Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush: happy for Cheney's gay daughter pregnancy
Reuters ^ | 12/15/06

Posted on 12/16/2006 11:22:33 AM PST by Blackirish

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney's pregnant lesbian daughter Mary will make a "fine mom," President George W. Bush said, sidestepping his past comment that a child ideally would be raised by a mother and father.

Mary Cheney, 37, and her longtime partner, Heather Poe, are expecting their first child, which would be the sixth grandchild for the vice president. Cheney was hired last year as an executive for America Online.

"I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child. And I'm happy for her," Bush said in an interview with People magazine.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: barfalert; busybodies; familyvalues; fantasy; fatherlesschild; fertilty; fetish; homosexual; liberalism; liberals; makingnice; moralabsolutes; moralrelativism; perverts; purists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 801-807 next last
To: Spyder; All

Here ya go:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751204/posts
Gay Liberation Manifesto (1972)

And a more recent offering:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751202/posts
Position Paper: The Right's Attack on Sex

The above articles illustrate exactly why I am opposed to the "gay" agenda and the "normalize sexual immorality" movement.


421 posted on 12/16/2006 11:15:00 PM PST by little jeremiah (Only those who thirst for the truth will see the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
IOW, it's immoral to violate someone's rights.

No...it is illegal. I think I understand your confusion a little better though. Do you derive all that you consider to be your conservative principals from the Bible alone. I have trouble understanding you brand of conservatism. Everything you promote flys in the face of what most Conservative writers over the past 500 years or more have written. For instance, what do you think of A Letter Concerning Toleration, written by John Locke. Or On Liberty written by John Stuart Mill? Do any of these writers influnce your conservatism at all?

422 posted on 12/16/2006 11:17:36 PM PST by KDD (Here...have an acorn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: KDD

I'll read them tomorrow.

Do you think the conservative thinkers you mention would advocate libertinism and "gay" rights?

BTW, I am Hindu. Basic moral principles are universal in every religion, and are the basis for all law (laws which are not capricious, overweening, barbaric, or otherwise unconstitutional. Which, unfortunately, many laws are today.)

And I like this statement of Thomas Jefferson's:

"Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests
of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in
which all religions agree." --Thomas Jefferson


And this one:

"To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the
world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his
creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature,
may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law
and government, appears to a common understanding altogether
irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced
a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity,
from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has
constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably
obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution
whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this
law depend the natural rights of mankind."

-- Alexander Hamilton


423 posted on 12/16/2006 11:37:45 PM PST by little jeremiah (Only those who thirst for the truth will see the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Alexander Hamilton.

That explains a little

A great man and it is true that conservatism has claimed him as one of its own. It must be noted, however, that of all the Founders he was most predisposed to the concept of Federalism, more so then them say Jefferson or Madison or John Adams. I think Jefferson and Madison were in the large majority that favored limited Federal power. And limited Federal power has been at the forefront of modern conservatism since Goldwater through Reagan.

But if you can see that the Civil Rights movement, one of the first of modern governments 'Acts of Congress' has devolved to the point that it posterchild to the reality that Federal intervention in special interest group ambitions cause more harm then good and are generally counterproductive in addressing the problem anyway. That goes for agenda driven homosexuals and pious agenda driven self righteous Christians equally.

424 posted on 12/17/2006 12:11:04 AM PST by KDD (Here...have an acorn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish
Gay means happy and happy means Gay!


425 posted on 12/17/2006 12:21:59 AM PST by Clemenza (Never Trust Anyone With a Latin Tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zarf; Blackirish; bahblahbah; derllak; BunnySlippers; sine_nomine; Dante3; JCEccles; ...
Seems like some Freepers here would ram a pitch fork into Mary's gut and toss here into the fires of hell for her evil act of having a child. ........... The times they are a changing and polite society will have to adapt.

"Polite society"?

LOL. Take another guess.

426 posted on 12/17/2006 12:28:16 AM PST by beyond the sea ( All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
It may appear to you that I am hostile to religion but I am not. As an institution the Church has proven itself indispensable to a free society with the good it can do. It is an institution well worth defending. It is an institution that should hold itself above base politics and the inherent evil that that can created in those who chase after earthly power. It would be an unseemly alliance...for the Church. But it shows a desire on the part of the Church to relinquish its own Moral authority to the State... to achieve by force what it can not achieve by persuasion...

When I first read Age of Reason by Thomas Paine I realized that I identified with his Deist philosphy. Then I read Benjamin Franklin's(the least religious of the foinding fathers) reply to Paine who was seeking his comment on the pamplet. He wrote to Paine..."I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that . . . the consequence of printing this piece will be a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits into the wind, spits in his own face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? . . . Think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue . . . . I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person . . . . If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? I intend this letter itself as proof of my friendship."

What logic.

427 posted on 12/17/2006 12:51:20 AM PST by KDD (Here...have an acorn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: beyond the sea

Amen! Some of us refuse to adapt to abhorrent behavior!


428 posted on 12/17/2006 1:00:12 AM PST by derllak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

There are times when the president does not need to, and should not, comment.

This was one of those times.


429 posted on 12/17/2006 1:01:40 AM PST by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spyder
If the Taliban wing view was truly as popular as the morals police claim,...

So, you are from the Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Republican party?

430 posted on 12/17/2006 3:12:02 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: KDD
I think morality is a good thing, and I think most, if not all laws aim to have a moral component in them.

Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

The very idea that human beings have individual rights not subject to the whims of an earthly monarch, but subject to the laws of Yahweh, is directly from Moses.

Guess what... Moses was not a Christian...


But our nation wasn't founded because Our Founding Patriarchs held certain morals to be self-evident or inalienable.

Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

"...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... that all men are created... Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."

431 posted on 12/17/2006 3:24:39 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

WTF


432 posted on 12/17/2006 3:36:56 AM PST by Vaduz (and just think how clean the cities would become again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: visualops
You claimed "You fall for the ploy of the press, which is if someone doesn't specifically mention something, that means they are avoiding it"

Try reading the quotation from the article again. He was specifically asked whether he still still held that belief. You calling people fools will not change that. George Bush did side step the issue.

"In a 2005 interview with The New York Times, Bush said: "I believe children can receive love from gay couples but the ideal is -- and studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."

He side stepped the issue when questioned by People magazine about whether he still held that belief."

As I said before, he could simply have stated , Yes I still believe this.

433 posted on 12/17/2006 4:56:03 AM PST by protest1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Nice photo. I definitely needed a laugh and you delivered.


434 posted on 12/17/2006 5:02:37 AM PST by saneright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser; Sir Francis Dashwood
Didn't run, just had dinner. But Sir Francis sure did run.
He accused others of calling people gay, then called others "queers" on this very thread. And the whole Ann Landers nonsense.
LOL

Hmmm, called gay people queers? Oh, goodness. How tender the emotions have had to have been. The horror of it. I'm sorry on his behalf that this fragility of yours, and thT of others, in your hearts and minds were not so considered.

Its a free speech forum, your taliban friends haven't been able to stop that. I can agree to disagree with you, its give and take.

Interesting...I have "Taliban" friends? From my perspective your nothing short of vicious. Being a military officer and having had friends murdered by Taliban you ought to consider the choice of labels you apply. You simply look like and come off as a total hate-filled liberal idiot when you do such things. What you're doing is a purposeful linking of the term "Taliban" to that of Christians...especially evangelicals. Its sick...nothing less. And you do this because you hate those who have a belief other than your own and display it any time they disagree with you and use their faith to support it.

435 posted on 12/17/2006 6:42:18 AM PST by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER

Ann Slanders... like the enablers of the pagan Greeks Judas Maccabees slaughtered... how nice it was Hannukah to top that one off...


436 posted on 12/17/2006 6:54:23 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
"Do you remember where Coast Guard Base Miami is?

You mean the balsero ferry terminal?

Duh!

LOL.

437 posted on 12/17/2006 7:45:11 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: KDD; CWOJackson
I think that you guys are seeing some extreme examples of what discussed in this article.

Basically, the deconstruction of the Goldwater/Reagan type of conservatism, and the rise of conservative collectivism propelled by the religious right's search for legislative power.

438 posted on 12/17/2006 7:52:58 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

God protect us if they ever do gain political power...Dark Ages here we are.


439 posted on 12/17/2006 7:56:59 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; KDD
"...our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it..."

Jefferson is a great example of an individual with deeply seeded religious beliefs who was able to set apart government from faith. He (correctly) believed that politics and religion would corrupt one another.

440 posted on 12/17/2006 7:58:30 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 801-807 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson