Mary Cheney is pregnant. Big whoop.
Thursday December 7, 2006
Not a few conservative Christians are having a fit over the fact that the Vice President's lesbian daughter Mary is preggers. I don't like it any more than most conservative Christians, I'd wager, but what do people want from Dick...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Here, here. Well said.>
It hardly seems to me that the conservatives are alarmed about the impending birth. In fact, yesterday the hundreds of posts on the conservative Free Republic site not only commended the VP's statement but offered every imaginable justification for Mary Cheney's decision to bring a child into a lesbian relationship--including the ever-so-popular "who are we to say this is wrong" justification for any and everything anybody wants to do these days where human reproduction is concerned.>
I agree that it's inappropriate to expect parents to publically denounce or distance themselves from their children in situations like this (IOW, to deliberately provoke family rifts), but if it was my child I would have a very difficult time not being angry and upset. This isn't even a case of supporting a child where he or she has made a mistake and gotten pregnant (in which case it would seem to be easier to forgive the mistake and focus on support and love for the child and grandchild), but of *deliberately* creating a child who will never know his or her father, never have the chance - by intent and design - to have his or her married parents, and being raised in a sexually disordered relationship. This is how I feel about most every situation you read about where people are using "donations" to create children outside of marriage simply to satisfy adults' desires, no matter how wrong they are.
It's never the baby's fault, so of course you love and support the baby and take care of it. Of course. And you still love your own children. But I could not be so sanguine about one of my own children joining the unfortunate rush to create parentless children by design. Make your own decisions, but don't involve innocent children.>
It's not just "pro-family" activists like that human prune Janice Crouse chastizing the Cheney family, but also certain nasty gay activists like that sociopath John Aravosis of Americablog who has hounded her for years, demanding that she distance herself from her parents. I find the fact that both pro-gay and anti-gay activists officious intrusions into Mary Cheney's private life to be incredibly loathsome.
That said, I'm not wild about frankenstenian IVF techniques at all by anyone. Why couldn't she have adopted an "unadoptable" child - one that realistically never had a chance for a mother and father to begin with? That truly would have been an act of great generosity - notwithstanding all of the pompous bloviating to the contrary from the far right? At the same time, I wish Mary Cheney the best - hoping that she has a safe delivery and happy and healthy child.>
As for the "who are we to say this is wrong," perhaps they could refer to the Texas Republican Party official 2006 platform: "We believe that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
">http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/Platform_Updated.pdf?docID=2001>
I've already jumped on this pony over at Kos this morning. Of course there the noise is about Cheney, the fact that a child would be brought into the world with him as a grandpa.
I'm glad for Mary and her partner. I'm glad for the new grandparents. New life brings new hopes.
This one carries two for me. One comes from a personal experience. I have a friend that a long time ago wasn't a friend. If we'd been men we'd have had a duel and killed each other, slowly.
Then a couple of grandchildren came into his life. The changes have been massive. We're now close friends.
I'm not saying I could be close friends with Cheney. But this new grandchild might reach in there and grab his heart (contrary to popular opinion about that possibility) and make him a more palatable person.
The other hope this child carries is her acceptance by those not normally inclined to accept such a child might pave the way for more acceptance down the road. That would be a good thing.
I believe Rod would be like me and Deb. He'd look at what he'd been taught and weigh it against what he knew about his child. Reason would win. He'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with us.
Yeah, I know he doesn't believe he would go that far under those circumstances. But he's young yet.>
Oh, don't get me wrong, if my daughter chose to bring a child into the world under those circumstances, I would be really upset, and would find a way to talk about it with her. I believe what Mary Cheney is doing is morally wrong. But publicly, I would absolutely stand by her without endorsing her decision, and privately, after I'd said what I had to say, I would keep loving her, actively. And I would love the child no differently than my other grandchildren.>
Hey Neil don't take Texas politics and politicians too seriously. They're mostly hat and no cattle. 1861 they came up with this In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
link to letter of seccession state of Texas>
Kimberly, There are so many kids who never know their fathers. Sometimes not even either parent. I think that if they want the baby good for them.
I have a gay son, and if he ever wants to have a child I will support his decision. Believe me he would never do it without giving it a lot of thought.>
I believe what Mary Cheney is doing is morally wrong. Rod Dreher
Okay Rod, I give. What's she doing that so immoral?
She's in committed relationship, fifteen years is almost a third of the way towards a fiftieth anniversary.
The child wasn't the result of raging hormones over riding good sense or presence of mind over presence of opportunity.
What's the sin?>
What's the sin?
The daddy has a vagina.
Duh.
;)>
The sin is in deliberately bringing a child into existence whom you intend to have no father, and whom you intend to teach that having no father is fine. And, God forbid, if the child should ask why s/he has no father, you should tell her "because that's how God wanted it" (d'apres a certain television personality), when it is YOU who wanted this situation, without realizing that it was not fair to the CHILD, even if you and your partner love that child with all your hearts.
Fathers and mothers are not fungible.
And I don't think, by the way, that gay and lesbian people ought to be handed the burden of "unadoptable" kids as some kind of lousy consolation prize. That's not fair to anyone. The parents may or may not be able to handle whatever the situation is; but more important, those children may be particularly vulnerable and don't deserve to have to deal with feeling like a consolation prize for people who cannot create a mother-father parenting situation.>
So I guess the sin Meg is one of intent. In Mary's case she intentionally is bringing a child into this world without a designated father.
For everyone else it isn't a sin because they bumped nasties for fun and someone took it seriously?
What bothers me about your sin logic is you seem to advocate that a human life is sacred and that each one is God's plan. But having one as a lesbian via nonsexual contact eliminates God from the equasion.
Can you help me out a little here?>
"it is YOU who wanted this situation, without realizing that it was not fair to the CHILD."
You could say the same thing about having a child when you can't afford to support your family on one income. Where are you going to draw the line?>
I'm pleasntly suprised by the tenor of Rod's post on this topic. Hopefully he will show similar tact and grace the next time say, Ellen Degeneres or Rosie O'Donnell decides to take the turkey-baster route to motherhood. It is indeed the Cheney's business, and no one else's, and all of the usual right-wing cretins who are so predictably outraged about this should STFU.>
Harvey, there's a bigger problem with "the sin logic" than that...
The sin is in deliberately bringing a child into existence whom you intend to have no father, and whom you intend to teach that having no father is fine.
Sin is "missing the target." Doesn't one have to be aiming for that "target" to have "missed" it?
I suppose if one is aiming for their own target, and they hit it just fine, then it's no sin.
Why the Judeo-Christians believe that everyone on the planet should be aiming for the sma etarget as a tribe of Bronze-Age herders is beyond me, but there you are.>
This is my last comment on this blog. I've tried to stay out of the 'gay war' here, and to respect Rod Dreher's views as well as the views of civil, articulate posters with whom I disgaree.
Now I've had it. Let me, wearily, give my "creds," knowing that nothing can change any minds: hetero, monogomously married woman here saying,
May none of you be granted gay children or grandchildren! You'd only hurt them. Anyone who cares about the Bible's injunctions regarding homosexuality is just a fool. I know that sin exists, but homosexuality is not sin.
God gave us reason as well as the Word.
Bye.>
I think that conservatives show more sense and compassion when it's conservatives having babies.
I think that Dick Cheney should be happy for his daughter and looking forward to the birth of his grandchild. It's not a surprise to me. Didn't Bush get caught a while back in a taped telephone call saying that he wasn't going to do anything to screw the gays? Basically, his anti-gay rhetoric was for votes.
It's too bad that people like Mary Cheney's child won't have the same benefits of other children. I'm very pro-family and think that children are best raised with a stay-at-home parent during the early years. This child will need to go to daycare so that both parents can receive health insurance. It's too bad for this child that people think that providing his/her family with family health insurance would somehow be wrong in the eyes of God.
I wouldn't adopt if I was gay and had the choice between IVF and adoption. The religious right in America gets strong enough, and they'll be taking adopted kids away and putting them in hetero foster homes.>
There are two different issues here, as Rod says in his clarifying post here: (a) the issue of the grandparents' response to the situation and (b) the issue of the situation itself--the choice Mary Cheney made. The morality of that choice does not depend on whether or not Ms. Cheney and her partner gave careful thought to the undertaking or felt comfortable about it. The morality depends on the objective circumstances of their situation--the deliberate decision to deny a child a father.
The Catholic Church has taken a very strong stance against adoption by gay couples for this very reason. In 2003, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explained that stance this way:
"...As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case..."
I expect the Orthodox Church takes a similar stand. Any responsible person should agree.>
GIITTV,
We know so much more about child development than in the Bronze Age, but we still have trouble with common sense. We know -- objectively -- that a mom-and-dad family is best for children. Why would we AIM for anything else?
And when other things happen (by accident or after the fact), well, we all have to cope with that -- and sometimes we have to pick up the pieces for each other. My gripe is with deliberately creating a problem situation for a child.
But Ron said it better than I did.>
You make a cogent point, Meg.
I suppose it just depends on your definition of "problem.">
Meg we don't know for sure that there isn't a positive male role model in the mix. There might be a brother or family friend or another great guy that will step up to the plate and fulfill that role just fine.
I think your gripe isn't a viable one when you consider so many children are born into much worse situations and you're okay with that just because it happened with nasties bumping together instead of happening in a sterile evironment.>
dreher: "I cannot imagine anything coming between the love of me for my children -- and the children they produce, in whatever circumstance. New life is good, and always and everywhere to be welcomed. "
But accepting a child from such an abominable arrangement(according to the bible), wouldnt that be a form of relativism?
Bible thumpers are always going on about relativism.>
i do not think that gays and lesbians should be raising kids, period.>
Ahem...you are putting words in her mouth- she didn't say she was okay with children being born into worse circumstances just because it happened because of "nasties bumping together.>
Gadje---
I think one of the main problems with your argument is this---you assume that "accepting the person" is the same as "accepting the action." Take the story of Jesus and the adultress. Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and he accepted the person (adultress); but he never said the adultress was right for what she did. I think it's roughly the same with Mary Cheney. Whatever Vice President Cheney's views are (has he ever actually commented on this issue? People assume he agrees with Bush but is that even definite?), of course he is going to accept his daughter, and of course this grandchild, who has done nothing wrong him/herself; that doesn't mean he has to accept Mary's relationship or her methods of conception.
Incidentally, I'm against gay marriage, but actually I don't see much wrong with gay adoption or gays having children. Granted, this makes no sense...I'm sure if I ever bother thinking about these two issues in depth something will give.
God bless.>
We know -- objectively -- that a mom-and-dad family is best for children. Why would we AIM for anything else?
I know--objectively--my father was an asshole and we kids would've been much better off had he left earlier. My mother did a fabulous job of raising us. You can take your half-baked, pompous, religious twittery and keep it in the church with the rest of the self-lobotomized haters.>
There are few things less relevant to people deciding whether or not to have children than the morality of other people.>
Well put, Chuck. I think the point earlier about Rod's relativism was not addressed sufficiently by Joey.It may address Rod's religious stance, but not his political one. It'd be awfully difficult to be Rod's gay kid.>
that doesn't mean he has to accept Mary's relationship or her methods of conception.
What does thta even mean?
Religious Dad: "I don't accept your method of conception."
Pregnant Gay Daughter: "Uh - well, tough noogies, pops, because that's how your grand-daughter was conceived."
Religious Dad: "Well, I just don't accept it. From henceforth, she was found under a cabbageleaf."
Pregnant Gay Daughter: "Whatever, Pops."
"I don't accept it" is the most ludicrous assertion I've ever heard. What does "acceptance" have to do with reality?
It's like putting one's hands over one's ears and going LALALALALA.
Unless of course what you *meant* to say was "I don't approve of it," in which case those words make sense.
It's still irrelevant.>
s.a. farris, Please don't go. We need to talk about these issues. I am the mother of a gay son (if you didn't see my earlier post) and if we don't try to communicate with each other then the "war" is lost.
It hurts me deeply that some people here talk about gays like they are less than human. We live in a country where we put people in jail for mistreating animals (I love animals by the way) and give a slap on the hand to someone who has physically or emotionally tortured a GBLT person. We talk about them as if they are not even people.
However, if you go then we cannot keep an open dialogue. I believe that that is key. Even if we don't agree we can't give up.
I know what kind of pain Dick Cheney and his wife have gone through and I can't even imagine how they have dealt with it because they are in the public eye so to speak.
I raised my son no differently than how Rod says he is raising his. I don't know how Harvey feels about this, but I really believe that it was just luck of the draw. We didn't do anything nor did my son.
What hurts me (& even though I am no longer a believer) is that people tell GBLT's that they are not good enough to go before God. That their "sin" is so horrible that they shouldn't love Him or serve Him.
Good thing Jesus didn't tell his disciples that or spreading the Word would never have happened.>
"The morality depends on the objective circumstances of their situation--the deliberate decision to deny a child a father."
Okay, let's look at that idea.
Pretend for a sec that I'm a lovely and intelligent heterosexual Christian woman with two children, a homeschooling stay-at-home mom. I'm married to a wonderful guy, and we are trying to conceive a third child by IVF. My husband is killed by a drunk driver. (You can make the drunk driver a hell-bound secular humanist college professor if you like.)I'm devasted by my husband's death, but I'm SURE he would have wanted me to have that third child (and with the $10 million insurance policy, no problem there about money.)
So I go ahead and get pregnant, and have that child-- a boy who looks JUST LIKE my beloved dear departed.
Immoral based on the objective circumstamces, folks?>
"So I go ahead and get pregnant, and have that child-- a boy who looks JUST LIKE my beloved dear departed.
Immoral based on the objective circumstamces, folks?"
In other words, I am a grief stricken
widow, and I need a child to help
recover, so I go ahead and bring
a child into the world, a little
boy who will never,ever know his
father. But what does that
matter, because I love me and I
need a child because I am soooo
sad?>
It's child abuse.>
Where is our compassion people? Because of OUR embarrassment years ago we sent our daughters "out of state" to finish their pregancies and forced them to let their babies become adopted. Because of OUR embarrassment that is a huge reason for our daughters to get abortions.
Who are we to judge who makes good parents? Or is it just married heteresexuals? There are thousands of children better off because they didn't know their father.
If you are in the position to love and care for a child then it is your business and no one elses.>
How is Mary Cheney having a baby, under any circumstances, any of our business? It's a private, family matter, and should be handled (I hope with joy & love) within the family, and the rest of us should butt out.>
Meg, hello.
"We know -- objectively -- that a mom-and-dad family is best for children. Why would we AIM for anything else? "
We'll, WE probably wouldn't because we aren't a lesbian couple.
We know-- objectively-- that an affluent white college-educated mom-and-dad liberal Jewish family is best for children. Why would we AIM for anything else?
Or, we know-- objectively-- that mixed race children have more problems....
Let's not get into some sort of Eugenics the Sequel thing with the family structure.
So you think it's immoral to have a child with no father in the picture?Fine-- don't have a child with no father in the picture.
Funny, isn't it, that even with all the controversy, the battle against gay rights is virtually lost. It's just a non-issue with high school and college students.The attitudes evolve and the laws struggle to keep up. Amazing how fast things can change! I never would have thought of gay marriage twenty years ago, had no idea anyone would want it, and now it seems a quite reasonable idea.>
Part of the problem here is that it's assumed that people who have children outside of straight-marriage situations are self-absorbed and potentially abusive (insofar as their wish to deny the child complementary sexual role models), but those in the "appropriate" family structure who have children are at least more likely to be selfless and will have the child's best interest at heart. That's way too much assumin' about other people. One thing's for sure, though-- having children is a decision, and is never made out of pure selflessness, no matter how much people like Rod want to convince us it is. The structure of Rod's family, and its "sexual complementariness", does not guarantee his kids will be less messed up than Mary Cheney and Heather Poe's does.>
And Boko, you are just plain wrong.>
What I find interesting is that many people here are acting like every child is 100% the same and has the exact same needs. Children are just as diverse and have just as many varied needs as adults do. We don't just hit a *magical age* and suddenly all the differences pop out.
Maybe some children do better with Mom and Dad or Mom and Mom or maybe just Mom or just Dad or whatever situation they happen to be in. I think as long as the child is well fed, clothed, sheltered, loved and safe then they are doing just fine and will go on to do whatever they are destined to do.
There also seems to be an assumption that a house with Mom and Dad is magically perfect. Sadly this is nowhere close to the truth. Many families with both parents are highly dysfunctional and abusive, but do the the bias and high status we give families where Dad works and Mom stays at home nothing is done about it until it's all out in the open and too late.
Typically I don't bother posting here, but the hate of many seems to be condemning the innocent children and I have a hard time standing by and watching that.>
So I guess someone did to Dick Cheney's daughter what he has been doing to us for the last six and a half years.
I hope she enjoyed it more than I have. Though I suppose in her case it involved a turkey baster. In our case it involved the entire electorate removing their wallets and bending over.
I'm very conservative on such issues, but really, in light of everything else this train-wreck of an administration has brought us, a pregnant lesbian is pretty mild stuff.
I think what that anti-Semitic corpse James Baker is proposing is much, much worse. If only he'd pursue some same-sex lifestyle and leave America alone for a few years...>
Look at the social science. No question about what works best. Of course, statistics are irrelevant in individual cases, but if we ignore them we are fools. It's not a matter of opinion.
And individual experience isn't everything -- BUT -- my own home growing up was pretty nightmarish even though there were two parents in it (and I still love and speak to them). I am trying to create something different for my kids, and the social science research I do on the topic of families and parenting is largely therapeutic.
I don't understand why we can't look at reality in objective terms, and accept that what we want sometimes creates such difficult or less-than-optimal situations for other people that we ought to give up our own goals. Double-mom, Double-dad, deliberately chosen single parents, and even the IVF hypothetical given above fall into that category. Male role models (or female role models) are not equivalent to a parent of either gender. They're substitutes, and quite important, but just not the same.
Yes, every child has a less than perfect situation in some sense, and we all have problems we have to resolve from our childhood circumstances. Does that mean we want to create problems in the hopes that the child will overcome them well?>
I think it all comes down to the parents in question. If they are going to be an awesome committed pair of parents I think in the end that it doesn't matter what plumbing they have.
Every child is made from a deliberate act, be it by turkey baster or the old fashioned way. Nobody wakes up and suddenly is pregnant without doing something to get themselves that way (baring rape, which is a whole other ball of wax) Two heterosexual people who are less then ideal parents who have a baby could also be said to be deliberately putting a child in a less then idea situation. Nobody is perfect.
If we held heterosexual couples to the standard that we are holding homosexual couples then none of us in good conscious could knowingly put ourselves in a position where we could potentially have a child. We are all flawed in some way. It's what makes us human.>
Just keep praying it ALL away. Maybe humans will evolve into self-pollinators.>
tovart - you crack me up.>
Deb, thank you for asking me to stay. "We" do need to talk about this but I don't think I can add anything worthwhile...
Since you are a mother of a gay son, perhaps you can understand how tired I am of these 'gay' arguments.
This blog is chock-full of commenters who are well-versed in Scripture, philosophy, and dogma of every kind. No one has changed my mind, and I haven't convinced mary thomas, scotch meg, et al. of anything either.
Again (and hopefully I'll keep my word about 'last post' this time), a lifetime's experience brings me to believe that Christianity's words on homosexuality are to be taken no more seriously than the advice to kill your children if they don't obey Israel's God and parents' edicts.
I'm giving up on the Biblical inerrantists. Let them go.>
s.a.farris - I know, it does seem impossible (maybe it is). I thought that I always understood how (insert religion, race, etc.) felt. Boy, was I in for a real eye opener. I did NOT understand what it felt like to be despised or hated. Now I do. I became "gay" (not really, you know what I mean).>
Deb and s.a.farris, anyone who stands up for gay people becomes 'gay' in that sense - because they move from "part of the solution" to "part of the problem.">
So I guess someone did to Dick Cheney's daughter what he has been doing to us for the last six and a half years.
Dick Cheney has been artificially inseminating use for six years? That's weird.>
Stefanie - Please let me know what the "solution" is.>
Mary Cheney and her "longtime partner" Heather Poe are wrong.
They say "that, for all intents and purposes, they consider themselves to be [married]".
There are 1,138 "intents and purposes" for which they are NOT considered married, according to the Government Accountability Office (as quoted in the New York Times "Altar Sit-In: No 'I Do' Till Gays Can Wed", Sunday, December 3rd).
Not the least of these "intents and purposes" would be Ms Poe's automatic
right to hospital visitation should, God forbid, anything happen during Ms
Cheney's pregnancy.
And should Ms Poe and her family ever have it on the outs with the Cheney
family, it would not be the first time a gay or lesbian's "longtime partner" would bear severe consequences at the hands of, well, a right-wing, anti-gay ideology.
This is largely the fault of Mary Cheney's own father and the policies and ideologies of the Administration he represents.
Good luck to them both, I say, but if they were married, those pesky "intents and purposes" would be moot, regardless of whether or not President Bush thinks the people denied them are "just fine".>
Kimberley,
You really should get out and meet some actual, real live gay people, 'cuz what you type about us is so inaccurate.
"*deliberately* creating a child who will never know his or her father"
How on earth do you know this? I know many gay couples who's children are raised with the help and nourishment of BOTH biological parents, as well as the same-gender spouse. Those children DO know their fathers, since their fathers are intimately involved in their upbringing. You lie about us. You promote sad, hate-filled, hate-fueled untruths about us.
"never have the chance - by intent and design - to have his or her married parents"
Well, if the laws were changed to allow the couples to actually GET married, then you might have a point. Until then...
"and being raised in a sexually disordered relationship"
Ah, THERE's that 'loving' "christian" response we've all come to expect from the likes of you.
Seek help, Kim. It IS out there.>
scotch meg,
"We know -- objectively -- that a mom-and-dad family is best for children.
Abbsolute crap, meg. What if the mom and dad are at each others throats? What if they're physically abusive to one another or to the kids? What if the "dad" is a child molester? (Many heterosexual dads are, ya know).
Your blanket statement is preposterous.>
" i do not think that gays and lesbians should be raising kids, period."
Well, 'thanks' for your 'opinion', Mary Thomas. I believe otherwise. Period.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.