Tuesday, September 04, 2007

!!!!!!!!!! THE FREDDY AWARDS !!!!!!!!!!


For those of you who are unaware, there's been a little blog war going on with our friends over at Opine Editorials. It got a little crazy with some posts getting over 200 comments from crazy homophobic nut jobs. Since things have finally seemed to die down, we are now able to present to you for the first time ever, THE FREDDY AWARDS!! Named after the much beloved (by men in white sheets and hoods) Anti-Gay Activist Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps, the Freddy's are our opportunity to celebrate the dubious achievements of those who strive to fill Phelp's big shoes. So without further ado, Grace, Jane, Fannie, and Rachel present

THE FREDDY AWARDS!!!
-----------
Most Ridiculous Anti-Gay Opinion Presented As Fact: Jose, for his interesting take on the "gays can change" argument:

"Many homosexuals do not choose to be homosexuals any more than adulterers choose to be adulterers or pedophiles choose to be pedophiles. What they can choose is to stop performing as adulterers or pedophiles or homosexuals. Nevertheless, because of being engaged in these perverse practices for many years it is often very difficult to change, so difficult that the pedophile or adulterer might assume that his orientation is innate and immutable."

AND

Marty for this:

"I do have other questions/opinions about homosexuality in general, but they don't so much inform my position on marriage as they fuel my angst against pro-homosex propaganda.

For instance:

If homosexuals are "born that way, and cannot change", then there would be a two things:

1. A test that you could give to an infant to know whether or not they were gay. (Likewise, a test of the remains of a dead person, to know the same)

2. A complete lack of ex-gays.

Another is the simple fact that when a husband and wife visit a fertility clinic in an effort to have children, it is because one or both of them has a medical problem. But when two lesbians visit the same clinic, it's not for any medical problem -- but a social one."
----------
Most Likely To Be Knocking On The Closet Door: Everyone at Opine is a winner here!!!
----------
Most likely to Engage in Bestiality:
Jose, for saying this:

"Kids are tempted into engaging in homosexual practices to test if they like this sexual activity and then labeled as homosexuals if they found pleasure in this sexual activity. Kids, especially boys, can be taught to enjoy all sorts of sexual experiences. There is evidence of how farm boys enjoy having sex even with animals."

Not that he knows.
-----------
Most likely to be a closeted lesbian werewolf:

Renee, for saying this:

"I've been where these ladies are (not a lesbian), but in terms of philosphy. It's fed to us, as the only option in college.

Hey ladies, you know what is ironic. It's full moon out! "
-----------
Most Likely To Be On Anti-Psychotic Medications:

Renee for this little...gem:

"Unlike other relationships, only heterosexual who engage in coitus, have to assume the possibility of another human being being created from the sexual act. So I'm a 'homobigot' is I say... a man's penis is more well endowed then a gorilla three times his size, so he can please a woman with a forward tilted vagina with face to face intercourse?"
---------
Most likely to still-be-in-love-with-his-ex-who-is-now-a-big-dyke:

Marty, based on his comments that its not fair that lezzies discriminate against men because they don't want to have sex with them, marry them, or have anything to do with their little penises.
---------
Comment From Anti-Equality Blogger That Made Us Laugh Out Loud The Most: Jose saying this:

"You can see how homosexualists like Jane Know are so enraged by reason and facts that they cannot understand what we are saying. Their rage produces a mental block."
-----------
Comment From Pro-Equality Blogger That Made Us Laugh Out Loud The Most: Grace with this:

"I'll respond, although this particular thread is starting to feel like the last season of 90210, where all of the lead characters have left the show for bigger and better, and the only ones who have stayed don't have any other decent offers. You, Christian, are the Ian Ziering of intellectual debate." (thanks, Fannie. I'm welling up)
----------
The Pretentious Prick- Heterosexual Privilege Award:

Fitz, who said this:

"One gets the distinct impression that this is the first time Fannie & Co. have presented their worldview for public consideration. It is as if, up to this point they only encountered opposition of their own creation (a sort of straw man marriage defenders) and are now dismayed and overwhelmed to find that everyone dosent actually agree with their point of view."
------------
The Save the Children Award: On Lawn, for saying that when gay people have children,

"the children become as relationship accessories. Purchased. Selected. And treated as a commodity. Why people have children, or why people even purchase children is no doubt varied. But it is none-the-less suspect."
------------
The Too-Much-Information Award:

Renee for saying this:

"I gave birth close to ten months ago and because of the breastfeeding, I've still have not ovulated. That's no fluke, the body reproductive system knows how to send the right message to the ovaries that I still have a small baby. He's weening now though."

and

"Over the years studying natural family planning, I've been reading medical articles on the nature of cervical mucus secretions and how the body prepares itself for ovulation in a woman's cycle. It is quite amazing the female ovuation cycle. Our bodies, no matter the orienation, are designed for penises (and birthing babies)."

and

"No we're not obssessed with gay sex, actually anal sex isn't just for homosexuals. When I was a freshmen, they told us (the girls) that we should be engaging it equally as homosexual men. The term they used was to be in 'Deep Sh!t'...We are obsessed with sex, though. Marriage though didn't take it's fuller meaning for myself until I wanted children and dumped the contraception and actually had REAL sex."
------------
The (Biggest) Hypocrite Award:

Jose, who admonishes,

"This is a forum to which the public is invited and the communication should ideally be as it would at a public forum, respectful without necessarily “pulling punches.”

and then a mere few comments later said this:

"Such homosexualists are encapsulated in their little clique in which they talk to themselves and imagine that only a few could possibly disagree with them or think them close-minded. They are not conscious of what is really happening in the world regarding this issue because they are so immersed in homosexualist propaganda."
-----------
The Anti-Equality Blogger Comments, That If Turned Into A Drinking Game, Would Get Us Drunk The Fastest:

Three Way Tie Here:

"Everytime Renee mentions her breasts, do a red-headed slut"

"Whenever Christian pines for Rachel's personal attention, pound a beer"

"Anytime On Lawn says "marriage neuterist" = SOCIAL!!!"
------------
Person Whose News Story Most Likely Will End With The Phrase, "And then he turned the gun on himself":

Chairm- for everything. He's just that type.
------------
The You-Should-Really-Stop-Embarrassing-Yourself-By-Talking Award:

Jose, for his *ahem* always-spot-on analysis of the situation:

"The homosexualists, for the most part unconscious of their marriage deconstruction efforts, are working hard at all levels to re-educate, that is, indoctrinate the masses and our children to accept and affirm their sexual practices. We form part of an intelligentsia comprised of liberals and conservatives that sees through their campaign and we present a powerfully articulate resistance, deconstructing the myths that they propagate. Such is the culture war that we are engaged in. They can rant and rage, foam at the mouth and spew bile, while reason and the facts remain cool and collected."
-------------
The Apocalypse Award:

Jose for warning us:

"It must be understood that along with the deconstruction of marriage, the nucleus of family and society, comes the wholesale deconstruction of family itself and social unity interests in general. This of course has already been underway because government has abdicated its role in protecting marriage."
--------------
The Hey-Everyone-Look-At-Me-I'm-A-Lawyer Award:

goes to Fitz, for constantly reminding us that he went to law school,

"Perhaps me & my legal credentials will impress her more?"

and

"Back in law school, one of my fellow student’s boyfriends was from Spain. We had this very discussion (he being older and unmarried/childless)"
and

"I thought I would post a bit of my article on same-sex “marriage” were [sic] I specifically discuss the ALI (American Law Institutes) recent recommendations on family law.

and

"We need an Egg and Sperm conception law. It reminds me of the cloning law (here in Michigan) & other States that were legislated during the Dolly the sheep media blitz. Such laws are ethical benchmarks that help us defeat stem cell research and other ethical medical issues that subsequently pop up."

Yes Fitz. Congratulations. You went to law school. So did the rest of us.
----------
The We're-Going-To-Have-Boners-For-Weeks-Okay-Minutes-Because-Of-All-This-Attention Award goes to: Opine Editorials

----------
Biggest Douchebag
(The equavalent of
"Best Picture" at the oscars.)

Jose Solano- for everything he says.

AND

Culturologist, who said this:

"I won't echo all the smart things that have been said here about normal human intercourse and the activities that homosexuals engage in except to say that the point the Jane Knows seem never to get is that they will NEVER know how much more powerful the sex act between a man and a woman is PRECISELY because both parties know that a potential outcome of the act is the creation of new life."

Many gay people have, in fact, had male-female sex. Perhaps they just didn't find it as "powerful" as... um... he seems to.

AND Marty, who said this:

"That's really it for me. If you and your GF want to shack up and play house, I could care less. Just don't inflict your bias on a kid, and don't go telling folks that it doesn't matter if little Johnny has no father. That would be cruel and unusual.

If gender didn't matter, you wouldn't have such a problem loving men. Gender does matter -- to you, and to little Johnny."
------------
Biggest Doucheblog: Opine Editorials

And finally, the Burning Question to Homobigots that Still Remains Unanswered:

"Why are you devoting so much time and energy advocating against gay people getting married when, if you are so concerned about threats to marriage, you should REALLY be focusing on things like spousal abuse, domestic violence, and adultery. Those are way way way bigger threats to the sanctity of your so-called sacred male-female marriages than ANYTHING else?"


CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL WINNERS. YOU'RE A VERY SPECIAL BUNCH

PS. What would an award ceremony be without a super luxe gift bag? Please enjoy the following items that we've created especially for you.

First, for those chilly nights, let Jose Solano warm you up with this comfy sweatshirt:


Next, when it's time to get your drink on, please enjoy this "God Hates Fags" beer Koozie:


And lastly, after the beers, enjoy some sexy time in these Renee inspired underwear! Yum:


Happy Hating!!

PPS Thanks to Fannie's girlfriend for the Freddy's Logo!

59 comments:

anonymoushottie said...

Fantastic. I love the one about sex without the chance of children lacking power - I knew something was missing.

Fannie said...

excellent!

fannie's gf :) said...

sweet.

Jane Know said...

perfect. :-)

Jane Know said...

shoot. i think we forgot one. how about "Least Disguised, Most Hate-Filled Remark about the Murder of a Gay Person:," By Marty: "Also, the question is still open -- was he killed for being gay? Or for being a meth-head?"

Rachel said...

this is pretty much the best thing that has ever happened to me. seriously. does opine get to cast their votes? HEY GRACE! YOU RULE! let's together tonight and talk about our expensive degrees and why they make us better than other people!

Dizzy said...

So the people who say a woman's body is "designed for penises." Also say gay people should fight their own biology. Because everything God did was perfect. Except when he made you, dear lesbians.

Awesome.

Grace said...

Um. Clearly we forgot a couple of categories.

Grossest obsession with female anatomy: Renee. What's with her and the cervical secretion talk?

Completely disturbing.

Jane Know said...

good one. or the "Sure, I'm not an MD, but i study 'fertility training,' and you, too, can get an online certificate in bookkeeping, basketweaving, and refrigerator repair!"

Fannie said...

Clearly, the only standard for being a contributor on "opine" is your well-or-not-so-well disguised belief that God Hates Fags.

Marty said...

Awesome! Thanks for the plug!

Marty said...

PS: I love fags -- nearly was one myself, long ago.

What I don't like is broken homes, children being intentionally made fatherless, and good liberals who make excuses for gender bias.

Oh and I don't much care for bloggers who delete comments just because they disagree with them and are too lazy to debate why.

But thanks again.

Jane Know said...

"PS: I love fags -- nearly was one myself, long ago."

ahhh. that explains it all. the secretly gay homophobe. it's the ultimate in the old "some truth to every stereotype" saying.

what we don't like is you using the word "fag." as an ex-fag, you aren't really entitled to use that word anymore.

fannie said...

"PS: I love fags -- nearly was one myself, long ago."

And that you were once nearly a "fag", therefore, justifies your bigotry? (which is evidenced by your use of the word "fag," which as Jane Know points out, you aren't entitled to use, but that's a whole other debate itself, I suppose)

You use of the words like "fag" get you banned from blogs and gets your comments deleted- not mere disagreements with you that people are too "lazy" to argue with.

And yeah, ah yes, the secretly gay homophobe. Marty, meet Senator Craig. Senator Craig, meet Marty. I think you'll get along splendidly.

Adrienne said...

Marty, what about lesbians adopting kids who are already fatherless? Surely you must support that?!

Actually, I'm glad you told us that you're secretly gay (or bisexual), Marty, because it makes some of the really wacky-sounding stuff you said earlier on Jane Know's blog a lot more comprehensible now. It now makes sense why you'd think it's possible for heterosexuals to easily and simply turn on sexual and romantic attraction for others of the same sex like someone "developing a taste for olives".

Adrienne said...

Actually, you know, I'm a heterosexual woman marrying a man with whom I fully intend to NOT procreate. These Opine guys are essentially saying that our marriage isn't going to be "real", or that our sex life isn't "real", simply because we do not have procreative sex. That's just nuts.

If you want to think that the sex you had in your own relationship was the best ever when you were trying to conceive a baby and not using contraception, fine. But stop projecting your antiquated and limited notions of what "real" and proper sexual intercourse and sexual relations are on the rest of us, whether we are gay or straight.

Marty said...

Heh, you only wish I were a bigot. You've got nothing on me.

Adrienne, whether or not you and your husband choose to have children together is your business. But by the simple fact that you CAN, if you want to, your marriage is not "equal" to that of two women, who could never, no matter how much they wanted to.

I'm sure you see the difference.

Marty said...

PS: As for lesbians adopting children from broken homes? Yeah, I agree having two moms is better than having neither a mother nor a father. But two apples still don't "equal" an apple and an orange.

We can debate adoption on its own merits. It's the whole "equality" propaganda that bothers me. We KNOW it's not equal...

Also, fwiw, I never said learning to like olives was "easy". But it was worthwhile.

fannie said...

"Heh, you only wish I were a bigot. You've got nothing on me."

Oh, except calling gay people fags. You know, in that endearing way of yours.


Addendum to the "person whose life is most likely to end with the phrase 'and then he turned the gun on himself'": Marty.

Marty said...

What, like gay guys don't call each other fags? But I'm not allowed to because I married a woman?

Get real. I'm much more queer than most of the guys you talk to, certainly I should be allowed to say "fag" like those "real queers" do...

Marty said...

PS: If i recall, it was YOU fannie, who first used the term. I merely responded to it in kind.

I'll say it again -- I love fags.

This makes me a bigot? Please. You girls are just plain silly.

Grace said...

Ouch. Hit me where it hurts, Marty. Call me "silly" I am just wincing up a storm.

Have you READ any of my blog? I don't take much very seriously. And I most CERTAINLY don't take you seriously.

If you're looking for a fight, you've come to the wrong place. I won't engage in debate. I'm only interested in calling you an ass clown and then moving on with my day.

You are only relevant to me as long as you are entertaining. For now, you are. I'm certain that will change.

As far as the rest of your comments go, now that I know you're one of those "almost was gay" guys, to quote the bard, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Anonymous said...

This must be what a lesbian circle jerk would look like, if they had something to jerk.

Grace said...

Noooooo. Anonymous. This is a few women killing some time by making fun of people we think are douchebags. I'm certain a lesbian circle jerk would somehow involve Home Depot. Duh.

Anonymous said...

What a woman-hating term "douchebag." You'd think enlightened people would come up with better insults. Potty-mouth dyke is one of my favorties. But I'm not enlightened.

Fannie said...

Peace out, I have neither the time nor inclination to "argue" with bigoted cowards who only have the balls to call people fags and dykes anonymously or through the internet.


Please.

Grace said...

I'm with Fannie. And anyway, this is the wrong forum. I don't care about anonymous unfunny name callers.

This blog is largely for ridiculing people, often myself. And sure, I'll take what I dish out if you're clever. But if the best you can do is call me a "potty mouth dyke" hmmm... I gotta hit the gong.

Try inserting "potty mouth dyke" into a limerick. That could be funny.

Fannie said...

Oh, and Marty, for your sake, your wife's sake, and the sake of the rest of us, I sincerely hope you come out of the closet soon.

Honesty and self-knowledge are wonderful things!

Adrienne said...

Marty wrote:

Adrienne, whether or not you and your husband choose to have children together is your business. But by the simple fact that you CAN, if you want to, your marriage is not "equal" to that of two women, who could never, no matter how much they wanted to.

OK, so let's say that hypothetically my fiance and I couldn't procreate, even if we wanted to. Would that make our upcoming marriage any less real or valid? Of course not. On the other hand, we could still procreate now, without even being married. I agree that marriage or a committed partnership is a good basis from which to procreate compared to single parenthood, but the lack of procreation does not make a marriage any less of a real marriage, nor does one's ability to procreate depend on one's married state.

Marty also wrote:

fwiw, I never said learning to like olives was "easy". But it was worthwhile.

For someone who is not bisexual or gay, learning to be attracted romantically and sexually to someone of the same sex isn't akin to developing a taste for olives --it's like learning to breathe water. That is, simply not possible. So I agree with Fannie, if you really have experienced romantic feelings for another man, it's time to "come out" and be honest with yourself about your own orientation, because it sounds like you are very probably bisexual.

Jane Know said...

Annnnd, no one ever said bigots can't be gay. or ex-gay in marty's case.

grace, i'm working on the limerick. ;-)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marty said...

Adrienne:

OK, so let's say that hypothetically my fiance and I couldn't procreate, even if we wanted to.

That would be a medical problem. Or perhaps you were both just past the age of fertility. This still isn't the case with your run-of-the-mill lesbian pair who, regardless of how fertile they may very well be, don't stand a ghost of a chance of "starting a family together". It is precisely because they are separate, that they are inherently unequal.

Medical problems often have a cure. But the sterility of two women mating together can't be fixed. It wasn't even broken... just misused.

Next,

learning to be attracted romantically and sexually to someone of the same sex isn't akin to developing a taste for olives --it's like learning to breathe water.

Hogwash -- we've all seen it happen plenty of times. Men and women in prison, or at sea, or in any number of segregated situations seem to have no problem making the best of their circumstances. Breathing water??? Please, you can do better.

it's time to "come out" and be honest with yourself about your own orientation, because it sounds like you are very probably bisexual.

Have i been less than honest about the matter? No, I'm not gay or bisexual -- i chose to be straight.

I'm a pretty ordinary guy actually, although maybe a bit more honest with myself than most. Like most guys, I'm pretty well omni-sexual. It doesn't take much to get us aroused.

Anybody who says he/she could never love any member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, for that matter) -- because of that person's sex -- is either lying to you, or horribly gender-biased.

Jane Know said...

marty, congrats. you've "overcome" your gayness.
however, most of us prefer to live happy, non-hate-filled lives with people we really love and have passion for. look at how mean you are and how intolerant you are towards other gay people. you are obviously a miserable person. i feel sorry for your wife. i'm sure she feels great about being married to someone who is forcing himself to be straight. i'm sure she feels great knowing you had to aquire a taste for her, similar to that of olives.

as for me, there are just some things i can't aquire a taste for, no matter how hard i try. like bleu cheese. doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it or me, we just don't mesh. and forcing it on myself just isn't fair. i don't hate bleu cheese. nor do i hate people who eat it. i personally just can't touch the stuff.

Marty said...

Hahahah! Now I'm "forcing myself to be straight"???

You R 2 Funeee :)

No, the truth is simply that I decided NOT to be gay. And no, i don't hate gay people -- never have, never will.

The only people I "hate" are those who ignorantly insist that separate IS equal (some call them 'bigots'), and those who insist that bigotry is a valid excuse to deprive a child of a father (or of a mother, if that's the nature of their bias).

Biology and common sense prove the former to be false, and decades of social science (not to mention 70% of our prison population) prove the latter to be false.

Just because you can't figure out a way to love a man, Jane, would be a piss-poor reason to deprive your child (if/when you have one) that he's got no Dad.

Marty said...

That last sentence was mangled in mid-thought. It could be:

"...would be a piss-poor reason to deprive your child (if/when you have one) of a Dad."

or

"...would be a piss-poor reason to tell your child (if/when you have one) that he's got no Dad."

Take your pick. In either case I would consider it spiritual violence, and emotional child-abuse.

Adrienne said...

Marty wrote:

But the sterility of two women mating together can't be fixed. It wasn't even broken... just misused.

But you're assuming that the only legitimate function of marriage, then, is to engender children. I would argue that there are many more benefits to such a commitment, and that having children is by no means necessary to having a happy, stable, and fulfilling marriage. Marriage has many more purposes in this day and age than providing "legitimacy" for any offspring it might produce. Therefore, while a lesbian marriage might be "sterile" by your definition, that doesn't mean it would be inherently broken. It would obviously benefit the two people involved in the marriage, as well as society in a greater sense due to the increased happiness, stability, and productivity of the married pair.

Marty also wrote:

Hogwash -- we've all seen it happen plenty of times. Men and women in prison, or at sea, or in any number of segregated situations seem to have no problem making the best of their circumstances.

Ah, you do have something of a point. Men in particular sometimes turn to each other for sexual gratification --or to animals for that matter-- in situations where no other option is available.

But that is something entirely different than actually developing a romantic attraction to someone of the same sex. Yeah, ok, so maybe a man in prison gets off when another man gratifies him sexually. But does the man idealize and fantasize about other men? Develop crushes on men? Given the choice between, say, pinups of hot young studs and sexy Pamela-Anderson lookalikes, which is he going to find most attractive? A guy who is truly heterosexual (which is to say, most men), in his heart of hearts, still desires, dreams about, masturbates to fantasies about women, not men.

Likewise, a woman who is truly lesbian does not picture herself stranded on a desert island with a man she's totally in love with and wants to stay with forever. She fantasizes about other women. Not just sexually. When she sees herself growing old with her deepest love, she doesn't see a man in that fantasy. She doesn't automatically develop crushes on men and boys starting in preadolescence the way that other girls do. She maybe can "pass" as a hetero and have boyfriends and even have sex with a man...but her deepest desires, her crushes, her loves...they are all for other women.

By the way, the last part I write is based on the life history of a friend of mine, who is a lesbian. She had a "boyfriend" in her early teens, because...that's what girls were supposed to do in her high school. I think she kissed him once. But the posters on her walls were not posters of guys. And most importantly, she realized in her late teens that all of the other people she had ever daydreamed about spending time with, had crushes on, and had happily-ever-after fantasies about were other girls or women.

And she married her longtime love in September of 2004, a wedding which I attended. Not a legal marriage--not yet--but every bit as much of a love commitment as any legal pairing off of two straight people. A touching and lovely wedding too, I might add. One of the best I've ever attended. And she and her wife are so far living happily ever after in the Philadelphia area.

Now do you see the difference between someone who may engage in homosexual acts, and someone who is truly gay or lesbian?

No, I'm not gay or bisexual -- i chose to be straight.

You have chosen not to have sexual relations with another man. That is not the same thing as "being straight". But if you as a young teen jerked off to the images in your head of you kissing the star quarterback of your high school rather than a cheerleader...if you'd rather be stranded on a desert island with nobody else around except, say, some hot young guy rather than any woman in existence...then yes, you are really gay (or bisexual), despite never having slept with a man.

Marty said...

A:

But you're assuming that the only legitimate function of marriage, then, is to engender children

Not at all. But I AM convinced that it's the only reason The State has any interest in the institution.

Adults are free to form any sort of relationship they want. Only when children are involved (or are likely to be) does the state need to take notice. To protect the defenseless.

Your thoughts on "orientation" are well put, and well taken. Still, the state has no particular interest in two women forming a "marriage", because as i stated above, children are not an issue. Whether they are roomates or lovers, the government doesn't and shouldn't care.

So, do you have any thoughts on intentional fatherlessness? Maybe the state should care... ?

Grace said...

"Remember, gals, you can always count on your old friend, suicide."

Again, Anonymous, not funny. And I'm not saying suicide can't be funny. It totally can. But your comment was just stupid. And really made no sense. Step it up. Either be funny, or make sense.

And honestly, come up with a name.

Adrienne said...

Not at all. But I AM convinced that it's the only reason The State has any interest in the institution.....the state has no particular interest in two women forming a "marriage", because as i stated above, children are not an issue. Whether they are roomates or lovers, the government doesn't and shouldn't care.

Well, I disagree on that matter. I think the state has a general interest in people being happy. Which is not to say people should expect the state to make them happy. But if there's a relationship that promotes health, stability, well-being, people taking care of each other in the special way that married people can, I see no reason why the state shouldn't recognize gay unions.

Only when children are involved (or are likely to be) does the state need to take notice. To protect the defenseless.

1) But you could also easily turn this argument around and say that the state should outlaw illegitimacy and forbid people from having children out of wedlock. And since over 90% of people are (and are probably going to be) heterosexuals, heterosexuals breeding extramaritally will always be a far more pressing and widespread problem than anything gay people do. Heck, for that matter, heterosexuals breeding irresponsibly and exhibiting bad parenting within the union of marriage will always continue to be a more widespread problem as well, simply because of the numbers in each population (gay vs. straight). Are you prepared to go so far as to regulate *everyone*'s procreation? Require people to get state-issued licenses in order to have children? Outlaw sperm banking or sperm donation and egg donation?

2) Right now, two lesbians can get together, get their hands on someone's sperm, get one or both of them pregnant, and have children. Or a gay/bisexual man can get custody of his child and raise said child with his male life partner. This is all perfectly legal. So a not-insignificant number of kids are already being born and raised, quite legally, by gay parents of the same sex. Said kids would be better off being born into legally married households, I think. Continuing to not recognize them is therefore going to continue to do more harm than good, unless you are prepared to start seriously regulating *everybody's* ability to procreate and/or donate their gametes, as mentioned in #1.

So, do you have any thoughts on intentional fatherlessness? Maybe the state should care... ?

To be honest, I am deadset against the idea of conceiving a child with the full intention of never having that child know his/her father.

But...

Do I think it should be illegal to do this? Not in the sense of preventing a woman from trying to conceive with sperm from a bank. Or outlawing sperm banking or sperm donations altogether. I can't see giving the state that degree of control over people's reproductive lives or reproductive tissues, as awful as I think it is to conceive a child who will never know his or her father, even to the point of never knowing his identity. I do like what some European countries have done now, with the idea of ending anonymous sperm donations and giving children conceived via sperm donors the legal right to know who their fathers were. I'd like to see the US follow suit.

I would also say that the struggle to legalize (or prevent the legalization of) gay marriage in no way affects the legality or ability of individual single heterosexual women to conceive children through anonymous sperm donations. Or for lesbians to do so, for that matter. Oppose this practice if you will (and I do, although I also oppose making it illegal). But realize it is a different issue.

You also presume that two lesbians would always raise a child without a father. Not so. There was an interesting article in the Washington Post, IIRC, written by the gay father of a child being raised by two lesbians. The two women, who are very committed to each other and their daughter, are keenly aware of and greatly supportive of the need for their child to know and have a solid relationship with her father. The father plays an active role in his daughter's life. He sees her and spends time with her every week, as both the two moms and the dad live close by. So not every child conceived or raised this way will end up "fatherless". Just as a child raised by two men won't necessarily end up motherless.

Also, I absolutely believe that gay couples should be allowed to foster and adopt children. In fact, I think they should be encouraged to do so, especially with regards to the older children who are basically considered undaoptable in the current system. Having two loving mothers or two fathers beats the pants of growing up in a foster home.

Jane Know said...

"But the posters on her walls were not posters of guys..."

hahaha. i had a paula abdul magazine picture up on my wall when i was 12. right next to my pics of corey haim and corey feldman. guess which one i was really into?

Marty said...

Thanks. You make some good points. We agree on some, disagree on others -- but I'm glad to hear that you are deadset against intentional fatherlessness.

Should it be illegal? Unenforceable -- nobody would advocate taking a fatherless child away from his mother as well -- that would be insane.

Should it be stigmatized? Damn straight. Discouraged? At every possible opportunity.

And I'm not so sure "The State" has any particular interest in your happiness. If that were so, I can imagine all sorts of things that the state would be doing -- that they are not doing. You're a grownup -- you're mental health is your own responsibility.

Some have said that these non-legal "gay weddings" -- like the one you attended -- are a liberty exercised, not a right denied. I think there's much widom in that statement.

Marty said...

One final clarification I should make about the above:

We should be more careful about using pronouns like "they" when talking about "the State". That would be accurate if we lived in China, but not here -- WE (the people) are "the State".

As such, the "Interests of the State" are whatever WE say they are -- through our elected reprasentatives, and at the polling place. If WE want to express a State Interest in same-sex marriages, it's really very easy: have congress pass the new law. Happens every day.

But we should be very careful about allowing our judges to invent new rights -- new State Interests -- where there were none before. That makes "the State" a lot more "they", and a lot less "WE".

I personally have no desire to live under a dictatorship, like they have in China...

Fannie said...

Saying that raising a child with two mothers instead of a mother and father constitutes "emotional child-abuse" is ironic coming from someone who is so opposed to the concept of "metaphorical lynching."

Some abstract notions, I guess, are more valid than others. (Especially if they support your own opinions).

Rachel said...

#1. it's sweet how my mom has been thrice quoted (time and inclination).
#2. let's hang out with adrienne.
#3. it's an election year. my work gets pretty yucky and stressful. it's nice to have a few laughs. thanks marty. don't forget that your wife's strap-on need to be washed with warm soap and water after EVERY use.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Miss Kitty Fantastico said...

grace. delete/block?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fannie said...

definitely someone from opine. nice use of reason there "anonymous."

good work.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fannie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adrienne said...

Clam jousting? Bean mashing? Are we talking about gay marriage here, or kitchen techniques? I'm confused.

As for the limerick, how 'bout:

There once was a lass from Klondike,
Who married a potty-mouth dyke
...


to get us started.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christian said...

"Saying that raising a child with two mothers instead of a mother and father constitutes "emotional child-abuse" is ironic coming from someone who is so opposed to the concept of "metaphorical lynching."

You are right, Fannie. Those are both hyperbolic inflammatory statements capable of inspiring violence or oppression. But the irony runs the other way as well. If you and I can agree on that, perhaps we can persuade the others.

Christian said...

I wasn't aware that we were in a "blog-war." I thought we were just increasing each others' profile and traffic. :D

"You also presume that two lesbians would always raise a child without a father."

No, Adrienne, we make no such assumption. In fact, I've cited examples of FF couples seeking out a male godfather figure as an example of how the marriage model helps encourage fatherhood (or substitute for fatherhood) even in nonmarital families.

The problem is not the same-sex couples. The problem is the legal redefinition of marriage, which would gradually destroy that model, harming gays and straights alike.

Juliet said...

From one lesbian attorney blogger to another, "cheers!"

Stop by and visit me if you have a little time.
http://neverbeenlivedbefore.blogspot.com/

Egg Donors said...

Great Post.....

I found your site on stumbleupon and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!

Thanks for sharing....

Cheap Viagra said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
buying viagra said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.