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 I didn't state your position correctly, I apologize. It's been a while since I read upthread.
As I explained in a subsequent post, the point is (fill in the blank) with whatever your position is. Whatever it was you were arguing, you refused to consider anything that challenged it.
Now that you've read my post, can you see how, from my POV, you're really engaging in a tautology here?
Why would any want to be a homosexual?
To ask me if I have beliefs was not an appropriate response to my questions, imo. Everyone has beliefs. The question is ridiculous.
Then on what basis do you conclude born again Christians---and no other ideologies---want to "force" you to abide by their beliefs?
I don't think that only fundamentalist Christians wnat to "force" their beliefs on others. But I do think (and threads like this back me up) that they do want to force others to live by their beliefs. I think that many environmentalists want to force others to live by their beliefs. Socialists certainly do. And as I've said, Islamists absolutely do. No, I was talking about the similarity that I see between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims - the *purists* of the religious type, if you will.
Of course, except that I would clarify my view on your statement that "a person's beliefs define the perimeters of what they can understand and imagine."
I agree with this only if one's beliefs include the belief that one never has the absolute truth. I believe that absolute truth exists, but I also am convinced that we as humans can err in understanding it and perceiving; that is, that it is necessary to continually review and examine that we are as in sync with absolute truth as we can be at this time in our lives.
So I conclude that a person can have beliefs that limit his understanding and imagination or he can have beliefs that allow him to grow in his understanding and application of absolute truth.
Lesbians paired in loco parentis is a secondary issue, as are the slightly more general issues of homosexuals as parents and adoption by homosexuals.
Sodomy is not on the radar of this article and is a distraction from honest discussion of the article's points.
It's only ridiculous if you are insincere, and I have not yet concluded that about you.
I explained why I asked the question.
But I do think (and threads like this back me up) that they do want to force others to live by their beliefs.
What form of "force" do you think would be utilized here?
So what do you think it means or what do you think are the ramification of people believing that they are *entitled* to force others to live by their beliefs?
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?
I've already addressed this. It DOES apply to all ideologies that feel *entitled* to force their beliefs on others.
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?
By making laws that restrict behavior they don't agree with...or passing laws requiring people to engage in behavior they desire.
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?
Yes I do equate it with that. Just as I equate socialists who want to tax everyone to death and have government control of everything as attempting to *Force* people to do their bidding by using government - which is force.
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?
Law is force. Yes, people who want to make their religion or ideology *law* are trying to force everyone to live by their beliefs.
That may suggest something for you to work on, by the way. And that would be to put away that excessive need to typecast, to stick with opinions so prejudiced and bigoted that you are unable to see the reality instead of imagining it per the foolish whimsy's of the times.
I agree that absolute truth exists - and I agree that humans don't know it or understand it. I do think we are bettered in continuing to seek for it even though we are not capable of really grasing it at this point.
So I conclude that a person can have beliefs that limit his understanding and imagination or he can have beliefs that allow him to grow in his understanding and application of absolute truth.
Yes, I essentially agree with that. I would word it differently.
Thanks! I enjoyed that.
One of the lost classics of rock 'n roll.
No, my view is that the question is ridiculous. As I said everyone - every singel, solitary person has beliefs. So why ask if I have beliefs. It is ridiculous, imo.
What form of "force" do you think would be utilized here?
As I have said - the force of government.
Thank you. Now we can see what the disagreement is.
You say you do believe that even using the constitutionally enshrined process to govern our society is, when used by Christians acting on their beliefs, a form of "forcing" others to abide by their beliefs.
Let's not go into the semantics of what the word "force" means. For purposes of this discussion, I'll accept that you feel laws enacting moral viewpoints with which you disagree "force" you to abide by someone else's moral viewpoint.
Given that, on what basis do you conclude that that use of "force" (as you have defined it) is inappropriate?
I understand that you disagree with some moral viewpoints, as do I. And I understand that you disagree with some moral viewpoints being urged as legal standards, as do I. But if an idea---regardless of what it is---makes it all the way through our constitutional and legal processes, and thereby becomes a "force of law," how is that illegitimate?
Please note that I carefully chose the word "illegitimate." I am asking how the *process* that is "forcing" a particular idea upon us is illegitimate so long as the process is constitutional.
I agree certainly that the idea that is "forced" upon us by law may be morally wrong or illegitimate and in need of change. But if a whole bunch of people back the idea and it becomes law and passes constitutional muster, then isn't this only the "force" we agreed to live under in the social contract that is America? How is this "force" like the force used by the Taliban?
So if you disagree with a particular moral viewpoint, fine. Argue and wail against. Work to keep it from becoming an accepted social norm. Work to keep it from being enacted in legislation. Work to keep it from becoming the "force of law." But don't say that it is illegitimate for others to work in the opposite direction because their efforts are "forcing" their viewpoints on others.
As I have said, for purposes of this discussion, I will give you your definition of "force" as the "force of law." So, yes, a law does exert some "force" on people. But that is quite different from the law itself *being forced on people.* Have I been able to make the distinction here?
In America (apart from the Roe v. Wade situation, and even there there are processes for redress that start with creating a social consensus against the ruling), laws are not *forced* upon us.
Even wild usurptions of power by the judiciary still have roots---however tenuous---in our consent because we collectively elected the individual who nominated the judges and who allowed, supported or were unable to persuade enough people to pull the nomination. And because we have agreed to be bound by the judiciary and resolve problems with the judiciary, however egregious they may be, through processes established by the Constitution.
In sum, it seems to me that you are confusing the "force of law" with laws *being forced upon us* and that is not the case.
As I've said before, if a particular POV wins in the marketplace of ideas and is enacted into law, then that idea won and if you don't like it, work to change it.
But don't claim it is illegitimate for those propounding that particular POV, and attempting to persuade others to that POV, and attempting to win in the marketplace of ideas, to do so.
Please accept that I was trying to start our conversation on this point. I did not mean it in a ridiculous way.
Ok no problem.
Thank you!
I think the disagreement is right here:
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?
You have said that you don’t agree.
That’s a big deal. I think once people have crossed the threshold of believing that they have some *right* some dominate and control others – that the possibility of tyranny comes closer. And further – if that inclination is not corrected or changed – tyranny is inevitable.
Why do you think the Taleban is a tyranny? Because they believe that they can *force* everyone to live by their beliefs.
I want to put a bit about *force* in:
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
I am going out now for the evening. I will write more when I return.
**************
Quite right. Andrew Sullivan is an intelligent, but disturbed man. I can't imagine using him as an authority on any issue.
I've heard various reasons. Some have gay friends and insist I don't know any gays. They're wrong. Some insist I (and others) hate gays and they're wrong so they jump to the defense of their gay friends when we point out the facts about homosexuality. I find it quite a compliment when they call me a closet gay, as that tactic is straight from the homosexual agenda playbook by Kirk and Madsen (After the Ball: How America Will Concquer It's Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s). There are a number of reasons, but please don't take this as a defense of their position!
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.