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.
Your post is a prime example of why people think conservatives are nuts.
This is true.
This jerk is not asking questions. He is not curious. He simply thinks of himself as superior. Apparently he wasn't rasied as well as he thinks. He doesn't seem to know the difference between what is his business and what is not. A basic for grown ups.
I have an updated categorical index more than 3 times the size of the above index of links. It's too large for FR, but there are some folks who are reproducing the updated copy and making it available on the web. I'll check in on their progress and post a link.
I am not getting the love the sinner, hate the sin here. We should probably just stone all the homosexuals, like the adulterers. That will fix the marriage problem, old testament style.
Exactly. This guy sees only what he wants to see - and that apparently is anything that makes him feel superior to those who are different from him.
How on earth do you know what they despise or what they admire?
I would rather she Mary Cheney raise children than you. You have a real sickness, imo.
You sound paranoid to me.
Wow. That's great... and rare. It's too bad other gay or pro-gay folks cannot respond in such a manner...
Who is the Daddy? There is a Dad, you know. And courts will and can reach out and find who that Dad is, with great upset and discomfort to all in various situations.
By circumstance the Dad can be held to full account for all the expense of raising the child, that circumstance may be unlikely in this case, but no one knows the future. A court can not break the obligations of fatherhood, it is not a contract the court can sever. As least I would hope that is still the case, otherwise the courts are really acting like Gods.
The child is a "bastard". That's not a kind fate and inheritance by birth to grant a kid. The word "bastard" was found in the common law -- I guess that would better be called case law or hornbook law -- up until the first part of last century. The progressive movement changed the word to "child born out of wedlock", a pretty euphemism. See for example, Paternity Proceedings in New York Columbia Law Review, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan., 1926), pp. 94-97
Historically, for thousands of years across many cultures and continuing in some to this day it is a crime or misdemeanor to cause a child to be born out of wedlock. Why laugh like a modern loonie in the face of history? It may have seemed harsh, and was, but it kept families intact and avoided the pervasive problems we see today from broken families and a high rate of production of children out of wedlock. Where do we see those problems? In schools. In the criminal courts, in those families NOT so well etsablished and more subject and less able to recover from the ocassioned economic or life misfortunes. For such families, and especially for the innocent kids in those families -- those innocent bastards by no choice of their own -- a thing minor to the Cheney's can become a irrecoverable hardship trapping the kid in a downward spiral ending in lifetime poverty, incarceration, early death, etc.
No euphemism or playing nice makes it pretty. Life is harsh for most kids born "out of wedlock" just because of that one fact -- being born out of wedlock. And life is very harsh to some of them. But why should you care? It's the Cheney's, after all.
Damn hundreds of thousands for her example, but it doesn't matter to some around here. It is a modern insanity.
Knock it off.
You know what. Some people will never be persuaded by bigotry and prejudice. I doubt you will understadn what I am saying - but I'll give it a try - for the record.
Ping!
Oh, wait...I'm straight (as my boyfriend will attest)
Does "Ping!" sound too gay???
I thought the entire thing read like a high schooler wrote it.
Disgusting.
I think they probably feel the same about you.
Pingy Dingy would be gay.
You seem obsessed with homosexuals.
Go with you gut :-)
No, the statement in the article is correct and you are incorrect. The article stated the truth as it stands today. You make claims about hypothetical, future, events as proof that you are correct. Much like Edwards claiming that stem sell research will allow people to get up out of their wheelchairs and walk. You don't know. Edwards was playing politics with unknown science and so are you.
Ping-a-ling would be gay. :)
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.