Limbaugh guest host Belling described same-sex couples' decision to have children as "pure selfishness"
On the June 19 broadcast of Rush Limbaugh's nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing a recent custody battle stemming from a same-sex civil union in Vermont, guest host Mark Belling asked, "Can a baby have two mothers? It's a new concept for us. And I'm not sure it's an especially healthy one. First of all, it demeans the entire notion of fatherhood, implying that a father is an absolute irrelevancy, a concept that has destroyed many black families, the idea that we simply don't need have to have any male role model in the life whatsoever." Belling added that "the desire to have these kids is almost entirely premised on, 'I want to have a baby. We want to have a baby.' Not, 'Are we in the best situation to be able to raise a child?' And I think it comes down to just pure selfishness. And that's what it's all about."
In August 2006, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that two women in a same-sex civil union, Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins, were both legal parents of the child Miller had given birth to in 2002. On June 15, a Vermont family court judge dissolved their civil union, granting custody of the child to Miller and visitation rights to Jenkins. Belling suggested that the family court ruling would lead to recognition of parental rights "in a three-way relationship." He said, "[T]he larger point is, whether or not society needs to facilitate people's desires to raise children any way they feel like raising them. If we're going to sanction the parental rights of both people in a gay relationship, do we have to sanction the parental rights of a three-way relationship? Let's imagine that a woman and a man have a baby. And the woman later decides to hook up with a female partner. Do they all get rights?" He added, "[A]re we going to base every single decision on the basis of what these parents who are choosing alternative lifestyles want or are we going to start to think about what's in the best interest of the child?"
From the June 19 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
BELLING: And what happens when the relationship ends is you have a fight literally between two mothers. Can a baby have two mothers? It's a new concept for us. And I'm not sure it's an especially healthy one. First of all, it demeans the entire notion of fatherhood, implying that a father is an absolute irrelevancy, a concept that has destroyed many black families, the idea that we simply don't need to have any male role model in the life whatsoever. But more to the point, knowing the potential of what can happen when the relationship ends, and watching this particular case, I mean, there is a child here. There is a child who is going to have to decide which mother is her mother, or are they both their mothers? And the desire to have these kids is almost entirely premised on, "I want to have a baby. We want to have a baby." Not, "Are we in the best situation to be able to raise a child?" And I think it comes down to just pure selfishness. And that's what it's all about.
As for the decision to award visitation rights to the woman who didn't give birth, let's imagine the situation did not involve a couple of gays. A guy and a woman, unmarried, the woman is artificially inseminated and has a baby. It's not the biological child of her boyfriend. When they break up, does the boyfriend expect to have any kind of visitation rights? Well, what's the difference? Now, those who support gay marriage would argue that's exactly the point: It does not allow us to engage in relationships in which we can jointly be able to raise a child and have equal parental rights. Straight people have the ability to get married. If the guy wants to be able to be involved in the child's life when they split up, well, then he should have married her in the first place. Gays don't have the right to do that, so their argument goes.
But the larger point is, whether or not society needs to facilitate people's desires to raise children any way they feel like raising them. If we're going to sanction the parental rights of both people in a gay relationship, do we have to sanction the parental rights of a three-way relationship? Let's imagine that a woman and a man have a baby. And the woman later decides to hook up with a female partner. Do they all get rights? And are we going to base every single decision on the basis of what these parents who are choosing alternative lifestyles want or are we going to start to think about what's in the best interest of the child?
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
OK, he of all people has lost the right to comment and lecture others on civil unions or marriage.
His whole life has been an "alternate lifestyle".
Belling the Bigot strikes again!
I live north of Milwaukee, where Belling originates his own radio show from.
And Belling has a *LONG* history of anti-gay hysterical bigotry like this.
And when he showed up at one University to give a speech some years back, the students showed their displeasure with Belling, by throing alomst the entire rotten vegetable stand at him! (I saw a video of that, one raw egg hit him in the ear, I think I saw raw egg coming out the other ear.) :-)
No wonder Belling fills in for the THREE-TIMES DIVORCED Rush the Fathead.
Let's assume that lesbian moms do demean the notion of fatherhood. If we as a nation preclude that situation on the premise that they are acting out of "selfishness," we then have to pass laws forbidding divorce between a man and woman if there are children involved. Divorce, as it applies to any type of relationship, is purely for selfish reasons. If fatherhood and procreation should be the reasons for marriage, then those barren couples have no choice but court ordered polygamy to sustain the marriage without "selfishness." After all, we are constantly reminded by the righteous right this country is founded on the Judea Christian beliefs and polygamy is fully sanctioned in it's teachings. I am all for that, let's get it done.
It is shameful when any person, or couple, fails to conclusively think through all the ramifications and responsibilities that accompany bringing an innocent child into this world. Their sexual orientation is irrelevant to that decision.
When people cavalierly bring children into this world they cannot feed, clothe, house or raise properly with regard to financial and emotional needs of that child, it is absolutely immoral.
When people cavalierly bring children into this world they cannot feed, clothe, house or raise properly with regard to financial and emotional needs of that child, it is absolutely immoral. - tommy
So there should be no breeding by those populating the lower SES? Is that the smell of eugenics?
the tommy-boy name from aa/ap/rogain7/letherjockstrap/rino-dumber/tommy-boy
tries to pretend he almost has a clue, then he will flip names and posts his real BS.
Wow, so many hypotheticals his circular logic almost makes sense. Almost. It's selfish to do a lot of things, like get on the public airwaves and make a bigot of yourself like this guy. So what? Why do these guys claim moral authority and pass judgment on others? Perhaps to compensate for their own failings or to make themselves feel they are better than other people. Personally I think anyone that decides to rear a child is engaging in a selfless act. i don't care if their gay, straight, bent, liberal or conservative. Raising kids is hard work no matter who you are.
I agree, Bing, that parenting involves years of selfless acts.Being a great parent is a noble undertaking, and one that should only be undertaken by those seriously committed to it.(Full disclosure: Not me)
That being said, having children is paradoxically a completely selfish act as well.Most people have children because it's something they want to do, something that they anticipate, however idealistically, will bring them more happiness than pain.
Some have children for more blatantly selfish reasons- ensuring that the world isn't deprived of their good looks and/or intelligence, somebody to shell out for the nursing home.
Humans, like all living organisms, do very few things that are unselfish. Flowers don't look pretty in order to be put in a vase on your table, they do it to attract bees and birds to help them with their procreation.
And anybody, gay, straight or otherwise, who is willing to raise a few of the adorable little things, does it for their own reasons, and I salute them, especially if they're taking care of children that somebody else produced before realizing they were too selfish to take care of them.
I find that people with children don't hesitate to point out how selfish I am for not having children. They're right. I just don't mind admitting it. ;0)
true enough. Buddha said to be selfless is a selfish act.
Great post, HBL. I pretty much agree with every word of it.
Gays can't adopt unless they meet the rewquirements of adoption agencies. From my understanding there is a lot of evaluation. They are doing something that most Americans won't do which is take in children that others won't what part of that is selfish? What about all of those pro-family folks with multiple marriages who cheat on their wives when their are children involved?
"Oh that's different..."
Monk, I don't believe he was referring to adoption, this was about a custody battle.
And...?
It'll be just like any other couple, including Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter and her (wife?)
If they have a major falling out, they do.
Beliing is a anti-gay bigot, going back decades.
Literally.
My mistake. I still think he is way off balance. We should just treat it the same as we do when a hetero couple gets divorced. I feel you made an excellent comment on this matter in your earlier post.
First of all, it demeans the entire notion of fatherhood, implying that a father is an absolute irrelevancy, a concept that has destroyed many black families, the idea that we simply don't need to have any male role model in the life whatsoever.
Just think of how many black men have abandoned their children because the mother was a lesbian who was selfish enough to want to raise a child with a person she loved. And everyone knows that if you don't have a biological father living with you, then you're pretty much SOL when it comes to a male role model.
I remember Dan Savage writing that, if Mary Cheeney's girlfriend wasn't man enough for their kid, Grandpa Dick could always take the kid hunting.
I can think of many reasons for having or adopting children that could be described as selfish, to say the least, and none of these reasons have anything to do with the orientation or gender or sex of the parents.
Critical thought may not be Mr. Belling's strong point, but I challenge him to try and back up his assumption that same-sex parents are inherently harmful to children before he makes unfounded statements.
I challenge him to try and back up his assumption
Ahem. He was filling in for RUSH LIMBAUGH. Maybe you missed that part. =)
The 'Defenders of Traditional Marriage" are always talking about role models and how absolutely, completely essential it has to have a man around. And yet it took Bill Clinton to sign the Family Leave Act--and oh, how the Republicans screamed over that! How many kids are screwed up because they were latchkey kids , left to themselves because both parents had to work? How many kids had no male role model because the father was working three jobs? How many kidsare screwed up because they lived in New Orleans?
If anyone were to actually propose tax breaks to allow young fathers to spend more time with their little kids--why, then, suddenly that same guy is wearing the Free Market hat and saying they should have thought about not having kids until they were rich enough. all solicitude for the tykes if it means stopping gays--but actually helping real kids have those 'role models' at home? Suddenly it's Social Darwinism all the way.
Tax breaks so young fathers have more time to spend with their kids? Are you serious? Do you think it has anything to do with the irresponsibility of father's who run out on their kids. I would say the heroic ones that work hard to take care of their families are justly rewarded.
And if you can't afford kids, don't have them.
Do you think it has anything to do with the irresponsibility of father's who run out on their kids. I would say the heroic ones that work hard to take care of their families are justly rewarded.
Rewarded by hardly being able to see their kids? The point was, nobody is thinking about such measures which would help out certain families, but when it comes to gay and lesbian parents, suddenly it's "ZOMG THINK OF TEH CHILDREN!!!!!"
And if you can't afford kids, don't have them.
And if you're mentally unstable, please don't buy a handgun. Hmmm.... these aren't the kinds of rules people always live by, are they?
No, rewarded because they have the integrity and decency to do what it takes to make sure their kids are taken care of by the adults that brought them into this world. The rewards are their children's well being, gratitude, thankfulness and smiles, knowing their parents care enough to do what's right.
I'm insulted that you assume I don't know the rewards of parenthood. I was just trying to clarify what I think PBG was trying to say, which is that in cases like this, virtue is supposedly its own reward (i.e. government stay out), but in cases of gay and lesbian parents, suddenly it's a matter of morals/public decency/Jesus/etc.
Limbaugh confessed that he didn't have children himself because he was "too SELFISH".
It's selfish to NOT have children.
Now, it's selfish TO have children.
The Rightwing head spins a la Linda Blair.
The Conservatives are fakes when it comes to family values. Frauds all of them.
There was a time when a child worked. This was back before child labor laws existed. Conservatives fought against the child labor law tooth and nail.
Conservatives fought against increased minimum wage tooth and nails. No family shall have a decent standard of living is their motto.
Conservative backed Bush's leave every child behind program.
Facts has shown that since Bush became resident at the W.H. charity has sunk to its lowest level during a time Conservatives are living high on the hog spending borrowed money and the bill they will dump on the future generation.
In my own city we have lost our only shelter for the homeless. This city is the most Republican Conservative town you will ever find. One individual who ran the shelter left a long time ago because he met up with only dark hearts in this town when he tried to get donations and help for the homeless. The shelter by the way was beyond full.
The Conservatives plan for the homeless in this city is to figure out a way to put them out of site out of mind. Oh the compassion in this city kills me.
Where are the Conservatives church members? We have more churches you can shake a stick at.
Conservatives have a one track mind which is me mine and no more.
Conservatives are frauds when it come to any vaule except for the value of the dollar their only god.
Once again, any cogent point you attempt to make is layered through so much generalizing nonsense that it's basically worthless. Instead of your conservative are all evil preachings from the altar, there isn't much else there. Sorry.
Tommy's right. Yyou forgot the moderates who are also "family values" hypocrites.
Conservatives are the one's running around screaming "Compassionate Conservative."
Conservatives are the one's running around applauding like mad men whenever Bush says he's compassionate. You know how many times Bush said that? Do you know how many articles were written to back up Bush's claim that he is compassionate? That answer to that is zero.
Ever since Bush kept repeating over and over that he was compassionate I have challenged every Conservative to give me prove that Bush is not faking it. Not one Conservative was able to offer the prove. You want to know why? Because like wearing god on his sleeve he was conning people about who and what he really his. He was selling snake oil.
When I posted about the homeless shelter is true and this is happening right in the midst of Compassionate Conservatives who voted for Compassionate Bush.
What you don't like is the truth and the truth is you Conservatives are total frauds when it comes to claims about compassion. You guys are the one that praised the "Jobless Recovery". Millions out of work and you guys praised it. Thought it was a great thing. Clap clap to you mister compassionate Bush. The only president to have a negative job growth in the last one hundered years and that warranted an applause??????
The reason the ficitional Compassionate Conservative creature was created was because you guys wanted to con the people. Con artists and Conservatives are the same the both are Cons.
Having a child whether you’re married or not is intrinsically a selfish act. Having a child fulfills a desire of the parents; children don't ask to come here and are pretty oblivious to what they have entered into for a large portion of their lives. As long as parents have the emotional and financial resources to provide love and stability for the people they bring into this world the decision to have a child is their own selfish business. I also assume that this guy believes that lesbian women who have/adopt children don’t have relatives and friends that are men. These children will most likely have loving grandpas, uncles, cousins, etc., etc.
Lynn, Nicely stated.
Tommy and Lynn,
I'm not so sure having kids is selfish act. I think it may be more of a inbred (pardon the pun) biological act.
All of nature is programmed to reproduce, including humans.
Right, AA, we are programmed to reproduce. To reproduce ourselves, and ensure the survival of our species.
Absolutely selfish, as evolution and nature work almost exclusively through selfishness.
I also assume that this guy believes that lesbian women who have/adopt children don’t have relatives and friends that are men. These children will most likely have loving grandpas, uncles, cousins, etc., etc.
Good points all Lynn.
I still feel the best case scenario are kids being raised in a loving, environment with a Mom & Dad, who are married to each other & financially able to take care of them.
Since that situation isn't always possible, a loving, financially stable environment with an adult, or adults [of either gender] that want kids is more than fine.
I totally agree J, well said indeed.
Thanks Tommy.
Maybe you can explain it to the moonbat.
Oh, here it goes, the "best case scenario" argument.
Unless these gays and lesbians are yanking children from the arms of their hetero parents, the point is irrelevant and makes you seem like a fence-sitting coward.
He said the best case, the optimum scenario....nobody can argue against that.
I said it was irrelevant, as in, arguing for either side is pointless.
Of course one could argue against that. It's an opinion. And it's opinion that isn't supported by any actual data. There's no way to prove that having a parent of both sexes is any "better" than same sex parents. On the other hand, there have been multiple studies that reveal that children of same sex parents experience "no adverse effects to psychosocial development." See link below for context to that quote:
[link to mediamatters.org]
Although I should add that I agree with IFlurry when he says that this point is completely irrelevant to the greater debate.
Sorry IFlurry I don't get whatever insanely stupid point you're trying to make here.
Must be cause I don't understand Moonbat.
My point is, you're the insanely stupid one. Why do you even bring up that particular opinion of yours, unless you're defending Belling and his ilk?
Jeter,I tend to agree with you about the Mom & Dad thing, but I have to examine why I feel that way. I think the Mom and Dad and baby follows the normal progression of boy meets girl and fall in love, and that is what is typical. Sometimes I think we tend assume that what is typical most certainly be what is best just because typical is what makes us comfortable. Is it? How do we know? The truth is we don't know. Homosexuals have until recently had to live their lives in a manner that didn't offend heteroosexuals, so they closeted their sexual orientation and of course there were no same sex couples raising children. I don't think we really know that the children raised by a loving married financially stable heterosexual couple would fare better than children raised by a loving married homosexual couple. This later scenario is to new to have any reliable research to say it isn’t as good as same sex parenting. I know one thing; we heterosexuals shouldn't contribute to a bad outcome for children of homosexuals by treating them any differently than any other children.
I meant to say same as hetrosexual couples parenting.
Lynn, The reason I agree with Jeter and say it's the best case scenario is because of the different qualities each parent ultimately brings to their children. They come from different perspectives on life and offer these to their child to become well rounded and hopefully understand and treat members of the opposite sex with respect. As an example, when a child skins their knee it's natural for a mother to be more nurturing and baby the child - where on the other hand, the father will say "it's ok, you'll be fine" - the "toughening" tactic so to speak.
This isn't to say that children without a mom and dad don't get this from uncles or grandpas too, but we are talking about the best case scenario......that's all.
...and the issues you cite are certainly valid and important. Men and women are different, although one is no better than the other, just different, and I do think it is importatant to have nurturing-mentoring from both sexes in the life of a child and this is already built into the heterosexual couple.
That was my only point. Both are equally important, absolutely.
We assume much when proclaiming that the differences between men and women with optimize a child's nurturing journey. A parent's psychological background has to be taken into consideration. It's not just the piano, its the music.
my 2 cents regarding the "male/female" roles in the life of a child.
That is making the assumption that men and women are completely different and have no traits in common. That the traits alluded to are exclusive to one sex.
Is this true? I know a few families were the female member is more like the traditional father, than the father. I also know single parents who fill both roles, and in some cases better than many of the "traditional" families I've seen.
Or is the conservative ideal of a traditional family, one in which the mother cares for the child and the father works and is never seen? Kinda like the 1950's version of a father. Because a divorced mother can do the same thing.
Also preliminary studies show that children of same sex couples are usually better off than heterosexual couple's children. For two main reasons:
1. The children are planned for. The same sex couples usually make sure they are able to afford and care for a child before they have one.
2. These children also because they grow up in a different environment, usually show greater levels of empathy and feel more loved by their parents.
ADM,
I think your study results are flawed only in that if you took the same criteria that you applied to homosexual parents and applied those criteria to heterosexual parents you'd come up with the same results.
Possibly, I did say the studies I've seen are just preliminary.
But since I don't believe they started with those criteria in mind. Just the results of the child in the end. Or I should say, averages based on groups of children.
It is true that as homosexuals we don't have to worry about unexpected pregnancies (my husband and I keep trying and hoping, but no luck so far, we'll have to keep trying :) I believe the studies are based on random samplings of the very simple criteria, two parents, some heterosexual some homosexual.
Lynn,
It is still a fairly new situation. Perhaps someday it will seem as natural and will be as common as heterosexual parenting.
I agree Mom & Dad has always been the *typical* or the *norm* of the nucleus of the family. I don't know that you or I will be around to see if things change dramatically or what will be considered typical/or the norm someday...BUT for now you are right in saying we should not treat the children of Homosexuals any differently than any other child.
new? are you kidding? LOTS of kids throughout history have been raised by 'old maids' living together, and many other combinations and they have turned out fine. Note Hitler and Saddam and almost every other tyrant had a mom and dad and did they turn out OK? Sorry but the bland baseless assertion that simply having parents of opposite sexes somehow is 'better' then others or is 'optimum' in some way is not supportable.
I would hope nobody treats the children differently because of who is raising them.
financially able to take care of them
One comment on that...I've heard it said that, if couples waited until they were financially capable of having children, no one would ever have kids. ;)
these days...yeah Financially its difficult.
Just college alone, I paid $365.00 for a one semester parking pass, that I would use twice a week.
Lynn, I absolutely agree. Speaking as a father, it seems that the decision to become a parent is completely selfish. However, the process of being a good parent is selfless.
Here's a newsflash for this idiot, Belling: heterosexual divorces are just as devastating as a homosexual divorce would be. Nothing new there. His arguments could also be used to disallow second marriages when kids are involved. There have been cases where the step parent actually gets custody when those marriages split up...divorce is usually messy, and the kids usually get hurt to some degree. His tirade speaks more against divorce than it does against same-sex marriage, though that was obviously not his intention. I listened to this putz for a little while this week, and I actually missed Rush. Gag.
Wait a minute. Did Workieng apologize for the first post insinuating that this dude, Mark Belling is gay?
Maybe I got that wrong, but this guy is flaming. Are you kidding me? This is another one cut from the Ted Haggard, Steve Doocy, Matt Drudge cloth - extremely angry at the personal "demons" on their back they have to deal with each day, and finding the only outlet is to make their peers' lives miserable.
I mean, hey, I'm fine with gay marriage, I'm not trying to insult anyone out there, but this is about right wing hypocrisy once again.
Thanks MM for pointing this out. No doubt this goofball will view these comments since he got his first Media Matters thread, so hey Mark, c'mon man, accept who you are buddy. Quit spending your dough on male prostitutes in skid row motels under the cover of night and come out swinging in all your flamboyant gayness. I mean..you're not fooling anybody.
No, I apologized for not reading the entire article before commenting.
I assumed that it was Limbaugh making an ass out of himself. I missed the part that said it was his replacement making an ass of himself.
I've never heard of the replacement guy, so I was not referring to him at all.
I guess I made an ass of myself with this one. But I seemed to have pissed off NL207 which makes it all worthwhile.
Given the planet's overpopulation and its dwindling resources, some day we'll wise up and start promoting gayness as THE way to help save the planet.
Funny. :)
..maybe homosexuality is nature's birth control, don't tell Pat Robertson, and if Gay people adopt the children that hetros don't want everything kind of balances out in the end.
This guy, Belling, should know of selfishness. Conservatism is selfishness.
George Will reasons that conservatives are happy because happiness is an individual pursuit. In other words, it's the responsibility of the individual to attain happiness for him or herself, and that is conservatism: individual responsibility
Before continuing, can anyone identify the flaw in Will's reasoning?
Yeah, that's right, happiness flows from extending help to others. That’s what the common good is all about, that's what mutual responsibility is about. Being contented in the fulfillment of somebody else, that is Progressivism.
As for some of the comments about planning for and raising children; many women, married and unmarried, despite contraceptive use, have unintended pregnancies. It happened to my wife and I. I myself was an unintended surprise to my folks. Others do plan, good for them.
There is however, a very small percentage of “cavalier” pregnancies out there and such an argument is an emotional ploy to minimize the drastically life altering choices women face when they become pregnant. To assign such moral turpitude is to assail one’s self discipline. Since discipline is a measure of morality to conservatives, the unintentional mother is immoral, not to be relied upon to make decisions for her own body.
This has been a community-framing announcement from the family and environmentally friendly folks at the Round House.
A breath of fresh air. Thanks.
I also want to add that the argument about being financially "prepared" to have children is also spurious. I have known couples in the most dire economic conditions raise children with loving care and I have watched those same children grow up into well-adjusted, intelligent adults.
Thanks, Prof!
Good point as well. Accepting the responsibility of giving unconditional love and cultivating nurturance are the greatest acts of preparedness any parent can undertake.
That should read: you make a good point as well.
Round,I was a very young mother and my daughter definitely wasn't planned. I was just starting my sophomore year in college. She was a scary surprise but turned out to be the best thing that’s ever happened to me. We decided to give this child the best that we could. She didn't ask to come here and I've seen some screwed up kids coming from married and non-married households and I didn't want a screwed up kid to be my legacy. It was hard in the beginning but it made me get real serious real fast. She made me the multi-tasker that I am today. She’s 28 now and doing quite well. I'm very proud of her, and she's as Liberal as all get out. (smile)
That’s wonderful, Lynn. Thank you for sharing. I’m willing to bet though, that even if your girl wound up being a staunch conservative, you wouldn’t love her one iota less!
Our girl is just ten months old, and I’m with you, even though we weren’t ready she is still the apple of our eyes.
I am so sick of the "the best way to raise a kid is with a mom and a dad" argument. I can't throw a rock without hitting a dysfunctional human being raised in such an environment. Hell, the rock would turn around and hit me in the face.
It's not the gender of the parents that matters, it's the parenting or how they parent a child that really counts.
One more point to make.
the last time I really debated this topic was in a soc class. My opponent's argument was a little odd. I won't lay it all out for everyone. Basically he believed that the perfect family can be seem on reruns of Leave it to Beaver and Mayberry. The woman who stays home and cleans and cooks (wearing pearls of course), the father who only sees the children after a long day at the office (as he sits down to smoke his pipe and read his newspaper) and polite innocent children who never use a bad word or think a bad thought (because you know sex wasn't invented until the 1960's, by those dirty hippies). That's how life "was" and how it should always be.
There were no minorities demanding equal rights. Really there wasn't anyone who was not a WASP (unless the episode was about showing compassion for the poor black people...etc).
It showed me the three things. That younger conservatives have a really unrealistic picture of what the 1950's were really like. It also showed me how afraid people are of change, especially if they don't take the time to understand or learn about that change. Lastly that people often don't understand history, especially as it applies to social issues.
As with marriage, the history of the family has changed over time. Not to long ago, parents were far too busy to raise children. This task was assigned to older relatives, especially grandparents. (In my personal life, my parents never had the time to do a lot of "bonding" things with me. I learned how to fish with Mrs. Miller, the very nice grandmother who lived next door to us. She felt it was important for young boys to learn to fish (don't know why, no future aspirations to become a fisherman, wanted to be a NASA engineer) so she asked my parents and took me.)
Abd I also think people need to really examine the basis of their ideas regarding gender roles in child development. Like do you believe a father is weak or effeminate because he comforts his four year old son, after the boy scraped his knee. How about fathers who stay home while their wives work (notice the media loves to have specials about this, like their showing us something strange and scary. Because it does not fit the "traditional" model the media wants us to believe all families should be).
Ok I'm done :)
Done for now, of course :)
ADM,
Isn’t it interesting that your opponent gravitated to Andy Griffith? Andy was a single father, living with his aunt, a very compassionate man, no less (Andy didn’t even have disdain for the homeless drunk, Otis).
Andy was really the antithesis of the traditional conservative father. Hell, Andy was a flaming liberal! He’s practically Dennis Kucinich (OK, that was hyperbole). Andy wasn’t strict, he didn’t carry a gun, he rarely locked the jail and he never used violence to coerce. Despite Andy’s nurturing morality, I have known so many hard right people who identify with Andy as a role model!
What a strange world in which we live.
This is realy odd. The last time I saw Mark Belling was in a gay bar in Madison Wisconsin in about 1989. I was with his friend (now deceased) Duane Gay who I was working with at the time. This was at the Club DuWash (or something like that). Belling must have really cracked up along the way. What a shame--he seemed like such a nice guy. Too bad he turned into a creepy wingnut!
You will all probably think I am crazy, or immediately label me a right wing wacko, but I totally agree with Mr. Belling. Regardless of what kind of people they are, a homosexual couple cannot rear children as well as a heterosexual one.
By that standard, it is not crazy to say that it would be selfish for a homosexual couple to have children. It is truly amazing how far this country has fallen morally. Even the suggestion of legalizing Gay marriage or allowing homosexuals to rear children would have seemed ludicrous just five or ten years ago. Homosexuality was illegal less than four years ago!!
Don't believe me?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/