Tuesday, September 23, 2008

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.


Fannie said...

Fitz doesn't have a clue about what the real world is like. It's hard, you know, since he never takes those Anti-Gay-Catholic-Red-Scare-Anti-Feminist glasses off.

In his article, he did little more than call lesbians names. Yet, that is somehow "respectful"? Only in Opine-land.

Jane Know said...

Exactly. I think they are a hodge-podge collection of reproductive traditionalists, religious wing-nuts, ex-gays, and just plain bigots. But, as I said, no matter how much they cry otherwise, anything that is anti-gay or anti-lesbian is okay with them. I have seen them justify the most extreme forms of homophobia on their blog and from their bloggers, while simultaneously whining about respectful dialogue when they are called out on it.

They are monsters (like the religious freak on L-Word who told Bette that her unborn baby died because she is a lesbian). And they should be ashamed.

John said...

"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."

They need the strict moral rules imposed on them from the outside, because they have no internal moral compass.

Please extend my congrats to your fiends.

JanieBelle said...


I had a bit of fun with those nutters once.

(you have to scroll down a ways before they show up in force)

ah, good times.

Jane Know said...

thank you, I will. :-)

Janiebelle, yes, I think I remember reading that. Good to see you again!

Anonymous said...

whether you believe God created humans or they evolved - how do you explain the biology of humans?

everything points to the ability for opposite sexes to procreate.

This is so simple that its stunning you intellectuals don't get it.

This isn't moral rules or religious nuts or anything other than common sense

and that is what you cannot argue with

Jane Know said...

Would you care to explain yourself a little more "anonymous?"

We all know how babies are made.

However, the thing that separates humans from other animals is our (sometimes questionable) higher intelligence. You know, our abilities to determine our fate, and transcend biological instinct.

And because of this, humans are not bound by biological laws only. You have to admit that we are much more complex than that.

Whether you like it or not, homosexuality exists. No one knows the reason for it, but it's there.

I find it very amusing that people on the "anti" gay rights side often claim to understand something so complex that trained scientists are still searching for the answer.

Thanks for stopping by, though.