Posted on 12/08/2006 8:31:16 PM PST by rakovskii
Mary Cheney’s pregnancy poses problems not just for her child, but also for all Americans. Her action repudiates traditional values and sets an appalling example for young people at a time when father absence is the most pressing social problem facing the nation. With 37 percent of American children born to fatherless families, Mary Cheney is contributing to a trend that is detrimental to all Americans who will live with the ramifications of millions of children whose anger and frustration at not knowing their father will be felt in the public schools and communities of our nation.
Mary Cheney is among that burgeoning group of adult women over age 20 that are driving the trend of women who don’t want a man in the picture, but want to have a baby. These older women are pushing out-of-wedlock birth statistics higher and higher. At a time when teen births and teen abortions are declining dramatically, older women are having more un-wed births and more abortions, including repeat abortions (indicating that they are using abortion as birth control).
Well-educated, professional Mary Cheney is flying in the face of the accumulated wisdom of the top experts who agree that the very best family structure for a child’s well-being is a married mom and dad family. Her child will have all the material advantages it will need, but it will still encounter the emotional devastation common to children without fathers.
One Georgia high school principal reported, “We have too many young men and women from single-mother families that don’t have the role models at home to teach them how to deal with adversity and handle responsibility. They’ve seen their mom work 60 hours a week just to put food on the table; they end up fending for themselves.”
When fatherless children get to be teens, the girls tend to start looking for love in all the wrong places and the boys tend to find as their role model the bad-boy celebrities of MTV, NFL and NBA.
As they grow older, fatherless children tend to have trouble dealing with male authority figures. Too often children in single-mother households end up angry at their absent fathers and resentful of the mother who has had to be a father figure, too. Typically, the boys who have a love-hate relationship with their mother end up hating all women. Numerous of them look for vulnerable women where they can act out their anger and be in control.
Mary Cheney’s action sets an example that is detrimental for mothers with less financial resources who will start down an irrevocable path into poverty that tends to be generational –– children in households without a father tend to themselves have unwed births later in life. Experts from both the left and the right cite a disastrous litany of negative outcomes that are predictable when a child grows up in a fatherless family. Such children tend to get involved in drugs, alcohol abuse, and delinquency; they tend to drop out of school and have teen pregnancies. An assistant principal in a Junior High School said that many of the behavioral problems that teachers face in the classroom stem from households without a father’s influence.
Mary’s pregnancy is an “in-your-face” action countering the Bush Administration’s pro-family, pro-marriage and pro-life policies. She continues to repudiate the work to which her father has devoted his life. Mary has repeatedly said that “studies” show that children only need a loving home. Her statement is incomplete because the experts agree that for the well-being of children, they desperately need a married father and a mother.
All those people who talk about doing what is best “for our children” need to get back to the basics: children need a married mom and dad. Children can do without a lot of the trimmings of childhood, but nothing can replace a home where the mother and dad love each other enough to commit for a lifetime and are absolutely crazy about their kids –– enough to be willing to sacrifice their own needs to see that their children get the very best.
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, a culturally conservative think tank for Concerned Women for America, is a recognized authority on domestic issues, the United Nations, cultural and women’s concerns.
I used NO "anecdotes"; I posted factual history.....try reading some. I will happily supply you with a book list. :-)
One source, try again
I have not addressed the issue of Fatty Arbuckle. Perhaps you should seek someone out who wants to address that topic. Thanks.
I know, he has said he is not interested, not running.
Instead, this thread is achieving the desired result by the left of smoking out the variety of attitudes on the issue, and making it a divisive point, and smearing VP Cheney through the use of his daughter's lifestyle to turn off social conservatives.
Many here who claim to be Conservatives, (certainly not social conservatives, anyway), run the gamut of approval to the "rest of us should just mind out own business".
They generally ignore the inherent instability in same-sex relationships and tell the rest of us that we are outmoded, old-fashioned, or just wrong to have any cultural standards whatsoever, despite evidence that if Mary Cheney's baby grows up to be a normal, healthy child and well-adjusted adult, Mary Cheney's baby will be more than a couple of standard deviations from the mean.
Tinkering with what is considered "normal" in our culture will do nothing to change the destruction perpetrated upon those who live in and are part of that culture, no more than defining the political Left as the "middle" has made it so.
As for the apologists, you may be right, this sort of thing may prevail. If so, may the God so many of you profess not to believe in help us all, we'll need it.
When the time comes for young men to defend the battlements and the gates, there will be few enough left as it is.
As for the rest of us, Mary Cheney is pregnant out of wedlock.
Aside from her position and lifestyle, she is otherwise unremarkable, joining millions of other women who are pregnant out of wedlock. Were she not gay and the daughter of a Republican Vice-President, this would be a complete non-story.
Her child will be just another bastard, to join the ranks of nearly countless bastard children.
"Marrying" her partner, even if she had done so beforehand, would not change that, she will still not have married the father.
Regardless of what you think of what she has done, it is the use of it to negate any position Dick Cheney might have had should no suitable candidate surface before 2008 that is the saddest part of all.
So what do you want them called "Mistresses of the House"?
Reminds me of when Herman Munster says "As master of this house..." but it is clear how much more influence Lily has...
I have been nothing but honest with you, but you didn't like or agree with my honesty and you delved into personal attacks.
Regarding your views on society, you have the right to those views, but you don't have the right to impose your views on others, that is not your place now, or ever.
You think children will be exposed to detrimental situations as a result of homosexual adoption, ok, fine, that is your opinion, but I fail to see the similar outrage for kids adopted into a male/female household that is abusive. You seem to want to use this argument only one way.
Will the children pay? Who knows? If were to run a wide statistical sample of kids raised by all possibilites (gay/straight/adopted/non adopted/unwed/wed), then we might have some actual data. But there are bad parents out there, gay, straight, wed and unwed, the point is YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE IT.
So, you are free to have an opinion, but you must realize that your opinion is rapidly becoming a marginalized one. Times change, opinions change, life and society change, get used to it.
What I hate about comments on any subject, is that people take the absurd stance and run with it. Of course they did. Were there anything near as many in those days as there have been since Roe/Wade? No.
Bestiality was trying to test the extent of your theory of no Govt intervention, while your haggard example is irrelevant to this discussion of Gay parenting despite your ridiculous attempt to tie it with this topic.
Since you say bestiality is irrelevant as it is against the law, so your position is that you are against Govt involvement in private affairs that are not against the law. So to stretch your theory, you would be opposed to Gay parenting if the Govt outlaws it. So if conservatives push a gay parenting ban through a referendum, from your arguments you should be against it.
Yes, lets look the other way. Thanks.
"...And it is none of your business that she is going to have a baby, nor is it your place to assume that YOU have all the right answers for everyone."
Gee Mr. Nazi, can't I even give advice to someone that asks? Don't I get to express an opinion here?
Would that be the same 30s adn 40s where blacks were segregated and couldn't drink from the same fountains as whites? Or where women were discriminated against and couldn't get into schools and be doctors, lawyers, pilots, etc? Just wondered....
None of this has even a scintilla of relevance to the topic of this thread.
You can have an opinion. But it is none of your business regarding this case, is it?
I think that whole post went right by you. It is clear what that poster meant and it had to do with domination of all within his household.
Such a great stretch it was published in a peer reviewed psychiatric journal......
But society, as a whole, back then was closeted. People had affairs. People had affairs with those of the same sex. People had pre marital sex. Bottom line is, people weren't perfect back then. The same behaviors that exist today existed back then.
You never met my old man. The day he walked out was one of the happiest days of my young life.
L
Yes, society has changed in many ways. I'm sure you agree with all of them. I'm sure you are silent on all of them.
Society does have a vested interest in what is accepted as the norm. I gave you and example of a behavior that would not be accepted and you simply refused to admit that there were instances when society should step in.
Look, that's okay. I don't mind if you won't admit reality.
I am not arguing that society should step in at this time. I am simply stating that there will be consequences. This is something you're having difficulting in understanding.
I have read several times in this thread that regardless of sex orientation, the important for the child is to have 2 loving parents. That makes me wonder, why 2 loving parents?. If a child is going to be raised by 2 women or 2 guys...why 2?. Because marriage nowadays is between 2 people?. Either I am failing to connect to dots or the "reasoning" of these people is not logical. Why not only 1 parent?. Why should a kid have the model roles of 2 women?. Or why not 3 parents to make it more complete?.
"I think that whole post went right by you.."
A lot seems to get by you. My comments were in the context of giving advice "if asked". How does that pertain to invading his household?
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.