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 cannot 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 have 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 a 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. Likewise, 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.
Related special offer: