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.
>>>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"
The only reason homosexual "rights" are now being forced upon the citizenry is because of legislation - (that's "government") or judicial activism (also "government").
Your hypocracy is extremely transparent. The ones promoting the normalization of homosexuality are the ones who need government to push it on people. Without myriad laws enacted, or as is often the case, legislating from the bench, there would be no "gay rights".
So this so-called support for less government is a red herring, or more accurately, a blatant lie.
I despise blanket condemnations.....always have and always will.
I'm not perfect, and will admit I will lump certain type people into a statement, but that does not mean I believe ALL with simialr beliefs/feelings whathaveyou are of the same mindset.
Why don't you stick to presenting your own view and let me present mine. Your statements about what I believe or am trying to say are not true!
you too? :-)
My attitude of "disgust" or "hatred toward people like" you? Where did I say any such thing?
I said I was appalled by some of the attitudes that only see things as one way or another and there being no question to it.
As to your hatred of the homosexual agenda, I have no problem with your position........but I never mentioned it. But since you did, I will state I have no use for it either. But guess what? The majority of homosexuals I know have an even greater hatred for it than you.
To: 69ConvertibleFirebirdYes, why are you obsessed with this topic?I am determined to refute the gay bashing that is becoming synonymous with the GOP.
You didn't answer - why are you obsessed with homosexuality as opposed to all sins? Why are you soooo interested in this one?
I have told you how I see the purpose of this site and it is NOT to study religion.
I know but the founder of the site holds more weight than you.
Statement by the founder of Free Republic:
I'm biased toward God,
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God,
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights
Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.
May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America. Jim Robinson
*Blink*
Nail, head, all that.
Yep.
Unfortunately the "convenient conservatives" don't see it the way you and I do. As far as I'm concerned the nanny-state is the nanny-state is the nanny-state. Whether it is my livingroom, dining room, kitchen or bedroom - stay out of it.
As to respecting my preference - it sounds like you have made your choice. That tells me a little more about what you really value.
To get into a deep discussion of relative versus immutable truth is beyond the time I have now (I gotta go in a minute). But to put it simply:
There are eternally existent, unchangeable truths, which are consistent throughout and beyond time and space. They apply to all, and their existence is independent of anyone's belief or non-belief.
Relative truths also exist; for instance, sometimes a person has to choose between two courses of action, neither of which is "perfect". So, by remembering the eternal verity, he can measure and see which course is most closely adhering to truth, even if it is not absolutely adhering.
But the standards of truth are eternal and unchanging; it is in the application that sometimes there is some gray area. But when the light of truth shines on any situation, a person who values truth and knows truth can see which course of action (for instance) most closely harmonizes with absolute truth.
That so right. The far left and the far right are a lot alike. They both want to use government to further their agenda and they both want to control other people's choices.
If you really understood what I wrote, the answer to your question is there.
I have seen first hand what happened to me and others I know by homosexuals and homosexual agenda supporters. Violence, threats, a business shut down, families ripped, lies told, and more.
If so many homosexuals disavow the homosexual agenda, why is it progressing full steam ahead? Why are so few homosexuals speaking out against it? Tammy Bruce is one of the few.
If homosexuals want their "privacy," why are they so intent in shoving it out into the public?
In a secular sense, homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. It is in no way an anatomical function of the human organism, but a phantasmagoric creation from within the mentally disturbed human mind, a social psychosis, naked and on full exhibitionist display.
Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.
Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal. With pantheons of fantasies as their medium of infinitization, they still have nothing in them of reality, any more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.
Many will seek ceremonious sanctification and esoteric absolution in some type of marriage rite, but that still fails to give them a connection to the eternal in both a religious and temporal, procreant sense - - the union does not produce offspring.
Dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality only feeds the impoverishment of the ego further. Homosexuals really hate human life; their whole desire is rooted in the destruction of it...
You are the one who wanted to talk about it!
So we could agree that God is eternal, unchanging and invulnerable or that God is Truth?
Could we also agree that nothing in this world is eternal, unchanging and invulnerable? The mountains will fall, the oceans will be no more - even the planet itself will sometime cease to exist?
whatever...
Its funny, the evangelicals are all for the "God created everything" when it comes to ignoring evolution, but when you point out that God created gay people, then they just deny it.
Typical hypocricsy.
Live and let live, and mind your own business, and you will live a happy life.
I don't care that you are a Hindu, enjoy it all you can.
But, you seem awfully hung up on having to call something deviant as a way of dealing with something you hate. Its not your business, and it affects your life in no way.
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.