Asinine, thy name is Opine

Let's talk for a minute about a post that, frankly, pissed me off. I had read that article back in March when Fitz first posted it, stopped looking at the website for several months, forgotten about it, then remembered it today due to a situation of personal aquaintances of mine, lesbians, becoming parents.

Like any anti-gay propaganda, people like Fitz and other Opine Idiots like to use isolated instances of hypotheticals or random internet "testimonials" of supposed selfishnesses or otherwise general "immorality" in loving gay and lesbian couples who are ready, willing, and able to take care of children.

In their Quixote-like quest, which involves fighting the windmills of "gay parenting" and "sex segregated marriages," these people far too often lose sight of the far more common experiences of REAL LIFE parenting. Gay or not.

I find it extremely arrogant, close-minded, inaccurate, lazy, and bigoted that a person would stoop so low as to imply lesbians (or gay men) are selfish for wanting a baby.

I mean, they are after all, people, too. Fitz and the other Opine crowd could at least acknowledge that a fundamental part of happiness and fulfillment in most people's lives involves starting a family of one's own.

For example, Fitz, in his typical pessimistic paternalism, patronizingly explains the world of The Lesbian Parent according to his own limited worldview:

"A recent comment by one of our regular posters – Marty came at the same time that a New York Times article revealed the profound selfishness some same-sex couples exhibit when conceiving children as if they were consumer goods designed to satisfy adult desire. "

He goes on in his anti-lesbionic tirade:

"The article refers to the case of Beth R. vs. Donna M. who both work in the media and met in 1999 and moved in together in 2002,.Donna M. became pregnant by artificial insemination in 2003, and just before the baby was due, the couple, who live in Manhattan, went to Toronto and took out a marriage license on Feb. 14, 2004,
'after the birth of the first child but before the birth of a second child, also by artificial insemination.'

So here we have a woman in her 40’s who bears two children in the most self-centered way imaginable. Intentionally depriving these children of their natural Father & indeed any Father whatsoever in the home. – In contrast to both adoption & divorce, these incidents cannot be plausibly severed from 'malice aforethought'

The example such 'pioneers' of selfishness set is mind-boggling. If this same example were followed by the myriad of women who find themselves husbandless as their 'baby hunger' & biological clocks start ticking loudly – we would find ourselves in a world were increasingly Children represent not the natural fruits of marriage but rather accessories born to fulfill adult’s felt needs."

But wait, it gets worse:

"So here are the real fruits of the same-sex “marriage” movement. The treating of children as consumer goods, Fathers as expendable “donors” – with children’s needs & societies interests in promoting responsible procreation all sacrificed on the alter of the ultimate narcissistic tendencies of a radicalized, selfish, and morally reprehensible few."

In other words, these LESBIANS, in contrast to actual human beings with feelings, have the audacity to use sperm donation to bear a child of their own. As opposed to the single heterosexual mother, who may or may not intentionally leave her children fatherless, LEZZZBIANS are particularily selfish, immoral, and radical because they all(?) leave their children intentionally fatherless. (Insert your nearest picture of a shaved head, armpit hair braiding femi-nazi here.)

I know. It's hard to tell exactly what Fitz' premise is. Other than, of course, calling people names.

So, is Fitz against artificial insemination in general, but not gays adopting children? We never know! You see, in the mind of the bigot, his ideas are rational only to himself. Their selective rationale for being against gay families, who are often unknowingly their neighbors, friends, and co-workers, never has a rhyme or reason. So long as it is anti-gay, it is A-OK!

In Fitz' delusional little head, he has concocted a vision of the world with strict moral and religious boundaries that his church has already laid out for him. There is no room for anything that defies a patriarchal Catholicism (his profile states that he is considering the priesthood), where every little lamb of God has a biological mommy and daddy, and divorce never happens. And so, since it is so easy for him (supposedly) to bow to this version of the world, everyone else should, as well. Regardless of their own religions, or happiness.

So let me get this straight. According to Fitz, all lesbians are "radicalized, selfish, and morally reprehensible" because of these two lesbians he read about?

So if we are able to base our opinions of lesbians based on one individual lesbian couple, let's take a look at some lesbians that I know. And, I have a hunch that I know a hell of a lot more lesbians than Fitz or Opine will ever know.

My acquaintance lesbian friends just adopted with open and loving arms a cocaine-addicted premature baby from a drug-addicted, homeless mother and father. A homeless mother and father, I might add, that practically begged the lesbians to take in their child for adoption because they know the child will have a better home than they would ever be able to provide. Might I also add that the biological parents had various other options for the baby's placement, including other family members, temporary placement, heterosexual couples, etc.

Yet they specifically chose the lesbians.

Would these same sane, working, non-drug addicted females be "morally reprehensible" and "radical" if they chose instead to artificially inseminate?

Or, are these lesbian unselfish because their baby happens to be needy and cocaine-addicted? And if that is the case, are gay and lesbian parents only fit to take such children with, uh, "special needs."

Or is it the "shotgun wedding" approach that offends Fitz? Would a loving lesbian couple be less moral if they had a shotgun wedding instead of a decade-long courtship that led to a domestic partnership? Yeah, I don't know. Fitz doesn't really know either. He, and the rest of Opine, just like to attach anti-gay venom from any article they see. Regardless of the intent of the original authors of said article.

I am positive we will never get a straight answer to any of those questions from any of the Opiners.

In their typically obtuse way, they will always revert back to their concocted ideas about the necessity of "sex integration and responsible procreation" without ever telling us why they feel that way.

It is just super-duper-important, don'tcha know?

Anyway, I can pretty much guaran-fucking-tee that their baby will never curse it's two mommies for adopting him. He will never feel a lack of love, he will never be in need of affection, food, education, warmth, or anything else that a good parent provides. By taking this baby in, the lesbian couple has already given this baby a head start that it's biological mommy and daddy would never have provided in the selfishness that drug addiction so often entails. (Yet I must commend them for their selflessness in their decision).

In fact, I bet the only ones cursing this lesbian couple for their ultimate "sin" of becoming parents, are people like Fitz. People who are so incredibly blinded by their own fear of gays and lesbians, that even when something is entirely rational, they refuse to concede the truth. Fitz and the rest of Opine Idiotorials would like to, based on misuse of this or that article, take away the rights from people like my friends. People who, for the most part, are decent, honest, hardworking folks who don't deserve to be treated like second-class citizens.

And yet the members of Opine, who let religion constrain them, bigotry guide them, and fear rule their lives are slowly losing touch with reality, while the rest of the world rejoices in the miracle of another happy family that has been created.

They will get by.

They will get by like we all do and always have. No, the laws are not fair right now, but in time that will come, too.

May the goddess bless them.

Gardasil receives regulatory approval for prevention of more cancer

On September 12, the Food and Drug Administration announced that Gardasil has received regulatory approval for the prevention of vulvar and vaginal cancer.

The news that Gardasil can prevent other types of cancers that HPV causes, of course, is not new information to most health-care providers (I hope), but at least now Merck can officially market Gardasil as such.

Merck is also investigating the vaccine's effectiveness in men (studies thus far have looked promising), and will be submitting data to the FDA later this year.

I'm crossing my fingers, for the sake of men everywhere, that the vaccine becomes FDA approved for men as well as women in the near future.

A woman against women's rights for VP?

Seriously. In case you haven't heard it already on the blogosphere, back in 2000, Alaskan Governor Tony Knowles signed legislation making it illegal for law enforcement agencies to charge victims or alleged victims of rape for their own rape kits, the city of Wasilla under Mayor Sarah Palin opted to do so anyway.

The article states,

"While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.



Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.



In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said."

Does most of America's women (and men) really want this woman pushing similar policies on a federal level?