Posted on 08/21/2008 10:21:44 AM PDT by PercivalWalks
I've long criticized the Single Motherhood by Choice movement for ignoring the importance of fathers and the two-parent family. Now singer Ricky Martin has decided to have motherless children. From Ricky Martin Father of Twin Boys Via Surrogate Mother (Associated Press, 8/20/08):
There won't be much "livin' la vida loca" for Ricky Martin these days -- he's now the father of twin boys.It is nice to see a father being portrayed positively, as Martin is. And I can certainly understand his hesitance to have children through marriage, since the mother could divorce him and push him to the margins of his children's lives on her whim. Nevertheless, children need mothers just like they need fathers, and the two-parent family is what's best for kids.The Latin superstar had the children via a surrogate mother, and the babies were born a few weeks ago, according to a statement from his representatives.
"The children, delivered via gestational surrogacy, are healthy and already under Ricky's full-time care," said the statement. "Ricky is elated to begin this new chapter in his life as a parent and will be spending the remainder of the year out of the public spotlight in order to spend time with his children."
A representative said there was no further information on the details of the children's birth.
Martin, 36, is a multiplatinum singer who is best known for English-language hits like "She Bangs!" and "Livin' la Vida Loca." In recent years, the Puerto Rican star has been active in charitable efforts, including the prevention of sexual exploitation of children.
I disagree with Martin's decision--children need both a mother and a father. There has been wide speculation that Martin is gay, which he denies. If he is gay, that changes the issue a bit.
Martin says, "I love women and sex. I am a real hot-blooded Puerto Rican, but have never been attracted by sex with a man."
To learn more about the problems with the Single Motherhood by Choice movement, see:
1) My co-authored column Are Single Mothers the 'New American Family?' (World Net Daily, 9/28/06)
2) My debate on Fox's nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet -- to watch, click here.
3) My co-authored column Why Dads Matter (Houston Chronicle, 6/18/06)
4) My column Raising Boys Without Men: Lesbian Parents Good, Dads Bad (World Net Daily, 9/10/05)
Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com
[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]
God bless you! No, I would not criticize you for opening your home and your heart to a family of children who probably would not otherwise stay together in a stable home.
susie
Don’t tell any of that to Laura Ingrahm (or her supporters here).
Maybe Ricky Martin could play with Clay Aiken....
Gotta say, I’ve thought the same thing about Laura Ingraham adopting that little Guatemalan girl. There’s a distinct difference it that the child was in an orphanage (i.e., already alive) and certainly should have a better life now, but I get slightly icky vibes listening to Laura talk about her like she’s a new toy or something (”We sat next to each other and got our hair cut! It was so cute!”). Oy...
IMO, they instill both individual and social psychopathy in the viewer - they show unhealthy examples of relationships and instill unhealthy habits of relating.
Just look at the name "Desperate Housewives," for example, or watch "Friends" or "Seinfeld" and count the ways.
I’m glad I haven’t listened to her in a while then...I just can’t get a station that carries her in my area anymore. I agree that children in orphanages are a totally different ball of yarn. INTENDING to be a single parent is sick and unnatural.
He doesn’t seem to have any kind of history of a stable relationship with a woman as far as I can tell. Maybe he’s in the closet?
But from other comments on this thread, that would seem to be the consensus.
“Well, if a man impregnates a woman based simply on her measurments and looks then, he gets what he gets.”
Uhhh, who said anything about looks?
Wait, are you saying Dan Quayle was right??! ;)
susie
:^)
You may be too young to remember the Murphy Brown dustup.
susie
Insanity in women rarely bubbles to the surface until after they’ve got the meathooks in good and tight. Then the poor shlamazzos become the convenient target for the anger they harbor from every bad/unfair thing that has happened in her life.
BTW- Not all women, just the crazy ones.
You know, while that may occasionally be true, in most of the cases I’ve known of bad divorces/crazy spouses, I could see before the marriage that the person was nuts or a bad match or just not someone anyone should be marrying. I think many people (guys and gals) put blinders on when it comes to sexual attraction. They simply ignore warning signs and then are totally surprised when it turns out badly. I know this is certainly not always the case, but for the most part, I think it is. Now, I fully expect to get blasted by some Freepers, but hey, I calls em as I sees em.
susie
ping
I’m 36 (don’t know if that supports or refutes your hypothesis), but there’s a lot I don’t pay much attention to.
I never watched the show (popular in the late 80s I think) in which Murphy Brown had a baby out of wedlock. Dan Quayle mentioned it as contributing to the culture of single parent families, which he said was bad for the country and bad for kids. Everyone blasted him. Later, even the liberal media said he was right.
susie
Everyone blasted him. Later, even the liberal media said he was right.
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.