Mary Cheney/Heather Poe Pregnant. World Net Daily? Not Amused.

Well, WorldNetDaily is nothing if not excited for the news that the Vice-President’s gay daughter is pregnant. The baby, whose name will be BaldEaglePatriotism, is going to be raised by Mary Cheney and her husband, Heather Poe. Wait, what? Husband? I meant wife, and by wife, I mean that Mary Cheney’s gay. And by gay, I mean that WorldNetDaily is slowly melting down. Let’s take a look at one of the first postings at WND about this breaking development. It is written by a guy named Kevin McCullough, who authors something called the Musclehead Revolution. (Incidentally, calling whatever you do the (Blank) Revolution? That’s stupid.)

According to Fox News Mary Cheney, the 37 year old daughter of Vice President Cheney is pregnant. She and the woman she lives with and engages in sexual behavior with - Heather Poe - are ecstatic at the news.

Note that the issue here isn’t that Cheney lives with a broad. It’s that Cheney and that broad, Poe, engage in sexual behavior. One wonders if McCullough can wrap his head around the idea that the Vice-President’s daughter loves burying her face in another woman’s vagina.

This development prompted some important questions…

I love it when developments prompt important questions, because as we all know, there’s nothing that Social Conservatives enjoy more than earnest debates about their beliefs. I’m sure we’re going to get some deeply inciteful questions about this allegedly complicated situation…

1. How did the exclusive sexual union of these two women bring about this conception?

…what did I just write? I meant that we’re going to be bombarded with idiotic questions. In this case, McCullough is wondering how two women could have possibly gotten pregnant without the presence of a third person. It must mean that they’re not faithful to one another, that Mary Cheney was out on the sly, sneaking around and getting some of that penis-in-vagina action. Which means she’s not only a total les (lez?), but also a cheating man-loving les (lez?).

2. What does it mean, from a biological nature to realize that a man WAS in fact necessary for this conception to take place?

Perhaps it means that a man is necessary to produce the sperm that the woman needs to get pregnant. I’m not sure what it means outside of this, unless McCullough is going to answer this question by insinuating that because both a man and a woman need to offer something for a pregnancy to occur, only a man and a woman should have a baby together. (Thus implying that all gay couples raising babies are sick, perverted, and undoing America’s greatness.) (While I’m speaking parenthetically, please noted that Question Two answers Question One. This may be a theme.)

3. What does it mean to the supposed “intimacy” that “two people share” which was intended by the Creator to be a function that creates life, to be forced to include a third party?

McCullough can’t be suggesting that Mary Cheney raped a dude to get pregnant, because anybody that clinically idiotic should be straight-jacketed and put away. Furthermore, I’m going to assume that McCullough doesn’t understand that people can become pregnant without the actual act of penis-in-vagina occuring. Or at least, I’m hoping he realizes that. I’m hoping he understands, for example, that straight couples who can’t conceive because of the man’s vasectomy are still capable of getting pregnant without the woman having sex with a third party. I’m going to assume that he understands this, even though I ought to know better. (Question Three answers Question Two.)

4. Doesn’t it make a rather strong statement that biologically speaking, the sexual union these two women share - is in fact, scientifically speaking - inadequate?

*Slamming Face Off Of Desk* If McCullough actually believes this, then he ought to believe the same thing about all couples unable to conceive. If he geuinely believes that marriage is the vehicle for sexual activity, and that all sexual activity ought to result in babies, then he surely must believe that those couples unable or unwilling to conceive shouldn’t be legally allowed to get married. Furthermore, is it worth asking how something is inadequate if it can be scientifically overcome? Is that a discussion worth even trying? (Note, Question Four responds to Question Three.)

5. Is it healthy for a society to celebrate inadequate sexual unions that lead to everything except what it was designed to be?

McCullough isn’t celebrating a damned thing, and we know that. His listeners/readers/whatever aren’t celebrating a damned thing, because when they see Mary Cheney, all they’re capable of thinking is, “Faggot! Dirty Faggot! Quit being such a damned Dirty Faggot!” Who then is celebrating? Hopefully Cheney/Poe, and the Vice-President himself, and every other reasonable human being who understands that having a child is a wonderful thing. Quite frankly, I’m far more concerned about the straight parents who have children and then proceed to horrifically abuse them than I am about a loving les(z?)bian couple choosing to have a child together. (Question Five answers Question Four.)

6. Knowing from scientific data that children excel best when given the full and natural parental structure of one mother and one father, is it moral to bring a child into such a scenario - purposefully, simply to stroke one’s own desire to have a child - sort of like a new handbag, or pair of shoes?

Yeah McCullough, Mary Cheney isn’t capable of loving a child like you are, and for that matter, neither is Heather Poe. After she carries around a child for nine months, and goes through the birthing process, and holds her newborn for the first time, she’ll probably just leave it by the hallway closet, like a handbag or a pair of shoes. These sorts of cruel suggestions - that gays are incapable of loving in the same way that straights are - are beyond offensive. The desire to have children lies deeply in most human beings, straight, gay or otherwise. (Otherwise? McCullough’s head just regenerated, only to explode again.) To suggest that only married straights are capable of enjoying such things is absurd.

And for the record, I am a single straight with a daughter whom I cherish. It isn’t just the Cheney/Poe union that he’s insulting. He’s going after everybody with a child who isn’t married. The extent to which Social Conservatives loathe allegedly untraditional families is shocking when it isn’t infuriating. (Question Six answers…well…you get the gist of the point that I’m making. He’s simply leading his readers/listeners, thus preventing them from the painful task of doing any thinking whatsoever.)

Would love to know your responses to these five in that order in the comment section below… (Most likely I will report your responses on my show.)

Now that McCullough’s done with Question Six answers Question Five answers Question Four format, he’d like your viciously anti-gay responses. (Because seriously, if he’s asked these questions, there’s no way in fuck that he’s going to receive a letter from a listener saying something like, “Hey man, lay off. If Cheney/Poe want to have a child, its conception/birth should be celebrated, because all life is sacred and important. And besides, that baby might one day grow up to figure out a cure for how you stuck your head up your own ass.”)