How about those with more than one "relationship"?
Cordially,
Posted on 05/23/2007 2:50:09 PM PDT by Esther Ruth
Mary Cheney Gives Birth to Baby Boy
By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 23, 2007; 5:36 PM
Mary Cheney gave birth today to perhaps the most anticipated baby in contemporary U.S. politics -- her first child, Samuel David Cheney, whom she will raise with her longtime partner Heather Poe.
The 8-pound, 6-ounce boy is the sixth grandchild for Dick Cheney.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
One would *hope* the kid will rebel, and that boys will be boys, in this case.
point taken. however there are a few more factors in your equation here. you had kids to consider, no money, and you were a long way from home. this makes for a shitty time of things, no doubt. the two people we are discussing have none of these factors to consider. i am recently separated from a woman i was married to for 10 years. i was pretty unhappy but tried to make things work for the kids. i was deeply committed, and yet had i not had the kids to consider i would have been out of there long long ago.
It's good to see there are still clear thinking individuals who haven't been 'penetrated' by the obvious influence of the gay agenda. The closer one is to the Lord the more clearly they can see and expose the 'Lie' spewing forth from the darkness. Kudos to both of you.
You don't belong on this forum with that type of statement but it's not my call to make, however this is not DU where you can find that kind of misleading and damaging statement all the time, just to clarify homosexuality in all its forms, word, thought, deed, feeling, is of Satan the devil, you know 'em?
Obvious DU talking points, pls go home!
Heya, WITT. I see this one didn’t end with our peaceful, affable parting last night.
Just wanted to make a correction: Sam Cheney ‘64!
Just love as the Lord loves us. No other points to make here.
Have a great weekend, buddy. FR mail me if you wanna knock some things around.
-J
I have the same arguments amongst family but they have excuses, they're all liberals, here on this conservative forum, it's less clear to me why there's so much disagreement on what to me is such a clear cut wrong-headed lifestyle. But oh well "Narrow is the way and very FEW are headed that way" someone keeps trying to tell me.
There are many good theories as to the cause of homosexuality, but choice isn't one of them, just as with ANY physical or mental illness we get, it is not a choice but is mostly due to extraneous factors. But just as we all try to get healed from illness or affliction, the same should be toward the homosexual affliction and indeed that was the status quo in this society toward it not so very long ago.
The choice comes when one decides to either embrace this illness or one decides to seek healing from it. Of course the ultimate 'grace-robbers' are those who say there is no need to get healing because they are not sick, truly the work of the change agents of Beelzebub.
Ha! Obviously you never heard of the 'Gay Manifesto' a lot of which is happening this very day.
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.
Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.
All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.
All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.
If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.
We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.
Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.
We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.
There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.
We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.
The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.
The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.
We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.
We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.
Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.
whatisthetruth ...
Thanks for the kudos, I sincerely appreciate it. :)
You said in post #603:
“It’s good to see there are still clear thinking individuals who haven’t been ‘penetrated’ by the obvious influence of the gay agenda.”
I kind of winced at the play-on-words of “’penetrated’ by the obvious influence of the gay agenda” ... you’ll have to pardon me while I take my brain to the local car wash and use the high powered spray hose to remove that image from my mind. :)
Thanks again for the feedback.
Peace to you and yours,
Front 242
How do you know it was IVF there are other ways
I don’t, but IVF is the usual way with these gals. But you have a point: Most of them, unless they are real dogs, tend to be bisexual.
No. Great God! That's not abuse. I am a pretty thoroughgoing Judeo-Christian Ethic conservative, and no way do I think it is immoral for a single woman to adopt a handicapped child.
Unfortunately, in the adoption world there are several descending grades of "desirability" in adoptable children. At the top would be perfect newborn blond-haired blue-eyed singletons of documented healthy mothers. That's the Gold Standard.
Below that, there's Asian infants, light brown infants, black infants, older-than-infants, children with minor correctable defects, children with moderate defects, and sibling groups.
And last (Lord have Mercy) down at the very bottom you have older-than infants with serious disabilities, sibling groups from drug-addicted moms, and kids who already have tumultuous emotional and behavioral disturbances.
The kids at the top are easily adoptable. The kids at the bottom, God help them.
The cruel fact is, the child in the hypothetical instance described above, has practically no chance of being adopted by a married couple. Say, a one-in-a-hundred chance. And he faces (in Russia) a childhood with nobody but an overworked, underpaid, and overburdened orphanage staff to give him lap-time, affection, attention, and care.
This little boy is mighty blessed if a single American woman (or a woman of any nationality) wants to come and adopt and love and raise him.
And if this woman at some point finds a man who loves her and the child, and marries her, so much the better. But bless the single woman. Her love for the child is sound and right.
Do I know who, Satan? I haven’t had the pleasure of meeting him, no.
Actually, we were talking about the belief that a person chooses to be homosexual for selfish reasons. I’ve already pointed out that this “choice” causes more difficulty for a person than either A) choosing to go with the majority and be heterosexual or B) choosing not to fight their innate heterosexuality, whichever you think is the alternative, and thus is unlikely to be the selfish choice.
It seems to me that choosing heterosexuality, were it possible, might be considered to be the more “selfish” alternative because it results in so much more benefit to the person. Among these are approval from family and others, a scaffold of laws giving certain benefits to heterosexual marriage allowing one to avoid wills and powers of attorney if desired, an abundance of possible life partners (about half of the single adult population), and the usual sexual gratification that will go along with one’s chosen sexual orientation.
However, I think it is silly to call either alternative selfish or unselfish. People simply make the best of their situation, whether lucky (heterosexual) or unlucky (homosexual) in their genetic and environmental lot.
I used to think as you do up until a couple years ago. Then I started doing a lot of thinking--I had started reading about Islam and was considering how I thought it was a brutal and unjust religion, and I realized that if I told anyone that they would counter by asking me how it was much different from some parts of the OT. That kicked off about a year of thinking and reading and talking to various people. The upshot is summarized in this post:
Unfortunately the background I came from is pretty fundamentalist, so I was taught that the Bible including OT was inspired and that God really did speak to various prophets. In the past year or so I've been trying to reconcile that with the sketchy morality depicted in the OT. There seem to be two different ideas of morality among Christians (although a lot of times they coexist in the mind of a person even though they're contradictory. . .) The first is that morality is derived from the nature of God, and God is immutable, thus morality is absolute and never changes. Therefore it ought to be always wrong to murder an innocent, yet God is said to have told Joshua to eradicate the Canaanites down to the babies.The second idea of morality is that our moral laws are just made up by God (possibly completely arbitrarily) and that God is not bound to those rules at all and can change them at any time. I think this is an attempt to detour around the problem of God ordering acts that we would all say are evil. At the same time they say that God is Good, not because we can look at his actions and judge them as being good (God is said to be beyond human understanding and judging his actions is presumptuous), but because God says of himself that he is good. I find this very distasteful because it renders God completely incomprehensible and untrustworthy. Perhaps God really has a personality more like Satan, has handed us moral laws to follow just to play with us, and is telling us that he is good while planning a surprise for those who choose to follow him into the afterlife. . .
So from my point of view either the Judeo-Christian God exists but is too incompetent to transmit his will to his followers, or he exists but is possibly really evil or completely amoral and definitely untrustworthy, or he does not exist and the Bible comes about from human beings gradually building onto a framework of myth. My fundamentalist background makes me unwilling to accept the first, the second I really hope is not true and I wouldn't want to serve that God anyway, and the third I find the most reasonable conclusion, unfortunately.
I had always been taught to think that morality was based upon absolutes, but so many times those absolutes ended up being so relative! Infanticide is wrong--unless you're in Joshua's army and it's a Canaanite baby. Incest is wrong--unless you're one of Adam and Eve's kids. I began wondering, if these things can be wrong according to God at one time and right according to God at another, does that mean that there is anything inherently wrong about them that we should feel such indignation towards them? Rather it seemed to me that we should enact God's prescribed punishment for whatever infraction was currently upon God's prohibited actions list in a dispassionate way. So you killed your newborn--you must be executed, but we won't be angry that you killed the baby, but that you violated God's law in doing so! The action of infanticide itself would have no more moral significance than the action of wearing a blue shirt, supposing God had declared the color blue to be prohibited on pain of death.
The whole thing became very distasteful to me. Once I had come to the conclusion above--that morality is not inherent, but what God says it is at the time, that God's character may not be "good" according to our judgment at all as a result, and that God most likely did not exist--I decided I had to work out a more internally consistent sense of morality.
I based this upon the principle that no person is inherently more valuable than any other person. I have a tendency to value myself more highly than you, but intellectually I realize that is a baseless preference. From this principle I draw the conclusion that each person should do as they like unless in doing so they harm another person. If the harm is sufficient, that justifies others stepping in.
I do not see that Mary Cheney is harming anyone by having a long-term monogamous relationship with her partner, nor by having a baby. Therefore I see no reason for myself or others to condemn her.
How about those with more than one "relationship"?
Cordially,
Out of the frying pan into the fire.
Are you saying that Joshua exterminating the Canaanite babies is merely distasteful to you or that there really is something inherently wrong with it? If it's merely distasteful to you then I like chocolate ice cream. If you think that Joshua exterminating the Canaanites was brutal, unjust and immoral then you are contradicting your own thesis that morality is not inherent. If it's just a matter of personal preference then your moral approbation makes no sense.
I based this upon the principle that no person is inherently more valuable than any other person. I have a tendency to value myself more highly than you, but intellectually I realize that is a baseless preference. From this principle I draw the conclusion that each person should do as they like unless in doing so they harm another person. If the harm is sufficient, that justifies others stepping in.
How do accidental concatenations of atoms in a purposeless universe of necessity or chance produce "right" and wrong"? How does an impersonal universe produce something, anything, "wrong" with itself? What do physical forces know of "harm", and "value"? Where did you get your measuring stick from? If you are no more a product of the brute forces of the universe, by what standard do you judge those processes that made you, and how can you rely on the very processes that tell you that something is "wrong" with them? Given atheist presuppositions, complaining about "harm" as if there were some a priori moral rule in place makes about as much sense as moral condemnation of the moon for orbiting the earth. What are you comparing the universe with when you assume that some feature of it is "unjust"?
If you took your atheism seriously not only would you have no basis for condemnation of Mary Cheney's actions, you would have no basis for condemnation of those who condemn her actions either.
Cordially,
No, you have read my post completely backwards. I said that it is inherent, it is always wrong to murder babies, even if you're in Joshua's army committing genocide under the supposed command of God.
Where did you get your measuring stick from?
I think every person can agree that if I poke that person in the eye for no reason I am doing wrong. That is from whence the measuring stick comes.
If you took your atheism seriously
Who said I'm atheist?
you would have no basis for condemnation of those who condemn her actions either.
Nonsense. I am quite capable of objecting when I'm poked in the eye, and I can observe and object when someone else is poked in the eye as well.
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.