Posted on 12/08/2006 8:31:16 PM PST by rakovskii
Mary Cheneys 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 dont 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 childs 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 dont have the role models at home to teach them how to deal with adversity and handle responsibility. Theyve 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 Cheneys 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 fathers influence.
Marys pregnancy is an in-your-face action countering the Bush Administrations 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 womens concerns.
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.
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.
Good post.
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.
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!
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.
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.
* 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....
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.
The point to remember is: there is absolutely no pro-gay argument that can stand up to the facts.
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.
ping to #712
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.