« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Mary C: Let the condemnations begin

by Jeremy Hooper

 Good As You Images  Good As You Images  Good As You Images  Good As You Images  Good As You Images  Good As You Images  Good As You Images  Good As You Images  Good As You Images Picture-8-4-2-2-1-1-1 1-1-2Peter LaBarbera has become the first (to our knowledge) of the "pro-family" movement to respond to Mary Cheney's new delivery:

There should be no touch of sadness when a healthy baby boy is born to two parents, but in this case, we’re afraid, there is.

While we celebrate life, we cannot celebrate homosexual parenting –– which involves intentionally denying a child either a mom or a dad. In this case, young Samuel David –– who, as a Cheney, will surely enjoy privileges and comforts greater than most children born in 2007 –– will be missing an irreplaceable one: a father, to have as a loving guide, male authority, friend and role model as he grows from boy into man.

The pro-”gay” media have an odd way of reporting stories like this, as if both Mary Cheney and Heather Poe were involved in the baby’s conception. To do otherwise, I suppose, would call unwanted attention to the unnaturalness of the enterprise known as “gay parenting.” And yet, the truth remains: two homosexuals cannot create a baby. Heterosexuality – the people whom radicals in the early days of “gay liberation” derided as ”breeders” — must be involved.

The USA Today reports that Vice President Dick Cheney has “bristled at questions on the topic.” But he and Mrs. Cheney, an ardent foe of political correctness, and a conservative, should know that there is nothing wrong with asking critical questions about something so patently wrong –– and against Nature, common sense, and God’s wonderful design of the family itself –– as parenting that is fatherless or motherless by design.

We will keep on asking those tough questions, all the while praying for this boy, and that both Mary Cheney and Heather Poe will join Charlene Cothran and the many women who have come out of homosexuality, which surely is not God’s plan for their lives.

So obviously this is offensive to the millions of gay people who know their truths. But you know who else should be offended? Anyone who is an adoptive parent or child of such! Peter is presenting the idea that a child only belongs in a situation in which a married man and woman created a human life via their loins. But this sort of situation is not a reality for loads of couples (or individuals) who have the love and skills necessary for child rearing! Would it be calling "unwanted attention to the unnaturalness of the enterprise" to discuss the adoption details of a hetero couple who incapable of conceiving? No. Because one's "nature" is not defined solely by their ability to create offspring!

Mary and Heather have been together for sixteen years. That speaks for itself. And while Heather is not legally able to adopt the child in their home state of Virginia, we would imagine that is the ultimate goal (rather via change of location or change of backwards policy). Why should the media treat her as something other than what she is going to be: the other parent! We would imagine even the most conservative would have a tough time referring to her as anything but.

Look, we understand that two gay men or two gay women cannot create a baby together (though one from one camp certainly can with one from the other). But we're sick of the way our opposition presents this fact as if we are just too stupid or unwilling to acknowledge it. We get it -- WE SAME-SEX CAN'T YET REPRODUCE WITHOUT OUTSIDE HELP! But this is not the Achilles heel that the "pro-family" movement wishes it were. First off, if you want to acknowledge "God's plan," you have to acknowledge why God has overpopulated the world and placed so many kids in foster care. Then you have to ask why God has given us the capacity to create the fertilization procedures that facilitate gay-centric reproduction. And you have to look at the world for actual reality of the world. One man/ one woman reproduction and parenting is simply not the reality for everyone! We are beyond fed up with our socially conservative opposition acting as if God has only one mold for his children, but he gets sloppy every now and then and accidently creates junk!


As for Peter's last paragraph: "We will keep on asking those tough questions, all the while praying for this boy, and that both Mary Cheney and Heather Poe will join Charlene Cothran and the many women who have come out of homosexuality, which surely is not God’s plan for their lives." Why yes, we seem to agree, Pete: "Coming out of homosexuality" is surely NOT in God's plan for Charlene or other women's lives! That is what you meant, to convey, right?

Samuel David Cheney’s Two Mommies [AFT]

**UPDATE: Peter seems determined to get some play out of this whole matter. He has submitted the above, in press release form, to Christian News Wire.

And here we thought a rattle or bib made a nice "welcome to the world" gift!

**UPDATE, 5/25: Mary C. condemnations: Take two [G-A-Y]

Technorati Tags:

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

Wasn't "Mary" married to "Joseph", and did she not have "god's" child, Jesus? hmmm

Posted by: craig | May 24, 2007 1:11:24 PM

Such a happy time in the parents lives ruined by such thoughtless cruel people like LaBarb. My dad died when I was 16. And even up until then, he was WAY old (21 years older than my mom, 70 when he died). Should I have been taken away from my mother because I no longer had 2 parents? My mother was the best freakin' parent alive, and still is, and I am everything because of her. Not having a father (because of death) hurt sometimes, but it was because I lost a parent-not because I didn't have the "right" one. This child is going to be blessed with two parents who will love him, like I was. That's all that matters. And hopefully, the child will get to spend more time with both parents than I did.

I am very happy for Mary and Heather. I hope very much those who feel the need to interfere in everyone else's lives while ignoring their own do not take away from the great joy this baby will bring them.

Posted by: Stef | May 24, 2007 2:23:15 PM

the people whom radicals in the early days of “gay liberation” derided as ”breeders”

He says this like straight men have been bullied by gay men for their sexual orientation. I love how they turn the victimizer into the victim.

Posted by: PTBoat | May 24, 2007 3:54:40 PM

I'm surprised that Pete had the time to write this drivel. Doesn't he have a leather conference coming up that he needs to "investigate"?

Posted by: John | May 24, 2007 4:32:00 PM

If they're so concerned about children having a Mother and a Father, why don't they go after all the single Heterosexual women who have a child or children with no plans of having the Father in their lives??

Oh wait a minute.....they did that. It costed their political party the 1992 presidental election. (Can't pick on straight single mothers anymore).

Posted by: NYC | May 24, 2007 5:51:10 PM

Um, I know this is beginning to sound like a broken record, but has no one informed Mr. LaBarbera about the scientific observations that homosexually mated pairs in the non-human animal kingdom frequently adopt orphans and lost infants of their own species? And, no offense to the lesbian couples out there, but in the "jungle" of the animal kingdom, science is also supporting the idea that male-male parenting -- because of the usually larger and stronger bodies of the males -- can actually give these orphans an advantage.

Mr. LaBarbera, you have some research to do before you take a position about Nature. In fact, you have rather a lot of research to do generally.

Posted by: Robin Reardon | May 25, 2007 1:50:40 AM

uh...two gay people can create a child dumbshit...all it takes is one gay guy and one lesbian...how fucking moronic are you?

Posted by: frank | May 26, 2007 7:30:35 PM

Frank: Yes, of course, a gay man and a gay woman can create a baby. However, clearly Peter and all of our opposition are speaking of two men or two women when they say "gay people can't reproduce." When it is a gay man and a gay woman, they still consider that a heterosexual production.

Personally, I'm of the mind that we don't need to present scenarios in which reproduction can happen, as if we have something to prove to people like Peter. Many couples of all stripes (straight and gay) go through extra and varied channels to have a child. However, the "pro-family" community only paints these courses as wrong when they involve a gay couple.

Posted by: G-A-Y | May 26, 2007 7:46:08 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails