and the gal husband. Something is just not right. Why couldn't the Cheney girl marry a man that looked like that? The gal "husband" already looks like a guy.
Oh, what a great point! How could any woman not be under some man's thumb? :-)
Its so interesting to see all the fear and hate here that gets conveniently masked in a christian wrapper.
Yes, and then if you challenge it you are anti-Christian, probably homosexual and for sure an evil liberal. I believe in a loving God - and if there is any hatred and condemnation called for - it is God's job - not humans.
Of course, as conservatives, aren't we all just supposed to leave people alone? (unless of course, its something we disagree with)
We agree :-) I think it is conservative to live and let live and to use as little government as possible. "the government that governs least - governs best"
Hmmm - I guess you didn't know that I'm a Hindu.
And I am not "afraid" that homosexuals are having children. I am opposed to the normalization of homosexulaity or any other sexual deviancy because it is destroying the natural family and therefore society.
And that is what they have wanted all along, if anyone will read the links I posted. In their own words.
Oh??? Where precisely did I use the word sin? Or bring up the issue of sin?
I have told you how I see the purpose of this site and it is NOT to study religion. You can choose to respect that or not depending on how you see yourself.
Do you agree that *truth* is what is invulnerable, unchangeable and eternal?
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.