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.
Since I've provided over 50 links on this thread and you've referenced one, quite vaguely, I have no idea to what site you're referring.
You've created a tautology and that proves nothing.
Scripter (or whoever it is you were arguing with) states he believes homosexuals can change.
You argue that homosexuals cannot change.
He proffers as evidence for his conclusions the statements of people who claim to be "ex-homosexuals."
You refuse to consider the statements of these people because, back to your conclusion---which is the very thing that is supposed to be in play when people are debating--- you don't believe people can be "ex-homosexuals."
So, in essence, you are refusing to consider any evidence that challenges your beginning assumption/conclusion.
Therefore, you are arguing that you won't accept the statements of self-proclaimed ex-homosexuals because you don't believe that there is such a thing as an ex-homosexual.
BTW, if you won't consider and at least the weigh the credibility for yourself the statements of individuals who do in fact claim to be ex-homosexuals, what type of evidence do you think would possibly challenge your conclusion that ex-homosexuals do not exist?
If you can't think of any evidence that, if you examined it and found it credible and legitimate, would change your mind, then ask yourself if you are truly engaged in *thinking* rather than *feeling.*
Here's what you are doing:
A person says he doesn't believe the disease cancer exists. Someone trying to convince him otherwise says, here, look at all these statements by cancer specialists and cancer patients. The person refuses on the grounds that there can be no cancer specialists or cancer patients because, back to his original assumption, there is no such thing as cancer.
This is not helpful, enlightened or intellectual reasoning. It is conclusory thinking and that is the hallmark of the closed-minded.
(And to answer your question, yes, I do find the words of ex-Christians and the others you mentioned valuable. They challenge me to reassess my beliefs, which is always useful, and give me the opportunity to grow in my ability to articulate what exactly it is I believe and why.)
Right. So the difference isn't in desire, it's in opportunity.
Going to bed all. Gotta get up for a run in the morning. It is 2229 here!!!!!
Can't you just go to sleep later and coordinate a nap for later in the afternoon? : )
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Apparently, "I doubt you will understadn [sic] what I am saying" means, "Don't even dare to question me; the truth in my accusations is obvious to anyone with a heart" (or soul or brain, depending on the situation).
'Anyone can see you're a bigot! You're probably so bigoted you can't understand bigotry! You ask for proof? Don't be preposterous!!'
I wonder why so many "conservatives' are so defensive of gays.
Are you willing to present post #21 to Andrew Sullivan and see what his response to it is?
You didn't asnwer if you would like me to provide you would links from ex-Christians who find the religion to be evil.
Beliefs are extremely powerful, personally, - would you agree? Beliefs are a determinant factor in behavioral choices – would you agree?
Once people accept the belief that they are *entitled* (for whatever reason) to force others to live by their beliefs – they have started down a particular road of thinking that has to do with control and domination. Would you agree with that?
I couldn't care less what Andrew Sullivan thinks about it.
Of course, and that would because you only want to hear information you agree with, right?
No, it would be for the same reason I don't care to hear Charlie Manson's comments about the morality of murder.
Oh, I see you already have a bias - and you don't care to hear from the "bad guys", right? Those homos - yeah - they are sooo bad - who wants to know what they think about homosexuality. Yeah - I think I get where you're coming from.
Of course I have a bias. Go ahead and tell me you don't.
Yeah - I think I get where you're coming from.
I doubt it. Here's where I'm coming from.
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.