Two mommies is one too many
December 11th, 2006James Dobson, in Time magazine, has responded to the news that Mary Cheney is pregnant and will raise her child with her lesbian partner.
With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father. That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy–any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl.
the link tries to go to an admin post or something. which would probably be kind of fun for some of your faithful readers, but i figured you wouldn’t like it too much. too bad it doesn’t actually work…
Just give me a minute while I crack Tim’s password and insert a Cubs logo as the banner image …
OK, it’s fixed now. Sorry for the trouble.
I know that Dobson gets dogged a lot these days, but good for him for saying this. His credibility is in his background as a therapist. Its not as if he is saying that it is wrong because of what the Bible says. For many of us, that is sufficient. But for people in the world, it isn’t. It is good that the data support the Scripture here, not because God needs it to, but because many of those who lack faith do.
I really doubt anyone from the secular side thinks Dobson is anything more than a shill for the right. Besides, it’s not like he imparted new information here.
The question here:
Is a child better off as an orphan or with 2 loving parents, be they same-sex or not?
Zoner, I don’t know if that is the right question or not. Cheney is not adopting an orphan, but has been impregnated and will be giving birth to this child. No doubt she has money and will be able to physically care for the child, but to be able to impart “manliness” would be near impossible unless they hired someone to do so. It just seems like it complicates matters when things are not done how they are intended, i.e. husband and wife.
I think a question arising from this would be: Should society allow a single woman to be artificially insemenated or two women in a civil union to be impregnated by artificial means?
j razz
Well put JRazz
I understand that is not the case with Cheney. My question still stands. The answer to your question is: what is this–Nazi germany?
Whatever the underlying motivation for this kind of pregnancy- on a whim or a selfish need to fulfill something that should only be done in context of husband and wife, this question of society allowing or dissallowing should be asked. After all, we do have a welfare system and it is funded by the taxpayers. Now, we cannot stop women from having sex and becoming pregnant, but we should be able to police who can be artificially insemenated. I think an even more important question is how this affects the child and societies responsibility in that. As someone who works in the socialwork field, I have seen plenty of families made up of a mom on welfare and children who keep the checks rolling in. Of course, this is a different scenario, but I think the premise still holds: society should have a say in what we potentially are going to fund.
(In case you were wondering- as long as a mom who is on wefare has a child in the home under 2 years of age, they can continue recieving the check without working or taking work classes. After 2 years, they have to enroll in classes or get a job…. or, have another baby and start the process over again.)
I saw a dateline (or something similar) special on several, several months back where they were discussing this issue of women seeking pregnancy. One had a gay male friend who agreed to impregnate her by means of donating his sperm and she going in for the invetro fertilization process in an attempt to fulfill her overwhelming desire to become pregnant.
To me, this just sounds selfish. Is she thinking about the child and what is best for him/her or just what she wants?
Again, we cannot stop women getting pregnant by sex, but there should be well thought out criteria for those seeking artificial insemenation and having a husband should be one of them.
j razz
and you still haven’t answered my question!
honestly, I think your question isn’t even feasible just for the fact that enforcement of such a law would be near impossible.
Zoner, I think the question is feasible, but the answer may not be. At some point we need to move past political correctness and just do what is right: i.e. common sense. That may never happen, but we need it.
There are a lot of variables and questions that stem from this issue.
As for your question, I assumed it was a rhetorical question that merited no response from me, but I guess I was wrong. I do not know and am not able to say one way or the other which of the two evils would be better. In the U.S. I do not know of any states that still use orphanages like in former days. The foster care system (flawed though it is) is utilized more so now than before and provides a home which hopefully has a loving couple residing there.
According to the report (and common sense) a husband and wife raised child does better than others. I do not know of “stats” that would support or deny that orphans do better over same sex kids or visa versa.
j razz
“To me, this just sounds selfish. Is she thinking about the child and what is best for him/her or just what she wants?”
j razz, I hope you’re not insinuating that all heterosexual couples (even married couples) who have children the conventional way are always acting with selfless motivations. Are we really ready to start policing motivations?