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.
'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!!'
Haven't you now agreed that someone with your *bias* probably can't understand the bigotry in it? Or perhaps you would be honest enough to admit you really don't care if your *bias* is bigoted?
Dr. Robert Spitzer, a noted psychologist who USED to believe that homosexuals could not change, now realized that they can.
The information is there, scripter provided many links, you refuse to read them or read them with anything but a closed mind.
You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to be right just because you want to be.
And why do you cling to your false belief that there are no former homosexuals?
Would you agree that someone with your *bias* might be predisposed to dismissing truth, labeling it as "bigotry"?
Do you have beliefs?
I think this is SS's counter argument to all the links scripter posted (and my small contribution). A blanket statement that evidence doesn't mean anything. That's sure an easy way to get out of having to prove his point. And, SS, what IS your point, anyway? Other than that those who promote morality are bad, bad, bad?
Okay, well fill in the blanks.
You argued a certain position.
Someone offered links refuting that position.
You refused to read the links because they challenged your original position.
So my analysis of your reasoning remains the same.
And, yes, I did say I found the views of ex-Christians valuable and explained why. Was that not a sufficient answer from which to surmise that I also had no problem with you sending me links to ex-Christian sites? As I said, I do consider many different points of view.
"I anticipated some misuse of the study results but I did not anticipate that some of the media would say such ridiculous things as that the study raised the issue of homosexuality and choice. Of course no one chooses to be homosexual and no one chooses to be heterosexual. I did anticipate, and in my presentation warn, that it would be a mistake to interpret the study as implying that any highly motivated homosexual could change if they really were motivated to do so. I suspect that the vast majority of gay people - even if they wanted to - would be unable to make the substantial changes in sexual attraction and fantasy and enjoyment of heterosexual functioning that many of my subjects reported. I also warned against the study results being used to justify pressuring gay people to enter therapy when they had no interest in doing so and I have already heard of many incidents where that has happened. That is what troubles me the most about this controversy." - Dr. Robert Spitzer
"You ask for proof? Don't be preposterous!!"
Note SS's comment I just quoted above. Eliminates his need to ever prove his point. (Of course, what his POV is, is unclear; other than that I and other social conservatives are bigoted and hateful and that everyone should love homosexuality.)
Ok, I thought I would give it a try. As I said I am semi interested in the subject - but I see from your response that you are not sincere.
Actually, that was her quote of my suggestion of what her stand has been all along.
See #709 for the whole story.
Where? Where have I argued that?
I didn't finish reading the post because I didn't see it as relevant to my posts. I'm sorry I didn't see that you were willing to read ex-Christian testimonies.
So even Dr. Spitzer had to admit that some homosexuals can change (you left out that part, btw!). Of course, he doesn't LIKE that fact, since it challenges his previous fondly held beliefs. But he had to admit that some can change if they want to!
I have never stated that homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex (although 7% of homosexuals, in at least one study, admit they chose to be). But anyone who engages in any sex act other than being a rape victim chooses to engage in said act.
Everyone has desires in the mind that they choose not to act on. Everyone. Desires for sex, eating, drinking, smoking, arguing, fighting, stealing, lying, etc etc ad infinitum. That's called using our discrimination - deciding which course of action is moral, useful, beneficial, and which course of action is harmful.
And the funny thing - the more we give in to desires that are harmful, the easier it becomes to do it, and the louder the demands of the mind become. Desires that are enacted have a way of creating a mental groove and increasing in intensity.
Why does the fact that there are former homosexuals threaten so many of you?
Got it now! In a fast moving thread sometimes you really need to read to the end before posting!
She, eh?
Did you read this part of the quote?
"I suspect that the vast majority of gay people - even if they wanted to - would be unable to make the substantial changes in sexual attraction and fantasy and enjoyment of heterosexual functioning that many of my subjects reported. I also warned against the study results being used to justify pressuring gay people to enter therapy when they had no interest in doing so and I have already heard of many incidents where that has happened. That is what troubles me the most about this controversy..."
The operative words are "suspect" (he thinks, he doesn't know for sure, especially because homosexuals have actually had very little opportunity to seek reparative therapy for a variety of reasons) and "force" - no one here is suggesting that homosexuals be forced to submit to reparative therapy if they don't want it.
Again, why does the fact that there are former homosexuals threaten you so much?
No, but why would that be relevant anyway?
Even if we agree on this point, do you not see that your analysis applies to ALL ideologies? That ANYONE could believe they are "entitled to force others to live by their beliefs"---whether they are religious, environmental, vegetarianism, abortionism, whatever?
So the question remains why you are so willing to equate born again Christians with the Taliban?
Further, on what basis do you believe that even if there are Christians who believe they are entitled to force others to live by their beliefs, that they can or will gain the power to do so?
Surely, you do not equate an effort to persuade the broader public, including influencing the legal and legislative processes, with "forcing" people to abide by their beliefs?
And surely you do not equate the process of winning in the marketplace of ideas, and thereby influencing the outcome of duly established constitutional legal and legislative processes, with "forcing" people to abide by their beliefs?
"It's also worth noting that no male will ever be conceived by such a practice."
And the lesbo feminists shout "HOORAY!!!"
I'm not threatened one way or the other. As long as people get to live their lives as they see fit.
And, to be perfectly truthful, I don't believe that anyone can change their minds in regards to disliking gay people.
What bothers me is misquoting science. This Spitzer guy is extensively misquoted.
No, I am sincere.
I elaborated on in a subsequent post. The point of asking you if you had beliefs was to start this conversation:
You have beliefs that you believe are true, very true. Do you necessarily then believe you are, as you said, entitled to force others to abide by them?
I think you would answer "no."
Then on what basis do you conclude born again Christians---and no other ideologies---want to "force" you to abide by their beliefs?
Please do not start on me with dismissing my posts. Only engage me and I will do my best to engage you. We might disagree, but we might learn something, too.
So humor me here - before I answer your points - do you agree that beliefs are personally powerful? In other words do you agree that a person'a beliefs define the perimeters of what they can understand and imagine? And do you agree that belief is determinant in a persons's behavior?
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.