Mary Cheney and James Kim: Parental Courage
Dec 8, 2006
What courage it took Mary Cheney to get pregnant, knowing the dismay with which many of her father's conservative friends would greet the happy news.
And what courage it took James Kim to leave his wife 
and daughters alone in their frigid car to trudge through the snow to save their lives. I read today that he walked 10 miles, but his body was found just a mile from the car. I can imagine him dying with despair in his heart, feeling like a failure, feeling as if they would die, too, because he couldn't find help for them.
Instead, they were saved and he was lost, making it a rare story of both heroism and tragedy.
The Mary Cheney story, breaking in in the same week, is both different and similar. Her courage is in her decision, her choice to bring life into the world and to create for herself and her partner of 15 years a family, in the face of still-staunch opposition.
Naysayers cite studies showing children do best with a mommy and a daddy. But common sense tells me none of those studies examined the characters and personalities of children's parents. What counts most in parents, common sense tells me, is love, attention, time, good humor, stamina and courage.
Do gender or sexual orientation matter when a child is sick, or confused over homework or, God forbid, facing death? I can imagine Mary Cheney or her partner trudging through snow just like James Kim, driven onward by love.
Comment by Phil | Dec 8, 2006 12:30:19 PM
We just had a discussion last night about how many people (certainly not all) are beginning to understand that it is the soul inside, not the skin outside that defines a person. Gender, race, sexual orientation, abilities all are secondary.
Could anyone argue that Maddie Trudel would have been better off with her mother or needed a woman to raise her during her too short life? Could anyone have cared for her and loved her more than her single Dad? I don't think so.
Love is the most important thing in our lives.
Comment by barb d | Dec 8, 2006 5:54:24 PM
Mary Cheney's parents are staunch conservatives. I hope they can accept their new grandchild with love and give him/her as much attention as they give to their other grandchildren. I mean for "real" and not just for the media.
Comment by JGolden | Dec 8, 2006 10:25:07 PM
This one really made me think. At first, I really didn't see the comparison. How do you measure James Kim's heroic and courageous act against Mary Cheney's pregnancy, attended and, in fact, facilitated, by the best medical care money can buy?
But I just finished a book called "The Courage Code," which I highly recommend. It was written by two women from northern Michigan who put forth the idea that it is time for us to create cultural standards to honor courageous acts other than those requiring heroism (you never hear about heroine-ism, do you?) or a physical display of strength. The book was written because the authors knew so many women who led brave and self-determined lives, but didn't see themselves as accomplished or courageous.
These two stories show both faces of courage. And I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't been a regular reader. Thanks, Susan. :)
Comment by STEELWOLVES | Dec 9, 2006 6:40:06 AM
James Kim's actions unquestionably relate to courage in a life and death situation, but Mary Cheney getting pregnant is now the defintion of courage? I think this is cheapening the very meaning of courage. Do you really think anyone is going to go behind Mary's back and whisper in the Vice-President's ear; "Hey, it's wrong for your lesbian daughter to get pregnant!" No one will do that. Courage is running inside a burning house to save a family. Or diving underwater in a sinking ship to free people trapped in a compartment. Or taking painful and time-consuming treatments for cancer (like young kids at St. Judes Hospital). Or walking through blinding snow to save your family. *That* is true courage which no reasonable person will deny. Frankly, your comparing these two cases is, in my opinion , absurd. Or is this another column designed to reach out and show the rest of us the "humanity" of gays? No thanks Susan, what Mary Cheney does with her pregnancy is her business, but she is certainly not courageous simply for getting pregnant while leading an "alternate" and in my opinion deviant lifestyle.
Comment by Sally | Dec 9, 2006 7:51:53 AM
I agree with STEELWOLVES, Mr. Kim's trek to save his family was courageous. Cheney's pregnancy in a 15-year lesbian relationship is not. In fact what it epitomizes is a lack of morality because she certainly went outside the "marriage" to get pregnant. Love is an important element in our lives, however being 'gay' is a behavior negative---just like being a 'killer', 'thief', or 'liar'--it is learned--you are not born that way. Whether Cheney and her partner will be 'good' parents is questionable, but it certainly wasn't in the design since neither could become pregnant parent without a male.
Comment by nancyupnorth | Dec 9, 2006 8:56:54 AM
STEELWOLVES and Sally apparently didn't read Susan's column, instead using this forum to spout their own hate-filled "moral" (hah!) values. The essence of Susan's column is indisputable. Heroes come in many shapes and sizes, and courage is the badge of all good parents. James Kim fought the elements in an attempt to save the lives of his wife and children; Mary and Heather battle ignorance and prejudice to give their child life. One only has to read the news each day to know that the child born to Mary and Heather has a greater chance of being loved and secure than many of the throwaway children born to careless and loveless heterosexual unions.
Comment by Jeri | Dec 9, 2006 9:51:32 AM
Mary Cheney and her partner have chosen to create a family together in spite of the many Steelwolves' and Sally's in the world who will call them immoral, deviant, and will apparently compare their "learned behavior" and "alternate" lifestyle to that of liars, thieves, and killers. Some will whisper behind their backs, others in places such as blogs like this, and still others will state it out loud to their faces. It rather proves Susan's point, I think. Being genuinely who you are often takes a great deal of courage. Don't many, if not most, people go along with their "group" in order to fit into it?
It is a completely different kind of courage than the heroism of James Kim to be sure. His actions were nothing but the highest form of heroism and love for his family. How I wish it had turned out differently for them! I cannot even think of them without tears starting to form.
To Mary Cheney I would say, good for you! And pity those who look at her and her partner and can't get their heads past the sex act to see the whole people within the relationship. Certainly what I do with my husband in the privacy of our bedroom is not the whole of our relationship or the whole of who I am as a person.
Comment by dan | Dec 9, 2006 9:55:22 AM
It kind of looks like Mary and her partner waited till the very end of Grampa Dick's political career to start their family. Imagine if she had announced this in October!
Comment by Chris | Dec 9, 2006 10:00:34 AM
I see hate-filled "moral" values, ignorance, and prejudice in the comments, but they are coming from you, nancyupnorth, not Steelwolves. Your hate-filled "moral" values are intolerant of those who hold different values than you, despite you preaching tolerance. You are ignorant to think that people who have different beliefs are dumb, uninformed, unread, or can't see the obvious. Perhaps they are very well-read and intelligent, but have reached different conclusions than you.
I find those who preach tolerance and diversity often practice neither when it comes to ideology and morals.
Comment by Sue | Dec 9, 2006 10:44:54 AM
From the dictionary, the definition of 'courage': quality of being brave: the ability to face danger, difficulty, uncertainty, or pain without being overcome by fear or being deflected from a chosen course of action.
So, if this is the case, and we're going to apply this term to Mary Cheney, then ANY couple, regardless of sexual orientation, could be defined as being courageous. The message I keep getting from my gay friends is that they're "just like everyone else", but it still always seems that anything that they do that is what "just the rest of us" would do is supposed to be noteworthy. Why single out Mary Cheney as being courageous? Why not write about EVERY couple in Detroit that found out this week that they're pregnant and call THEM courageous?
Comment by nancyupnorth | Dec 9, 2006 10:55:45 AM
Sorry, Chris--you're not talking about me. I don't care what values STEELWOLVES and Sally hold--as long as they don't impose them on me. All I ask is reasoned commentary on the blog at hand, rather than blanket condemnation of gay people and same-sex parents. There was nothing in the comments of either STEELWOLVES or Sally to suggest that they had indeed read the post or willing to discuss issues. They came to the forum with ironclad views, not open minds.
Comment by Sue | Dec 9, 2006 11:13:31 AM
Nancyupnorth, aren't you reading what you're writing? "..as long as they don't impose their views on me".. Yep, that's really being open-minded, eh?
Silly you.
Comment by Chris | Dec 9, 2006 11:20:11 AM
Nancyupnorth, I'm most certainly talking about you. You are still denying Steelwolves and Sally the right to their opinion because you believe they should be open-minded and, in your view, open-minded includes a willingness to accept gay relationships and same sex parenting. However, you are only open-minded on some issues. I would guess you are not open-minded on genocide. Should you quiet your views on genocide to participate in a discussion with someone who thinks genocide is normal or heroic? Any you are certainly not open-minded on being open-minded! If Steelwolves and Sally have strongly-held and well-reasoned beliefs, why should they have to re-evaluate them for every newspaper columnist who has different views? You certainly do not. You called their posts hate-filled as a way to ignore them instead of acknowledging their points of view and discussing them.
If heroes are those who stand up to adversity, show courage, or stand up to prejudice, then you should acknowledge Steelwolves and Sally as heroes for having the courage to post in a forum where they knew they would meet adversity and prejudice. Instead, I suspect you will ignore everything they said and what I have just written and prove that you are as close-minded on certain issues as they (and I) are on others.
Comment by C.W. Hanley | Dec 9, 2006 11:29:38 AM
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. I will say up front that I am no fan of gay marriage, and, while I can think of worse things, I do not think a child raised in that environment can be entirely well adjusted.
What James Kim did was brave, if also desperate and not very smart. Mary Cheny is just pregnant. No one's life is in danger beyond the normal risks of a pregancy, nor do we have any reason to believe she will not be a good parent. She isn't even a ground breaker. The only reason we've even heard about it is because she the openly gay daughter of the Vice President of the United States.
Comment by Ann | Dec 9, 2006 11:56:51 AM
I have to agree with C.W. Having a child in an alternative life style isn't brave. Any more, it's common. Mr. Kim was brave - he was fearless - and he certainly left in me a feeling of awe. And I have to say, the only true hero in pregnancy was a pregnant unmarried woman by the name of Mary who had her child among farm animals. She gave us a pretty fantastic gift. And SHE showed courage.
Comment by Rox | Dec 9, 2006 12:46:32 PM
A real "hero" just does what he/she feels is right, regardless of the consequences. James Kim and Mary Cheney seem to fit the bill, at least for me.
And I agree that some of the most bigoted people I know consider themselves to be good "Christians" and it continues to baffle me.
Comment by Loretta Singbiel | Dec 9, 2006 1:33:29 PM
I agree with Susan Ager.
Mary Cheney was plenty courageous BEFORE she became pregnant. Mary had the misfortune of being born into a hypocritical, homophobic household. It must have taken her a tremendous amount of soul-searching courage to break free from her bondage, and come-out to her bible-brainwashed bigoted parents.
Mary's decision to assume her role of motherhood is heroic, courageous, and admirable. Unfortunately, rearing a child seems to be a social sacrifice not many women (heterosexual or otherwise) are willing to take, these days.
And it goes without saying that James Kim made the ultimate sacrifice, in his effort to save his loved ones. "A rare story of both heroism and tragedy indeed."
The ONLY "tragedy" of Mary's "rare story of heroism" is the attitudes of the many Steelwolves' and Sally's in the world.
Comment by Dan | Dec 9, 2006 1:49:25 PM
Sue, I wasn't aware that tolerance involved allowing others to impose there viewpoints on you. I'd check the dictionary. Tolerance does not imply that you agree with, plan to practice or even like what you are tolerating.
I am gay, but had spent many years in the church world prior to coming to the realization that I no longer shared a belief in the core doctrines of the Christian Church. In those 20 or so years, I met many good people in different denominations(and not) of the church whom I admired and still do.That said, I honestly haven't found one who I have any reason to believe understood sexuality or morality and more than I do.
Is being gay a choice? Not in my experience though I guess it depends on whether you define gay as a sexual act or the attraction itself. It's not important to me anymore either way really.
Comment by Chris | Dec 9, 2006 1:49:51 PM
Yeah, that's right, Loretta! Keep name-calling! Show your intolerance while calling for tolerance! (I guess that shows hypocrisy too.) Show your bigotry against those with traditional Christian morals while decrying their bigotry! Claim that those who hold differing views do so because of fear and brainwashing and that soul-searching will lead them to the light you have found! Because YOU have the only reasonable opinion! YOU are the only one that knows what is just and moral! YOU are the pot calling the kettle black!
Comment by Jen | Dec 9, 2006 2:08:11 PM
*sigh* For the record, I'm straight. But I'm a firm supporter of gay-rights. I have to shake my head at the people who say, "the diversity people are close-minded too for not accepting my point of view!" On the surface, I can see where they're coming from. However, if you look a little deeper, you'll find a difference. There's a difference between hating somebody's OPINION, and hating a PERSON based on who they love. Granted, there's some gray area here...some people in the anti-gay rights camp take the "love the sinner but hate the sin" approach, and there are some in the pro-gay rights camp who hate others for believing what they believe. But, it's a lot harder to find a gay person who'll want to beat up somebody for their beliefs than it is to find a homophobe who'll want to beat up a gay person simply for being gay. Most gay-rights people would rather try to chance somebody's opinion on that one particular issue than to change who the person IS. Also, if you don't like gay lifestyles, nobody is forcing you to live one. Nobody is rolling their eyes and comparing you to criminals for being who you are. You have a right to your opinion...just as I have a right to think that your opinion is based on hatred and/or misinformation.
As far as whether or not homosexuality is a choice...please. It may be a choice for a small minority of gay people, but for most...no. I had a gay acquaintence in high school...and he was tormented by it. There's no way he would have chosen to be rejected by his family and to be made fun of by his classmates. Do some research and you'll see that studies indicate that it's biological (studies by scienctific groups like the American Psychological Association).
And about the comparison between Mary Cheney and James Kim, as has already been stated, Ms. Ager was simply trying to say that courage comes in all forms. If I was in Mary Cheney's shoes, I would be too scared to do what she's doing.
Comment by Jen | Dec 9, 2006 2:13:30 PM
Also...by no means did I intend to imply that Christians want to beat up gays. But there are far too many homophobes in the world who would like to.
Comment by Chris | Dec 9, 2006 2:42:30 PM
Jen,
My morals and beliefs are more of a core to me than being gay is to a homosexual. They influence everything I do and who I am. My sexual orientation influences very little of my daily life.
Most conservatives do not hate gay people, but consider gay acts and gay marriage to be wrong. Most liberals do not hate conservatives, but there are vocal liberal groups that have frequently interrupted conservative speakers and disrupted conservative events. It is extremely rare that you hear of conservatives interrupting liberal events. Perhaps that makes conservatives more tolerant than liberals!
Being told that I cannot express my moral views is more than equivalent to a gay person being told they cannot express their sexuality. People that preach tolerance should give tolerance to all, not just those who they agree with. On the other hand, those who preach intolerance and absolute morality should not be expected to be tolerant. They are living in concert with their morality.
If you preach tolerance, you must be tolerant of those who are intolerant, or you are not really tolerant.
Comment by dan | Dec 9, 2006 2:58:08 PM
'those who preach absolute morality should not be expected to practice tolerance.'
That depends on what you mean by practicing tolerance, Chris. I would not expect to go into a fundamentalist church and get married. I wouldn't expect to be welcomed at a potluck with a partner. However, I would expect to keep my job(a secular position) even if my boss was a fundamentalist. I would also expect that if I were to buy a house next to even the most conservative of neighbors, that my property would be safe and my coming and going would not be a safety risk.
Thankfully the law by and large backs me on this.
Comment by Kathy W. | Dec 9, 2006 3:59:00 PM
Arrgh - Chris, let's just change a couple little words in what you said: "My morals and beliefs are more of a core to me than being heterosexual. They influence everything I do and who I am. My sexual orientation influences very little of my dail life." Don't you think the same holds true for a gay person? It seems you're saying that sexuality doesn't define you, but it does a homosexual? THAT is what I call hypocritical.
Comment by Frankie J @ SugarLoaf, MI | Dec 9, 2006 4:26:21 PM
Ronald Reagan is to blame for giving the conservative Christian right a voice in our political system, which they have used to great effect and enlarged. It is just fine to believe in a certain set of religious codes and morals. It is not just fine to legislate those codes into laws that have an impact on the whole of society, regardless of whether one agrees with those codes or not. Conservative Christians would have all of their beliefs become law if they could, they have been working diligently at it for over 20 years now, and when those beliefs do become law it disenfranchises every last person who does not agree with or subscribe to that particular set of beliefs. I believe that would be what nancyupnorth may mean when she used the word "impose." It most certainly is an imposition when one has to behave according to another's set of religious beliefs when one does not hold them. For some reason, the conservative Christian right political movement, and those who agree with them, either does not see it as an imposition or just plain doesn't care. To uphold equal and equitable treatment of gays in our society, and to allow them access to the institutions of life such as marriage, does not impose a d*** thing upon those who do not agree with their behavior. I'm glad the Democrats won...
Comment by Loretta Singbiel | Dec 9, 2006 6:21:43 PM
Comment by Chris: "Most conservatives...consider gay acts and gay marriage to be wrong."
Why? Why would "gay acts" and "gay marriage" be a problem, if (in your own words) "my sexual orientation influences very little of my daily life."
To satisfy your sanctified sexual sensibilities, gays must "act" straight? ... or commit to a celibate, lonely existence? Says YOU!?
As the supposed savior of our "one man, ONE woman" marriage, George Dubya's credibility is seriously jeopardized when he is curiously silent on the promiscuous, procreating, polygamy problem plaguing his "red" states. If our fearless leader is so hell-bent on "protecting marriage", why not start by snipping the sperm streams of the Warren Jeffs warlord womanizers?
And yet...it's MARY CHENEY's impending birth that concerns the conservatives? ... (sigh...)
The very idea that gays must "choose" DISHONESTY (in the closet), or DISCRIMINATION (out of the closet) is what is contributing to the divorce rate.
Yes, by all means, protect the sanctity of marriage!
LEGALIZE "gay" marriage. End the necessity and the nonsense of the secret "gay/straight" marriage, and lower the divorce rate.
Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Loretta Singbiel
Comment by gary | Dec 9, 2006 9:08:29 PM
James Kim, Mary Cheney, Malcolm X, John Lennon, Arnold Stang, Felix the Cat (the wonderful, wonderful cat) and Alfred E. Newman all possessed and demonstrated various forms of courage. Courage comes in a wide variety of forms. In that regard, it is vastly different from the posts that now appear at the end of every newspaper item. Each subject ultimately gets lost in a cacophony of discordant WHITE NOISE.
It's time to can all the contentious rhetoric and heed the words of Rodney King; "Can't we all just get along?". Or is there more truth and solace in the words of B. B. King, "Nobody loves me but my mother, and she could be jivin', too".
Comment by EX-TROLL | Dec 9, 2006 11:07:19 PM
For a couple who work week to week , to decide to start a family is very courageous in this day and age, but for the ( I assume) a very well off couple the challenges aren't as great. As for Mr. Kim this is a choice a real father hopes he never has to make but in the back of your mind know you would do for your family's safety. Will Mary let the kid know who her father is when she realizes the couple who raised her did not create her? This is not a slam but how nature works.
Comment by Frank | Dec 9, 2006 11:24:47 PM
I'm not anti-gay. However, there is a big difference between what Mary Cheney is doing and Mr. Kim.
Getting sperm put into you from a donor is much less a task than walking 10 miles over 3 days to try and save your family.
Comment by Yooper Rick | Dec 10, 2006 1:03:58 AM
Dan you and your partner can worship with me AND have pot luck
Mr. Kim was stupid, Not that it was his fault, he was just simply stupid about winter. In the U.P. at Drivers education we are taught to have emergency gear kept in our cars all winter. If he could jack up his car to burn the tires he could have jacked up his car and put tree branches under them and drove out. We used to do that when booze crusein down two tracks. It's a shame he died and I feel for his family but he put them in peril.
AS FOR MARY CHEANY
it does not matter if a committed Gay couple raise that child so that the child knows it is loved. A DISCLAIMER THOUGH I feel that for Lesbians that a male figure needs to interact with the child, whether it is the gay peoples father , brother or friend. There needs to be a male influence for the child to relate to. Same with guys, a female role model. Balance!
Abortion is an Abomination in this country so I also encourage adoption by Gay couples.
Oh and by the way I am a Born Again Christian. Not the kind that sits sequestered in there church saying that I am saved but the kind of Christian that works to be the hands of Christ in this world. I minister in Prisons, and have been married for 34 years
Now come to me with the gay bashing, Bring it! But before you do? Your father is watching and he loves your enemy's as much as he loves you!
Rick from the U.P.
Comment by Chris | Dec 10, 2006 9:54:13 AM
Loretta, you are not only a vicious name-caller, but illogical. What you write is more despicable than anything Steelwolves or Sally have. With an almost 50% divorce rate, only 1/5 to 1/25 of that at most could possibly be attributed people discovering they are gay after they are married (based on estimates of the percentage of homosexuals in the general population). You also have no evidence that homosexual marriages would be more successful than heterosexual marriages and given that some studies have shown that homosexual men have a significantly higher number of sexual partners in their life, it would seem that there would be a great chance the divorce rate would actually rise if gay marriage is allowed. However, I doubt you care two figs about the divorce rate and are simply trying to use it as a point of attack.
Frankie J, what are all laws but an imposition of morality? What are laws against theft, murder, or perjury but an imposition of morality? And what are hate crime laws if not an imposition of morality by liberals? Do not blame conservatives for imposing morality. Everyone imposes morality. It is simply a question of which morals are imposed.
Comment by Chris | Dec 10, 2006 9:55:50 AM
Kathy, you misunderstand me. I am not saying that sexuality for homosexuals is more a part of their life than for heterosexuals. I'm saying that a person's morality affects how they live their life more than their sexuality - heterosexual or homosexual - and thus attacking someone's morality is more a direct attack on them than attacking their sexuality.
Dan, I would expect even intolerant people to live within the law. One can be intolerant without being mean. People who are against gay marriage usually don't go around firing homosexuals or threatening their safety. However, they should not be expected to be tolerant of those who want to change the law to allow what they consider immoral.
Comment by Loretta Singbiel | Dec 10, 2006 10:21:49 AM
Comment by EX-TROLL: "Will Mary let the kid know who her father is when she realizes the couple who raised her did not create her? This is not a slam but how nature works."
Women who "adopt snowflake babies" ... ALSO not "how nature works"?
Who's the daddy? Perhaps Mary Cheney "adopted" an "orphaned" frozen embryo (with permission from the donors, of course). If that's the case, she knows the identity of the "mother & father" of this rejected "snowflake" baby, and rescued it from the garbage gallows. This unselfish act should appease the gods?. However, it's highly doubtful whether it guarantees her entry into George Dubya's elite (heterosexual?) group of "snowflake baby" families?
Comment by Yooper Rick: "Abortion is an Abomination in this country so I also encourage adoption by Gay couples."
WELL SAID! I AGREE! Too many children linger in orphanages/foster homes ABUSED and UNLOVED.
Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Loretta Singbiel
Comment by FROSTEDDOG | Dec 10, 2006 10:53:11 AM
Three points to make:
1)It is not courageous to become pregnant. It is actually a very selfish decision. Think about it. (I want a child and I don't care what I have to do to become pregnant!)
2)I don't believe anyone can argue that the best possible scenario for bearing and raising children is the biological mother and biological father in a loving, married relationship. Children crave stability. However, this being the imperfect world that it is, not all children can be raised perfectly or turn out perfectly even under the best circumstances.
3)There is not one person walking on the face of the earth today who has not sinned. WE ARE ALL SINNERS...
Comment by Katherine | Dec 10, 2006 1:37:23 PM
This is what I love about blogs...SUSAN AGER writes a piece about heroism and courage. Then she sits back and watches while we banter back and forth, confirming her point.
For all the anti-gay, anti-gay adoption, anti-gay marriage, etc.. people who blogged: thank you for proving the point Susan made. It WAS courageous for Mary Cheney to decide to have a child. And NOT because her parents are "homophobic!" (If you have ever heard Mary Cheney speak, she is quite adamant that her parents have been supportive and do not judge her). Instead, she is courageous because of all the negativity surrounding her pregnancy. For you heterosexual bloggers to understand this, I highly doubt that if you decided to get pregnant, blogs would be created judging your moral right to do so! But Mary Cheney DOES have to deal with this extra pressure, because of people like you. Thanks for making Mary Cheney courageous.
Comment by Chris | Dec 10, 2006 2:25:04 PM
Katherine, I see one poster criticizing Mary Cheney for becoming pregnant - because she became pregnant outside of marriage, which happens to heterosexuals too - and one saying pregnancy is selfish. Most are pointing out that she is not a hero. But perhaps this has to do more with the definition of the word hero. It has been lessened by terms like "sports hero". Why is someone a hero because they can play a sport well? Why is someone who chooses to become pregnant outside of marriage a hero? My heroes among pregnant women are the ones who choose to give birth instead of abort when the circumstances are tough. They are the ones who sacrifice for the good of their children.
And is someone a hero if they do something wrong, even if it required great courage?
Don't dilute or abuse the notion of a hero by calling Mary Cheney one. It does true heroes a disservice.
Comment by JGolden | Dec 10, 2006 4:05:47 PM
Anyone who doubts Mary Cheney's courage need only sift through the blog posts here - or do a Google search with the words Mary Cheney + pregnant. The Christian right has been vociferous and vicious, as one might expect from a religious movement so tediously obsessed with the homosexual 10 percent of our population, while studiously ignoring the decline and fall of the other 90 percent.
Courage is defined as "The quality of mind enabling one to face danger or hardship resolutely". My sister came out to our family almost 10 years ago, and I can tell you that being openly gay in this country most certainly qualifies as a hardship.
Comment by Chris | Dec 10, 2006 5:07:23 PM
It is not an obsession with homosexuality, but a push back against an ever more vocal homosexual agenda (and heterosexual agenda). Few other groups that Christians consider to be sinners have pride marches, want government to legally sanction their sin, or want teachers in the classroom to proclaim their sin as normal. Quite frankly, traditional Christians view homosexual acts as sin and rebel against efforts to make it seem wholesome.
The heterosexual agenda is similar. Traditional Christian parents do not want their children to be told fornication is OK, tweens dressing sluttily is normal, or that abortion is a legitimate legal choice for a 13-year-old.
It is not an obsession, but fighting back. If adulterers, thieves, or murderers organized, had pride marches, and wanted their sins legitimized, Christians would fight back too.
Comment by JGolden | Dec 10, 2006 8:59:03 PM
Chris, everybody's got an agenda. What I've never understood is this: If almost 90 percent of the country identifies itself as Christian, why do are slutty dressing, fornication and abortion for 13 year olds such big issues today? Christians want naming rights to this country, shouldn't they also be taking responsibility for it?
I keep hearing about the war on Christmas, the war on Christianity, but you folks really appear to be doing fine, and your holiday is everywhere. You're a super-majority. Relax.
Comment by Chris | Dec 10, 2006 10:56:11 PM
JGolden, many people identify as Christian because they don't want to put themselves in the "nothing" or "no religion" column where they belong. Their culture and background may be Christian, but they give little to no thought about who God is.
However, there are Christians and non-Christians on both sides of the aforementioned issues. I do not claim to have views representative of all or even most Christians. My views are more of a traditional Christian and I doubt the majority of those in the U.S. would describe themselves as traditional Christians.
If you are interested, George Barna (www.barna.org) has interesting stats on who really identifies themselves as Christians. I certainly do not agree with everything he says, but his numbers are interesting.
Comment by Ann | Dec 10, 2006 11:00:51 PM
JGolden - I think it depends on what someone's definition of Christian is in regards to the 90 percent you site. Am I a Christian - as in a true believer of God and do I uphold the law of the Bible? Or, am I a Christian, as opposed to Buddism, Hinduism, Athiesism, etc. I don't think some people 'get it' when it comes to defining themselves as christian.
Comment by JGolden | Dec 11, 2006 3:31:45 PM
Ann, I've heard your response more than once, because I've taken to putting Christians on the spot about this issue. Bible-believing Christians (and I was raised with Christians who "get it") want to use the supermajority figure to justify calling this a Christian nation, but when it comes down to the tough questions that follow, all of a sudden that number gets really soft.
This has gotten to be a long, drawn-out conversation, and I really have a simple point: If everyone would focus their attention on raising loving, spiritually centered children, on putting their own marriages and houses in perfect order, on being personally devoted to carrying out the teachings of Jesus, what an amazing world this would be.
Comment by Ann | Dec 11, 2006 3:48:07 PM
JGolden - agreed!
Comment by dan | Dec 11, 2006 8:04:16 PM
Chris, just a couple points. First off, your definition of mean verses intolerant is something that has become mainstream only recently and not everywhere. Physical and economic violence against gays is a very real thing and the growing intolerance toward this violence is the result of the 'gay agenda' and enough people standing arm in arm with us that it is much more difficult to get away with it. Second, as far as 'pushing back', well, I'd have to go with JGolden on this one. My understanding is that there are two core charges the Bible gives to Christians: Live holy; Make disciples of men. I'm told most believe without the first the second cannot happen. When the church is at it's least effective, it attempts to legislate and 'push back' out of frustration that no one is listening. But they aren't listening for a reason....
Comment by Loretta Singbiel | Dec 12, 2006 12:27:08 AM
Comment by Dan: "Physical and economic violence against gays is a very real thing and the growing intolerance toward this violence is the result of the 'gay agenda' and enough people standing arm in arm with us that it is much more difficult to get away with it."
Rest assured, Dan, that you are NOT alone in your battle for EQUAL rights. An ever GROWING number of fair-minded individuals, myself included, stand arm in arm with you to fight the GOOD fight.
Paul Barnes, the founding pastor of a second Colorado church, has resigned over gay sex allegations, just weeks after the evangelical community was shaken by the scandal surrounding megachurch leader Ted Haggard. Barnes told church members: "I have struggled with homosexuality since I was a 5-year-old boy." Barnes, 54, led Grace Chapel for 28 years. He and his wife have two adult children.
I REPEAT ...
The very idea that gays must "choose" DISHONESTY (in the closet), or DISCRIMINATION (out of the closet) is what is contributing to the divorce rate.
Yes, by all means, protect the sanctity of marriage!
LEGALIZE "gay" marriage. End the necessity and the nonsense of the secret "gay/straight" marriage, and lower the divorce rate.
Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Loretta Singbiel
Comment by Yooper Rick | Dec 12, 2006 12:45:22 AM
Susan, What has thou wrought?
Comment by Phil | Dec 12, 2006 12:28:43 PM
To Yooper Rick:
I could not agree with you more on all accounts.
I'd love to talk to you sometime buddy
Post a comment
