Posted on 01/20/2009 10:39:23 AM PST by AJKauf
His actions, especially his treatment of his gay daughter Mary, helped define him as the most pro-gay vice president in American history. In her book, Now It’s My Turn, Mary recounts how her father reacted when she first came out to him: “The first words out of his mouth were exactly the ones I wanted to hear: ‘You’re my daughter and I love you and I just want you to be happy.’”
Later, he would welcome Mary’s partner Heather into their family. They sat together at President Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, his second in 2005, and even today at President Obama’s swearing-in. Heather joined Mary on the stage with the families of the president and vice president when Bush declared victory in 2004. The two women sat together at the White House dinner for Britain’s Prince Charles and his wife Camilla....
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
“Cheney was afflicted with a homo daughter because he was a workaholic, who spent too much time away from his family, IMO.”
There are other reasons it could happen, but this seems quite likely for Mr Cheney, well known for working weeks on end without seeing his family. It’s very common. Children aren’t getting enough input from their fathers. Parents are allowing their childrens’ values to be set by whatever anti-American propaganda and sociopolitical manipulation the networks choose.
“Hmmm. This sounds really intelligent.”
Welcome to the new FR.
What a load of hogwash if ever I’ve heard it.
It’s not like a father being away guarantees problems. If the child has a strong family cohesion, they are likely to be fine.
I have a gay uncle... this is not a chosen way of life... I am anti gay marriage, but I am not anti-gay because people cannot help how they are born.
Correlation is not causation.
If your statement was meant to explain something as an example of cause and affect, it was sadly in error.
If it had any truth - it doesn't - the statistics of the numbers of workaholic fathers in the nation would require many-times-more lesbian daughters than now exist; to have been created (nurture over nature?) from the absent-from-home lifestyle of all the actual workaholic fathers.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, the truth is more complex than your erroneous cause and affect example.
Cheney's response in its own way presaged Sarah Palin's response concerning her young, pregnant unwed daughter - the good parent still loves and will care for their child, no matter what.
“the statistics of the numbers of workaholic fathers in the nation would require many-times-more lesbian daughters than now exist”
? you refer to some statistics, as if you have seen them. Where is that one from, bogusstats.com?!
Ann Coulter says the greatest causal effect for men to be in prison is to have an absent father. That is true.
“people cannot help how they are born”
that’s a lib talking point. they are not born like that. God does not make homos. Men choose to rob banks, men choose to murder, men choose to sodomize other men. These are bad choices
“the statistics of the numbers of workaholic fathers in the nation would require many-times-more lesbian daughters than now exist”
The “statistics” have been evident, anecdotaly, in the collective experience of all of us who have lived and worked in the last forty years and know how many workaholic fathers have been in our range of our friends, family, co-workers and acquaintances, and know simultaneously the vast frequency at which their daughters were not lesbians.
The child-parent relationship is more complex than mere “time-spent” alone can qualify.
As much as I like Ann Coulter and appreciate her conservative thinking, particularly on the culture “wars”, I know of nothing in her background or experience that makes her an expert on “the greatest causal effect for men to be in prison”.
Again, just like when we consider the “man made global warming” nuts, one has to be careful, in science, not to confuse statistical correlation with causation - they are not the same.
I was speaking about the particular quote in question. I didn’t know he said this as well.
But since I already thought he is wrong on this topic, it doesn’t change what I said earlier. Dick Cheney is wrong on this issue, whether he is couching what he says with respect to his daughter or being blatantly wrong about whatever perverse relationships people want to engage in.
It isn’t heinous as it is naive. The militant, legalist gay advocate groups are going to use homosexual marriage to force it on all of us. They will use the Equal Protection Clause to force it as an issue. That’s been the goal all along. At the same time they want to kill off DOMA.
For myself, the stars could fall from the heavens, the oceans could boil, the clouds could rain blood, my father and mother could have ditched me at 2 years old, my parents could have made me watch “Designing Women” and I would still be absolutely 100% heterosexual. I always assumed it was the same for most men and women; but wow.... Dad comes home from work late once to often...and BAM....suddenly your raging teenage hormones are no longer telling you that women are the bee's knees.
Does this make sense to anyone?
Well, your logic remains doubtful (and hilarious) in light of the fact that Elizabeth is Mary’s sister and is not gay.
I spent a year working away from my daughter. If she comes to me to let me know that she is gay, I will blame it on that year away.
“statistics” have been evident, anecdotaly
Anecdotal statistics!! Wow! That’s a new one. I think that’s where the media gets most of their statistics from too.
child-parent relationship is more complex than mere “time-spent”
Of course it is. And some single parents bring up kids that don’t go to prison. That’s clearly not the point.
Now you contradict yourself, because previously, in your agreement with Ann Coulter, there was direct cause and affect between single parent households (absent fathers) and men going to prison, yet somehow (correctly) you now agree there is not. Thanks.
“But don’t try to say it is not a difficulty.”
Hey, I’m not saying it is a difficulty, and I never did.
But you are the one who paraphrased Ms Coulter as an authority, claiming, from her (as if she was an authority), that it was the single largest cause of men in prison. It isn’t.
Just like parenting, winding up in prison can develop out of a number of circumstances and due to one’s responses to those circumstances. Correlation is NOT causation.
The correlation between a single factor, among many factors, in a large statistical subset, does not prove that one factor as THE PRIMARY CAUSE for those found in that subset (men in prison). Either you misquoted Ms. Coulter, or you and she are both wrong.
“you paraphrased Ms Coulter as an authority”
No, I didn’t. Most conservatives would tend to agree with the points she raises in her book, which is why I drew the parallel. The authority is the research she cites in her book. Drawing a parallel is not the same as evoking an authority.
And I have read her books, all of them, and, as I said, as much as I appreciate her conservative point of few SHE is not an authority and the data she uses is data she misuses at times, precisely because of the maxim in science that KNOWS that correlation is not causation.
Are absent fathers NOT a good thing. Yes, they are not a good thing. Are single-parent households NOT a good thing. Yes, they are generally not a good thing. Both situations ARE difficult; while good parenting and many other things can, sometimes, maybe, possibly help with those difficulties as well.
Regardless, whether Ann Coulter says it directly or indirectly (mis-using data), neither case can be said (as you did) to be the prime cause of men in prison. For every man in prison who had an absent father or single-parent household there are many times over that number of men who had an absent father or single-parent household and did not wind up in prison.
So, how does one get away with making “absent father” THE prime CAUSE of men in prison. She confuses correlation with causation. She counts, AMONG MEN IN PRISON, how many (%) had absent fathers and correlates the high frequency of that as a CAUSE. But true scientific inquiry insists that to find that as a CAUSE, one must count that circumstance (absent fathers) IN ALL MEN and then determine what is the rate of ALL MEN IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE that went to prison (the reverse of how she used it). For it to be a CAUSE it must have the described affect (going to prison) in more than a simple majority of All men raised in that circumstance.
A cause is NOT defined by simply correlating a percentage for how often a circumstance (absent fathers) exists in a statistical subset (as in men in prison) - as in how Ann comments that 70% of the men in prison were “abandoned by their fathers”.
A cause is defined by correlating a percentage for how often a circumstance exists (in prison) for ALL units in the total population (all who have in common) with the factor you are looking at (as in ALL men with “absent fathers”). When you can say, as Ann could NOT say, that “70% of all men who had absent fathers went to prison”, then you could make a case for causation, a case of cause and affect against “absent fathers”. That is not the case backed up by the data as Ann used it.
And, as I said, there is no evidence that the majority of men who had that circumstance (absent fathers) are in prison, so, to whatever extent it may have been true for those men who did go to prison, there is no evidence it was THE cause. It is a statistical correlation, not proof of causation.
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.