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.
Big bump to your entire post. Bravo.
***Sam Kinnison voice: Oh sure, just when it's getting good!!!
This will be argued endlessly and not a single mind will be changed.
Good post.
Hitler's good buddy, Ernest Rohm and company were kinda 'light in der lederhosen'.
In fact, when Rohm's love letters to his catamite were published in a Berlin newspaper (1930), Hitler still would not remove him from his leadership position.
It was only after he needed support of the Regular Army did he plan the "Night of the Long Knives".
Of course, the editor of that particlar paper did disappear into the bowels of the KZ.
With all those superior genes, why didn't der Fuhrer reproduce? Hint: he didn't really like girls...
Most places already have laws making homosexual "sexual activity" illegal. Or did up until the terrible Texas case at couple of years ago.
Conserving social mores, a free market and the safety of innocents is what conservatism is all about. Setting good examples, not atrocious and dangerous ones.
And there are still laws making the bearing of children out of wedlock illegal. And yes, most definitly -- homosexuality should be a bar to adoption. Perhaps it still is in some states. Truth is we'd have less adoptions to start out with if high-profile high-status examples like Mary Cheney would be good exmaples, but by bad example they rob many of a decent life who would follow their example but in less fortutious and wealthy cicumstance.
Artificial insemination, surrogate "motherhood", test tube babies, cloning, are all abominations.
Oooh, good one. May I add that to my "greatest putdowns list" under these two:
"A modest little person, with much to be modest about."
"He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up."
Abominations to whom?
If Mary Cheney wasn't mentioned, this thread would have had less than 50 posts.
"For the same reasons heterosexuals want children, I would guess."
Of course, that proves that homosexuality is not the natural occurance that we are being told, instead the natural desire of humans is to procreate. As a result, we can see that the natural state of humans is to be heterosexual, in order to achieve their goal of procreation.
I have no issue with consenting adults participating in any chosen behaviour, but I do have a problem with the inconsistency of the "natural desire" argument.
I have no issue with consenting adults participating in any chosen behaviour, but I do have a problem with the inconsistency of the "natural desire" argument.
Yeah, I appreciate your point, I really don't care one way or the other.
Post 21 contains facts as bullet items. If you disagree with the facts then by all means, discredit what I've posted.
Hellen Keller.
Seems to me when it's observable that the vast majority of people, including "homosexuals," seek out relationships that approximate---sometimes to the nth degree---male-female relationships, that it has to mean something. It's not nothing.
So when homosexuals constantly organize themselves (and their communities) into male and female dynamics, that has to mean *something.*
One possibility is that heterosexuality is indeed normative and the vast majority of people who participate in sexual/intimate (emotionally and otherwise) relationships do so in a heterosexual way---regardless that they consider themselves "homosexual".
The two sexes in the relationship/dynamic may be an actual male and an actual female, or they may be an actual male and an approximated female (a feminized man) or an actual female and an approximated man (a butch woman). In all cases, the result is still a relationship that has a male-female dynamic.
What does that say about the concept of homosexuality?
I don't know if you've ever read How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together, but it's a good read on male homosexuality.
I haven't replied to your many posts, but this one is just too much.
I have no respect for the analytical ability of a person who honestly thinks there is an equation between the religious right in America and Islamic terrorists.
No matter what viewpoint a group is pushing, in America that viewpoint must win in the marketplace of ideas---either becoming "popular" enough to be enshrined in law or "popular" enough to make an impact as a social consensus.
Until an idea reaches a consensus point, either in law or as a social norm, the voicing of ideas has NO impact on one's ability to "choose."
Moreover, even a viewpoint does obtain a consensus, and thus become either law or social convention, one still has the choice to obey or not.
The beauty of acting morally is the beauty of acting morally. Acting morally is always a choice. It's just that sometimes the consequences of one choice are more grave than others.
I'm wondering how you can dismiss works written and published by homosexual activists as their manifesto as anti-homosexual propaganda.
If you don't want to read the links, fine. But "propaganda"? That's a little hysterical.
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.