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.
Shall we create a ask-before-replying-to-poster list, so as not to offend someone by replying to their post?
You do realize that not just homosexuals practice sodomy?
Two main reasons/questions: 1. Why would pedophiles want children -- male homosexual behavior includes sex with boys. 2. To use children to attempt to normalize their deviant lifestyle.
Very good, informative post.
SS - did you get around to reading the acutal words of actual homosexual spokespeople yet?
Come on - I dare you! Read what homosexuals themselves say about their agenda!
And just to make it easy for you and the other homosexual cheerleaders, here's the links again.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1751204/posts?page=21
Gay Liberation Manifesto (1972 revised 1978) (The original 1972 manifesto called for the elimination of all age of consent laws, but they realized that was too much all at once)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1751202/posts?page=46
Position Paper: The Right's Attack on Sex
The Natinal Coalition for Sexual Freedom ^ | 1996, revised 2001 | By Eric Rofes and members of the San Francisco Sex/Politics Study Group
Please note: These are not articles written by homophobes or bigoted right wing nutjobs. They are written by homosexual activists. I dare you all to read the truth! And then comment.
You really are beating this horse to death, rin.
The percentage of homosexuals who practice anal sodomy is way, waaaay higher than the percentage of normal people.
And anyone practicing anal sodomy is practicing a very destructive and nasty method of sexual "gratification", whoever they are.
Thank you for being so clear, SS. Your pov is in direct contradiction to the mission statement of the owner of FR.
I see a lot of similarity between *purist* Islamists and *purist* Christians. I'm sorry you don't. Both want to control other people's choices. Both believe that they and they alone have a corner on *truth*. Both believe that God wants them to behave the way they do. Both argue that God justifies their condemnation of others. Both believe that they will go to heaven and all others will go to hell. Both believe that purity is the ultimate factor. Both believe that society should be structured around *their* beliefs. I'm sure you can think of more.
Would you find the words of ex-Christians - who assign all sorts of evil to Christianity valuable? Would you find the words of Reverend Phelps to be something you would like to read and embrace? What about Reverend Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton. Would you like me to get you some links to their writing?
The need to teach them tricks of the trade.
These are good questions.
Homosexuality is about sex, as often as possible. Children will just get in the way.
And since homosexuals frequently consider "breeders" inferior, what would be the point of humiliating themselves like this unless they intend to use the child the same way Castro uses Elian Gonzalez, as propaganda.
Good post.
You got that right.
This is precisely why I kept asking you to support your statement. I knew you couldn't. And now, of all things, you now want me to go ask somebody else to support your statement for you.
Your opinion. But the government has no place in telling individuals who they can sleep with and what kind of sex they can have.
Thanks. That post is a summary of years of research.
And, btw, when are you going to answer my questions?
This is incredible. You made some statements in regards to my post 21 so I asked you to support your statements. Because you can't you want me to ask Andrew Sullivan to support your statements for you.
I could tell, it was very concise and packed full of very useful data.
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.