Mary Cheney's Pregnancy Affects Us All

Townhall ^ | December 7, 2006 | Janice Shaw Crouse PhD, Concerned Women for America

[little jeremiah]

Subject 2: I think there are a whole heck of a lot more important things to be concerned about than legislating morality.

What libertine-arians really mean is:

We don't want the government (fed, state, county or municipal) placing any limits on sexual libertinism. We want the right to **** it if it moves. Or even if it doesn't, and we also want to have the right to never hear anyone criticizing us about our behavior.

That's what they really mean.

[bvw]

Of course a lesbian mom who is kind and loving is better than a hetero dad who is a drunk abuser.

No, that's no given, and likely more to the not a given at all territory. Why? Because the drunkeness and absuiveness of the Dad can be explained and self-explained in restropective contemplation by the child as a know vice. Everyone knows drunkeness and abusiveness is vile and to be avoided.

So the child, once grown into adult can put all the evil of the Dad behind him because it is know as the evil it is to all, and all sane parts of the culture reinforce that wisdom.

Not so with the lesbian mom, or the homosexual dad. Our society has become ambivalent or even welcoming of that perverted state.

Without the social framework that calls a lead weight of bad and lowly behavior the lead weight it is, many and most children will find it difficult or impossible to come to grips with it. They are burdened -- hobbled -- by the necessity and naturality of attachment to the parent no matter how perverse that parent's behaviour, when society telles them that behaviour is tolerated and even celebrated.

You would have those children chained with unbreakable hardened steel chains to the heavy anchors of the sins of their parents.

[bvw]

Good post.

[June Cleaver]

Sunsong, I believe you must be a little bit naive, so step away from the granola bowl and stop smell the chai . . . this better than, worse than stuff is nonsense.

If you love someone you want what's best for them; that is why some of us are saddened by folks choosing (yes, everything in life IS a choice) a lifestyle that is not natural; that in fact can do very real harm to their physical bodies.

But you are right about every person's intrinsic value . . . I believe that as well; our approaches to loving them are far different. You think loving someone is allowing them the freedom to fall into a pit to hell; I think loving someone is preventing them from doing so.

[bvw]

Who has addressed ANY of the points made in this great essay? What denier? What shout-downer of lout had the courage to do so?

Sorry that so many of the initial posts were such inananities of web-based thuggery, as have been many of the follow-ons.

I CHALLENGE all to read this DAMN (a word thrown around here like confetti at a parade) essay and respond TO WHAT IT SAYS!

[durasell]

What it says is that "she's failed as a role model."

I suggest she go back to role model school immediately to set a better example for all those teenage girls looking to a 30-something corporate lesbian as a role model.

At the very least, it would help promote the Mary Cheney line of action figures (with memo-typing action grip), the Mary Cheney hip-hop CD (featuring the top single: Don't Be Taking My Company Parking Space) and t-shirt sales.

[Albion Wilde]

I also understand the moral warriors that have plagued this nation time and again who are willing to destroy the intent of a Federal Republic to pass their laws. I have no problem with the principles of conservative morality and fully support them. What I will not support is further destruction to what's left of the Framers' intent to forward that agenda.

billbears, I have posted what I have come to understand through painstaking academic research: that homosexual parenting poses numerous risks to children, in greater statistical frequency than in hetero families, even allowing for the disordered segment of the hetero population.

At no time did I post any call for any legislation of any kind on this thread. In fact, I posted that morality cannot be legislated, and I cite Prohibition as an example. At no point have I defended the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment; I only made note of the perceived necessity for it, to its proponents, due to judicial overreaching. I hope you are not reading concepts into my words that are not there. If I were a moral warrior intent on passing theocratic legislation, rest assured I would come right out and say so.

Good night to you; and further, I would like to wish all the libertarians on this thread good luck with your quest to live in a consequence-free sexual universe. Your beliefs -- that a shared activity is not essentially political, and that sexual activity which can result in the creation of a new human being with his or her own imperatives can be defined as an arena of individual rights -- simply defy logic.

[Albion Wilde]

Here are the facts which many here apparently ignore due to their personal bias:

* Homosexual [behavior or identity] was listed as a mental disorder in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual until 1973.
* Gay activism, not science, was the force behind removing homosexuality as a mental disorder.
* There is no valid argument to the above fact. Even homosexual activist and scientist Simon LeVay admits this is his book Queer Science. I own this book and verified the quote.
* There is no gay gene.
* There isn't a single credible scientist that denies the above fact.
* The environment in which children are raised is key.
* There is no genetic test or procedure, experimental or otherwise, that can determine one's sexual preference.
* When somebody claims to be gay, the only evidence they have to support their claim is their word, their testimony, their declaration.
* The same evidence exists for ex-gays, yet those who believe the testimony of gays apparently refuse to believe the testimony of ex-gays.
* The ex-gay population continues to grow.

To understand the bigger picture the above facts must be taken into consideration. And when the above facts are taken into consideration, it is quite obvious the pro-gay arguments having no foundation on which to stand....

Nailed it.

[Albion Wilde]

Here's the elephant in the living room:

Homosexuality is either perfectly fine, normal, natural, healthy, and anyone who protests it being culturally equated with normal sexual relationships is a sick, hateful bigot with emotional problems and likely attracted to homosexuality themselves.

OR

Homosexuality is an emotional sickness, unnatural, immoral and unhealthy, and should be discouraged, not promoted, and those suffering from it should be offered treatment, not support in their behavior.

Which is true? Everyone needs to pick a side.

And if anyone wants to choose the first side, the burden is on you to prove that same sex behavior is natural, healthy and poses no moral risks to those who practice it and those around them (such as adolescents). I and many others have over the years posted numerous studies and articles replete with overwhelming evidence - much of it compiled by homosexuals and homosexual promoting groups - that incontestably proves the second point.

Let's see your studies proving that homosexuals are just as monogamous as normal people, do not molest children or adolescents in any larger numbers, are not more prone to drug or alcohol addiction, domestic violence, suicide, or life threatening diseases. Show us your facts, emtionally driven platitudes and personal attacks and name calling mean squat.

You, too, just nailed it!

[scripter]

Why thank you. And thank you for clarifying or fixing the typo I had in the first bullet item (I meant to say "homosexuality").

The point to remember is: there is absolutely no pro-gay argument that can stand up to the facts.

[Albion Wilde]

What does it take to become an expert these days? This woman is divorced, a gay activist and a family counselor? You'd be better off consulting a magic 8 ball for advice.

[ElkGroveDan]

You do realize any judge can find a psychiatrist who will call homophobia a mental disorder.

I would agree with the psychiatrist. If a person was suffering from a "phobia" i.e; a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it, then they are suffering from a mental disorder.

However I have yet to ever meet or even hear an account of anyone suffering from a phobia of sodomites, gays or whatever you want to call them.. I know lots of people who are revolted by their lifestyles and recreational practices (find out what 'hot carl' and 'golden showers' are.) I know lots of people who have rational fears of the diseases those people carry due to their filtthy lifestyles. I don't know of anyone suffering from a 'phobia' though. If you can offer honest evidence of such a person (Christian or otherwise), let me know.

[ElkGroveDan]

ping to #712

[Joan Kerrey]

Aint that grand? Out of wedlock gay parenting didn't become a problem until Mary Cheney became pregnant.

-----

Let's take a look at some of the kids of normal mom/dad rearing their kids stories.

baby beaten so badly her brain was bruised
baby into the microwave to keep her quiet
baby into the freezer a punishment for crying
baby left in car for hours while mom and dad shopped-temperture 120 degrees, baby died
baby left in car all day while both mom and dad at work and forgot to drop off at day care and didn't realise the baby was in the car all day
on and on and on. I'll take a loving single parent any day over normal idiots who whouldn't be allowed to have children

[Albion Wilde]

The point to remember is: there is absolutely no pro-gay argument that can stand up to the facts.

Bears repeating! I stand in agreement, and I speak in loving memory of my many now-dead gay friends, most of whom checked out in their 40s, many with profound regrets that it took them so long to discover real truth and genuine love, as opposed to delusions and lust.

[little jeremiah]

Yup.

Homophobia: A perjorative invented to paint those who logically and naturally are repulsed by same sex acts and the danger of promoting homoexuality on society as mentally ill.

Purpose: To shut up the opposition.

Typical leftist tactic. Can't argue facts, so shut up anyone who disagrees with them.

[Kozak]

If there is any junk science in that it's tossing 2000 years of belief that homosexuality is deviant behavior in the name of political correctness.

[Kozak]

Removal from DSM-II (and subject editions) of homosexuality as a mental disorder was purely the result of threats, intimidation, political pressure and infiltration of the APA by homosexual activists. You can read about it here.

Thats why I brought it up....

[Nowhere Man]

What libertine-arians really mean is:

We don't want the government (fed, state, county or municipal) placing any limits on sexual libertinism. We want the right to **** it if it moves. Or even if it doesn't, and we also want to have the right to never hear anyone criticizing us about our behavior.

That's what they really mean.

That's my take too, or as some have said in the past, "Libertarians are Republicans who want to legalize pot."

I know people are going to do what they are going to do, I'm not for prosecuting or persecuting Cheney's daughter or any homosexual, if they keep it private, well, that would be OK with me, but to force the agenda on society is wrong and also, we do have the right to voice our opinions on this issue since it is in the news. I know myself, I'm a product of a divorced marriage, it is a lot better if a child has a man and a woman as parents, believe me, I know what I missed.

I might be having a "Michael Savage Moment" here but although I oppose radical Islam tooth and nail, we in the West must face that challenge, but when one of them (or even if it is from a more "mainstream" Islamist) comment on the immorality of our society, when I see stories like this, along with many other perverted and twisted things, I can't really have a rebuttle against him, I'll just stand there looking like a stupid dork as I flub around.

I thank God that I know Him and Jesus, otherwise if I did not know Him and His Son, yet I was appalled at the immoral turn our society has taken in Western Europe and the U.S., Islam would look very good to me. In some ways, between the Moonbats on one side and the libertines on the other, most times, one of the same, we are just playing into their hands and making ourselves look bad by not standing up for ourselves or our way of life as it should be.

I'm not for burning anyone at the stake or throwing them in jail of they are same-sex couples and the like, but there are times we do need to enforce standards and we do have the right to make comments on what is wrong and try to show them the right way.

[bruinbirdman]

"Once we judge, we assign value or degrees of value. Is that a swamp you want to venture into?"

Yes. Everyone knows right and wrong.

Many of those who know they are wrong feel guilty about it. Sometimes the guilty seek to ease their guilt through rationalization that their wrongs are actually right.

And some of those actually try to convince others that wrong is right.

yitbos