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.
***********
They didn't write that song. I believe it was The Contours.
Oh my, you're right! And I've never even heard the Contours' version. That will be rectified!
And by the way, I at one time lived down the street from the J. Geils band.
Always wondered why they aren't better remembered. They had some good songs.
How is it possible for men to be happily married, be aroused by a WOMAN (his wife) so that they can have sex often, many having children, then YEARS later leave the family for a gay relationship? If he were gay as in "it's genetic" (that is the argument - that's why we need laws protecting it because it's not a choice - it's the way that they were born) he would never be able to become aroused by a woman - his wife - without some pretty ridiculous stuff - Man to wife: "Hey, honey... would you put my business suit on tonight and this fake mustache and talk in a deep voice before we have sex?... Oh, and get a crew cut hair cut tomorrow." The marriage wouldn't last a few days.
Yes, straight men decide to go wild and start having gay sex. It's simply another way of having sex to them.
Not like you; you just happened to leave out the part where he admits that he was wrong about homosexuality being unchangeable.
All religions (monotheist religions and some that aren't, such as Buddhsim) share essentially the same religiously based moral principles and values.
All law is based on morality. The slogan "you can't legislate morality" is meaningless. All law is legislating morality.
What they mean is they want no law curb licentiousness. They won't say that, though. But the problem is that untrammeled licentious behavior causes social disruption, actually creates a downward spiral that affects everyone.
This is explained in the Mahabharat 5000 years ago. It's not a new realization. It is said there that when women are corrupted by men, illicit sex results, and from that, unwanted children, (called "varna sankara"), and when the popluation is saturated with unwanted ill brought up children, family traditions and religious practices are lost, and society is destroyed.
This is why I began our conversation on this point by asking you if you had beliefs. Which, of course, you do.
However, you appear to believe that you don't believe you are entitled to take those beliefs and dominate and control others.
Okay. So my question is why don't you accept that others, who, like you, have beliefs, can have them without feeling entitled to use them to dominate and control others?
That's my point on this aspect of our discussion. I think you can trust that many people are like you: a person with strong beliefs and a strong willingness to advocate and argue your beliefs and to attempt to persuade people to your beliefs, which is what you have done on this thread.
As I see it, the only problem you can have with people acting as you have on this thread, except on behalf of ideas you don't agree with, is that you see it as they are attempting to persuade people to pass laws influenced by their point-of-view and you are not.
However, the law is the sum of what it says AND what it does not say. IOW, you are advocating using the "force of law" just as much by *omission* as someone advocating using the "force of law" by *commission.*
That's the first thing. The second thing is what we talked about previously: that is, that you cannot equate "force of law" with laws *being forced upon us.*
The first---the "force of law"---is the agreed-upon (in the social contract sense) result of legitimate legal and constitutional processes of a legitimate government. (And it includes legitimate legal and constitutional processes to change laws if the people so choose.)
The latter---laws *being forced upon us*---would be the implementation of the illegitimate results of the illegal and unconstitutional processes of an illegitimate government.
The latter is not occurring when you or I or anyone else simply advocates using legitimate processes to reflect---by omission or commission---a particular point of view.
Living with legitimately enacted laws with which we disagree is unpleasant or worse. But it is not, in process terms, the same as having those laws "forced" upon us.
I hear that occasionally but have never seen him misquoted. Do you have a specific reference in mind?
What's of particular importance is what Spitzer has said and the reaction from the homosexual community who think he is abandoning them. He isn't, he's just being honest with the facts. That is, gays can leave the lifestyle. And when Spitzer says that he's saying a lot.
Here is his full quote:
"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
Oh, man, I just lost a long post to you!!
Okay, I'll try again.
Thanks. I did read that earlier in the thread. What I'm really looking for or what I'm really interested in are quotes from people misrepresenting the study. I've never seen anything Spitzer mentions in the quote and would be one of the first to denounce it if I did.
Here's your quote, "What's of particular importance is what Spitzer has said and the reaction from the homosexual community who think he is abandoning them. He isn't, he's just being honest with the facts. That is, gays can leave the lifestyle."
In saying, "...gays can leave the lifestyle" you phrase as it as the lifestyle is a choice and all they need is a little bit of will power. In fact, he's saying just the opposite, that it is rare for them to respond to the treatment.
The gay side demonized him for saying that a small percentage could be "cured" and the anti-gay side held him up as a hero in order to demonize gay people.
The poor guy can't win for losing.
You mentioned the "unwanted children" -- I guess some here are unwilling to look at the Mary Cheney situation and make a call for what is likely some years on. Dear Mary and her lover may "love" the child to all get out, and surely in a materialistic sense will, given their position in life.
Yet just how deep is that love? I say it ain't so deep as it would be had Mary been with man, and the baby been with both a mom and a dad. The "love" dynamic is limited when (1) one trains oneself in a selfish love and (2) when one doesn't appeal to all that nature provides one, in this case to the intractably deep bond that only develops (or can develop) between a man and a woman.
And I think it would be more obvious to many of some experience that Mary and lover's love of the child will diminish and turn stale as they all get on in years -- a lesbian is always very alone, so it seems to me in my observations, and ageing makes them more so. More stale, especially, in that way of love -- the way that speaks to a pride in the loving and in the growth and change of a child. Some older lesbians are very nice people, warm people in ageing, but that social warmth seems unrelated to the thicker, richer love a husband and wife of forty-plus years marriage have for themselves and for their children.
They've not only made a bastard (see my prior posts regarding that term, dear moderators), but they've almost surely made a beggar too. An adult to be who will be always searching for and defecient of not just the love of and life with a Dad, but for the missing love triangle of child-Dad-Mom.
Okay, here's my reconstruction of my "one more thought" on your comment.
All laws impose moral judgments. Speed limits, for example, exist because we collectively have made the moral judgment that it is wrong to subject the many to the dangerous, stupid and risky conduct of the few.
Previously and presently in our history, including a time when major religion played a much more dominating role in our culture than it does now, there were and are many laws that reflect the moral judgments you rail against. Laws against adultery, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, homosexuality and so on.
Yet tyranny did not occur.
Prior to Roe v. Wade, many states had various restrictions on abortion---surely reflecting a major moral judgment.
Yet tyranny did not occur.
At one time, one of the most immoral moral judgments known to man---slavery---was imposed through our law.
Yet tyranny did not occur.
Why not? If these type of moral judgments are the slippery slope to tyranny, as you argue, how did America remain a free nation, and how did our legitimate legal and constitutional processes continue to work, including continue to work to bring change?
So, for purposes of our discussion, I'll agree with you that some people come to believe that they are entitled to force others to live by their beliefs, and so have "started down a road of thinking that has to do with control and domination."
Again, and I am being sincere not sarcastic here: so what? Short of staging a coup and running the country by sheer brute force (which I do not think is possible), how do you think such people would obtain enough power to exercise "control and domination" over the rest of us?
The answer is that they can't.
And you have already said that the "force" you are concerned about is the "force of law," the "force" of government. But unless our government is abolished, the only avenues to power are legitimate processes for building social consensus and enacting that consensus into law. If you cannot abide that, then you are saying you cannot abide the fact that people with all viewpoints can participate in the marketplace of ideas.
I don't think you want to go there.
Advocate anything you please about homosexuality or any other topic, but it's not appropriate to label those doing the same (albeit from a POV with which you disagree) as equivalent to the Taleban.
It's a research project for you, Sm.
The problem with your example is I've stated on this thread homosexuality isn't a choice. And Spitzer has admitted gays can leave the lifestyle. Furthermore Spitzer is not saying the opposite, he's saying it's possible to leave the lifestyle. Everything has to be read in its context.
What is the source of your quote? A link, please.
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.