Posted on 12/10/2006 8:06:17 PM PST by Rb ver. 2.0
No one approves of welfare mothers, abusive parents, alcoholic parents or the myriad other pathologies that too many innocent children are subjected to.
However, those realities don't necessitate that we reject traditional family structures and offer a de facto embrace of homosexual parenting. Will Mary Cheney be a good mother? Could be. Does that mean we should silently accept or actively encourage this concept? No thanks.
I'll illustrate my point with two words, Rosie O'Donnell.
But YOU think they're confused. What if THEY don't? If a lesbian knows she a woman who loves other women, how is she confused? Because you think she is? What you think is irrelevant in her situation because you don't get a vote in what she does in her private life.
It takes a village people.
Rosie wouldn't be a good mother even if she was straight. Anyone with that amount of hate, straight or gay, will not be a good influence on a child.
Yes.
You are splitting hairs or throwing in strawmen.
No, it is horrible for the child.
Pray for W and Our Troops
NO! I'm not sure if they should be able to keep their biological children, unless they give up a gay lifestyle. That lifestyle is a terrible environment for children.
How do I know she is confused? LOL! How does one know someone trying to drive a square peg into a round hole is confused?
How much more confused those trying to drive a hole of any shape into another hole of whatever shape, or those trying to drive a peg into another peg, must be.
No
You'd advocate the government forcefully taking away biological children from a gay parent? OMG.
I can't believe there are so many people in favor of this digenerate lifestyle on a supposedly conservative site.
What is wrong with our country? What is wrong with some of you conservatives?
We'll never take this country back if conservatives treat homosexuals as normal and fit parents. You are all falling into the secular trap.
Until very recently, western civilization viewed homosexuality as a disorder and there is ample evidence to suggest that while many heterosexual parents leave much to be desired, the odds are against the children of homosexuals growing up in a stable environment.
Like I said, no one ever says "you know what honey, that Susie may be on welfare and have five other kids by three different fathers, but that doesn't mean she won't be a good mom".
And conservatives will never win back this country if those like you advocate the government taking children away from homosexual parents. In fact, advocating such a postion makes you anything but conservative in my book.
I think the gay lifestyle is abusive to children. I know it will never happen, but I think it should. If a child's parents are unfit because of drug abuse or insanity, the parent gets treatment before they can have the child back. That could possibly work in some of these cases.
The government has no place in deciding who is fit to be parents. Period.
Would you be good enough to rephrase the question, it's fairly incoherent. I can't figure out what you are trying to say.
However, in a previous post you wrote that conservative positions on social/moral issues held by the majority of Republicans and embedded in the party platform are not well received among independents. You stated that realists, supposedly yourself, understand how harmful those positions are to the Republican Party. Therefore, ipso facto, the GOP should change its position(s) to attract independent voters.
Your premise has not been proven in election after election for the past 26 years. We have elected GOP presidents in 5 of the past 7 national elections. The GOP with socially/morally conservative platorms won the majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years and held that majority for 12 years. The GOP has won the Senate several times since 1980, Other than Arizona this year, every state that has voted on same-sex marriages has passed the measure overwhelmingly. Even in my state of Virginia in 2006 when electing a Democrat senator, the man-woman only marriage measure won convincingly.
SO why would the GOP change its positions instead of learning how to articulate them? The majority was not lost because of the party's social/moral issue positions.
The thread's title is "do you approve....." not, so far as I can see, "do you want the government to ban ...." to which I would answer nay and nay. It is possible both to not approve of homosexual/lesbian couples raising children and to not want the government regulating their doing so.
You fool yourself if you think you can separate morality from politics. Whether the morality is based on traditional Judeo-Christian values or humanist values, they are religious-based moral values. Humanism is its own religion by another name. Call it the anti-religion religion, it's still a religion. Conversely, you can call a homosexual/lesbian union a marriage, it still ain't a marriage.
I may not "approve" of Ms. Cheney or other lesbians raising children, but it's not my choice. It's not my business. It's not the government's business. Frankly, I don't care if she and her partner are happy about the pregnancy or not. I do care what happens with the child. Once any of us brings a child into the world, we have a responsibility to stop caring about the adults' pleasures and start focusing on what is good for the child. This child will have advantages most lesbians' kids couldn't conceive of. How it all turns out we will know in 20-25 years, not 9 months. And, it will all take place with or without my (or your) approval.
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.