If you can't understand the difference between having sex with animals, dead people, and incest versus consentual sex between two adults, you've got bigger problems than being against gays having children.
That said, I'm through doing this:
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.
If you can't understand the difference between having sex with animals, dead people, and incest versus consentual sex between two adults, you've got bigger problems than being against gays having children.
That said, I'm through doing this:
No.
Also as I posted earlier in the thread, even Robert Spitzer has changed his mind, and that's saying something: Study: Some Gays Can Go Straight.
That's the real question. For all the people here who believe that gayness is curable, would you marry an ex-gay? If s/he is straight now, gayness shouldn't be an issue, and Christians are supposed to forgive past transgressions for those who have repented. So... go take a look at a few of those ex-gay sites, look and read about the people, and tell me, would you want to marry them? Have kids with them?
So the kids can take care of them when AIDS sets in?
Oh come on. That is the most ridiculous statement I have read. You cannot believe that.
Naps, that is one of most pitifully lame excuses I've ever seen!
In the face of undeniable evidence that people can give up the "gay" life, you make the ridiculous claim that the people are paid actors!
Unbelievable.
Since he didn't do a dissertation, exactly what is his expertise, other than doing a standard psychiatric residency?
Apparently that's the quality of argument with which they're left. And Robert Spitzer, that guy, yeah, he was paid, too. Uh-huh.
Many people consider all those sexual acts to be morally neutral or even beneficial and propose legalizing many or all of them.
All I'm asking is for you to explain your position. Some of the animal/human proponents make the claim that animals like it, there are organizations, psychyologists and others (some of them homosexuals) who say that children benefit from (and indeed, even initiate the relationship) sex with adults. And adult incest? Two consenting adults - that was your standard. So what's wrong with a mother and grown son/daughter? Or father and grown son/daughter? Or two adult siblings of either sex? If they are all consenting adults, what the heck is wrong with adult incest?
And why shouldn't THREE consenting adults not be allowed to marry/adopt children? If they're all adults, and all consenting, give me one good reason (not based on prudish Victorian old fashioned morality) why not.
I would like to hear some rational reasons, not based on outmoded moral bias, why the above sex acts should not be legalized.
It says from gay to straight not bi to straight. Words mean things.
If that is true, then it must mean that straights can go gay too....I doubt that!!!!!
In that case, why can't WE get paid? If there are checks being passed out to people who promote moral standards, where the line? I want mine!
The difference is the gay men are able to have non-stop sex, with many, many indiscriminate partners.
Sorry. You could substitute a "true believer" in any philosopy, be it environmentalism, PETA-ism, abortionism or whatever, and you can make the same arguments.
What you failed to address was the stark ways in which what you call *purist* Islamists and *purist* Christians advocate their views.
There is no "Christian" movement to take over government *by force* and or to use *religious police* in or out of government to go to your home and beat you purely because of your beliefs.
Sure there are nutcases espousing any ideology that exists, including religious ones. But Islamic fundamentalism is the only religion that advocates and glorifies the death of "infidels" or the extrajudicial punishment/enforcement of its doctrines upon individuals.
It's simply hysterical to equate what (your terms) *purist Islamists and purist Christians* do to advocate their beliefs.
If someone believes you will go to hell for your beliefs and you disagree, so what? If someone forcefully argues their beliefs (religious or otherwise) are correct and yours are not, so what? Argue yours equally forcefully.
If their views win in the marketplace of ideas---thus becoming either enshrined in law or social convention--- and yours don't, how can you quibble with that? Within our system of government, within our constitutional constraints, their ideas won out over your ideas fair and square. How is *that* like the Taliban, as you so grossly likened those thugs to born again Christians?
I grant you the similarities you have stated, but find they have no meaning.
I hope you will grant the glaring dissimilarity that I have pointed out.
You mean the gospels. And Jesus didn't say anything against bestiality or incest, either. Does that make it okay?
You've got to remember the audience he was talking to. They knew what the sexual taboos were. Rabbis of that time have even written that homosexuality was almost nonexistent in the Jewish community.
Plus Jesus made it pretty clear that marriage is G-dly-ordained to be between man and woman.
I saw a few ex-gay sites on the web that some FREEPERS provided and I thought that they were a step about the astrology sites. I would NEVER marry an ex-gay although at this point I don't have to worry about that, but I would not want my children to marry one either. What a fraud that would be. I would be horrified of that.
"You saw a couple on my fake website. Okay, I'll bite. To what website are you referring? And to what couple are you referring?"
The ones you provided!!!!!
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.