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.
************
Oddly, it's a liberal's trick to make that claim. Who could have guessed we'd see it here?
Good post, btw.
Do you have the common decency to answer any questions - or are you just about harrassment?
You made a claim and I asked you to support it. Now you want to change the subject because you can't support your claim.
Thanks. I responded quite early in the thread to you and had not realized the thread was so heated. I'm glad that you didn't see my post in the heated tenure of much of the rest of the thread. It does make me curious tho'.
"Would you find the words of ex-Christians - who assign all sorts of evil to Christianity valuable? "
Wow - comparing Christianity to homosexuality!
I'm amazed that even you can wrap your mind around that one.
BTW, have you read the articles by homosexual activists yet? And if not, why not? Are you afraid to?
"Oddly, it's a liberal's trick to make that claim. Who could have guessed we'd see it here?"
Thank you. I have been following several threads on this topic, and have been quite taken aback. Not just by the differences of opinion, since that is a given around these parts ; } but more by the bullying, trolling style that has taken hold. Very sad, and a little scary, to watch it here, within our ranks.
"I ask a second time - are you sincerely interested in knowing whether you are peddling bigotry and prejudice - or do you just want to keep harrassing me?"
Your questions about "bigotry and prejudice" are in the realm of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet".
Scripter's points are based on factual information - iow, figures, numbers, percentages - many of them based on studies done by homosexuals themselves. How in the world can you call this "bigotry"?
And if you disagree with his points, are you able to come up with another set of facts, figures, percentages, and studies that support your position? And what IS your position?
So far the only position you've taken on FR regarding homosexuality is that those who claim (with plenty of information backing up our position, btw) that same sex acts are unhealthy, unnatural, immoral *and* that homosexuals can, if they desire to, often be healed - are bigoted, hateful, homophobes.
To make it very simple, your only position is that we are "bad, bad, bad"! That's it, the sum and substance of your position.
BTW, have you read the articles written not by nasty mean homophobes but by your heroes yet?
It appears he completely missed the fact your links were from homosexual activists.
Leftists use the argument "You're so judgemental!" as though it were the next door neighbor of being an arsonist or child molester.
And they fail to see, due to the moral blinders they have affixed so firmly to their inner vision, that they are being just as judgemental! The difference being that we admit we are using our judgement, and they pretend they are tolerant and not making any judgements. If they weren't "judgemental" too, they would not appear on these threads calling us "bad, bad, bad"!
They would just shrug and go "to each their own".
LOL! He's afraid to read them. And I even posted quotes to help him out!
We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc
is the stated position of Mr. Robinson.
Yeah, it seems that the thread was hijacked to facilitate the fight over whether being gay was a natural occurance or not. (perhaps it was not hijacked and that was the original intent, I'm not sure)
Anyway, It's been my experience, based on the gay men and lesbians that I know, that the desire to extend parental love to a child is not uncommon, in fact as a parent I cannot imagine anyone not longing for the experience regardless of sexual orientation. On the other hand I know two straight couples who have chosen not to have children, it is a mystery as to why.
Go figure.
"But the government has no place in telling individuals who they can sleep with and what kind of sex they can have."
What about incest? Adult incest? Age of consent laws? Many people feel that they should be lowered or even eliminated. What about bestiality? Public sex? Necrophilia? There are laws against all of these practices.
According to your logic, all laws against child/adult sex, incest, bestiality, necrophilia and public sex should be emlinated.
I saw the quotes and they were excellent. It's rather bizarre that he continually refuses to get educated on the subject. He won't read what ex-gays have to say about homosexuality, he won't read what the experts in the field have to say and he won't read what gays have to say about their agenda.
*************
It's more than peculiar to see it here, amongst supposed conservatives. Judgment is a good thing, in my nearly humble opinion. :)
IMHO, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be a conservative and support any of these things.
It is, of course, possible to support any or all of these leftist ideals and still vote a straight GOP ticket in every election -- but that DOESN'T MAKE SOMEONE A CONSERVATIVE.
Without "judgement" we would dissolve into anarchy. And on a strictly moral issue, all churches would probably have money changers in the vestibule.
This is about anti-sodomy laws between consenting adults.
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.