Saturday, May 30, 2015

And, Duke University,

Not only shall I continue to use "fag", I'll also smoke fags.  I'll probably die of lung cancer, fine, but, until I do, you all can choke on your politically correct Newspeak.

Another exchange with PJ

Me:

Mr. PJ,

I’ve been reading a very interesting book on surrogacy, which details how surrogates must be rigorously trained to disassociate themselves from the babies they are carrying. Some surrogacy centers deliberately implant eggs of one ethnicity into women who are another ethnicity. For instance, Mexican women gestate Japanese babies. This is done to lessen the attachment the surrogate may well develop for the baby. My question to you, then, is this: If motherhood is really just only an incubation process and has no inherent connection to the asexual enterprise of actually raising a child, then why must surrogates be trained and in some cases tricked to relinquish any parental claims on the babies they are incubating? I would think that if there were no necessary continuum between gestation and parenting, these surrogacy centers would not have to exert such tremendous efforts to ensure that the surrogates understand that they are in no way parents-to-be. Babysitters don’t have to told that the children they mind are not their own, and if surrogacy is just a very long babysitting job, then why do those who do it have to be told and reminded repeatedly that they have no parental claims at all?

Sincerely,

PJ:

You think carrying a baby to term inside your body is comparable to babysitting? How little respect do you have for women? I just don't know what world you live in.

Me:

You won’t or can’t answer my question, and so you try to misdirect by accusing me of misogyny. That’s the kind of sophistry I’ve come to expect from you, PJ. No, PJ, I do not think that pregnancy is babysitting. I think that it is the necessary and normal beginning of a mother’s life long relationship with her child. I think this because I think pregnancy is actually part of parenthood. You, Mr. PJ, are the one who denies that pregnancy is a part of parenthood when you claim that motherhood is simply surrogacy and as such has no inherent connection with parenthood. And according to your conception of “parenthood”, which is strictly the raising of the child AFTER birth, pregnancy cannot be anything more than just babysitting. If pregnancy has nothing to do with “parenting”, then pregnancy like babysitting is merely keeping care of the baby until the parents arrive or return.



[Three days later he still has not responded. He usually responds to me within an hour or two. Not this time. I wonder why.]

Hey, Duke University,

You don't tell me what to say because censorship is so fucking gay.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

A Worried Parent in the Not So Distant Future

Say "parent", sweetie, say, "par-ent". No, not "mama, par-ent". No, no, no. Not "mama", please! I don't want to raise a homophobic bully. No, please, for the love of the Right Side of History, say "parent"!

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Will someone tell me why this Progressive Journalist is NOT a raving lunatic?

This recent e-mail exchange with a progressive journalist to my mind clearly demonstrates the complete and utter lunacy of "marriage equality".   But what the hell do I know?  I'm just a Bible-Thumping Rube.

Me:

I want to make this point as bluntly and as forcefully as I can. The proponents of "marriage equality" insist that the sex of parents does not matter. This assumes a re-definition of "parent" to mean "guardian". Therefore, "marriage equality" NECESSARILY reduces fatherhood to sperm donation and motherhood to surrogacy. "Marriage equality" reduces fatherhood and motherhood, in other words, to discrete, commodifiable services. "Marriage equality" is just another capitalist trick.

PJ:

I guess I agree with everything you just said, except the idea that it's a "reduction." It's a clarification, and not one that changes any parent's commitment to raising their children. And the last sentence of course... the difference marriage equality makes for the better is quite obvious.

Me:

Well, then, if you agree with the basic gist of what I just wrote, then why do find the logical consequence thereof so improbable and bizarre?  The logical consequence being this:

The courts rule that because marriage has nothing to do with procreation, presumption of parenthood no longer attaches to civil marriage. If a woman gets pregnant by her husband, she has the legal status of a surrogate until she makes it known that she wants to take over joint parenting responsibilities. And, in the same way, the husband has the legal status of a sperm donor until he makes it known that he wants to be a co-parent as well. Of course, both the husband and the wife will have to file for a parenting license and pass the required tests before they can adopt the child. Otherwise, the baby will go to the highest bidders who are also judged the most competent parents.

Such an arrangement would have the distinct advantage of being in conformity with the dictates of justice, fairness, and equality. It would finally put a very bright legal line between marriage and procreation and, thereby, achieve full legal equality between straight and gays. Of course, it falls short of full equality because opposite-sex couples still have the advantage of being their own surrogates and sperm donors and they are allowed first dibs (legally contingent dibs, yes, but first dibs all the same) on whatever sweet little commodities they produce. But the only way to achieve full equality between gays and straights is compulsory mass sterilization, and that unfortunately is politically unfeasible now.

PJ:

You don't have to be married to have a kid. The way that you assume the two are linked just doesn't make sense, and none of your consequences follow. There's nothing wrong with presumptive parentage; it makes sense to hold people accountable for their own children and, for lack of a better description, ensure that they have dibs on their own children.

We have adoption without same-sex marriage. We have nonprocreative marriages without same-sex marriage. I just don't see how these things are any different with same-sex marriage.

Me:

It is not the presumption of parentage.  You never have to presume who the mother is.  For fairly obvious reasons.  It is the presumption of paternity.

Also, in a previous post you agreed that sex is irrelevant to being a parent, and now you seem to say that it is.  If motherhood is nothing other than surrogacy and fatherhood nothing other than sperm donation—and you have agreed that it is--then it has nothing to do with your concept of “parenthood” which you have agreed to be only a completely asexual guardianship, and now you are suggesting that siring and birthing a child are linked to the responsibilities of parenthood?  Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself?  Or do you think that the law of non-contradiction is also a religious notion and as such cannot apply to a secular person like yourself?

PJ:

I just think you're trying to impose absolutes on situations too complicated for absolutes.

Children deserve two parents that are either accountable or committed to take care of them. There are a number of ways the law can accomplish that that are not mutually exclusive.

When a heterosexual woman has a baby, she has dibs to raise that child. If she's single, she can name the biological father and hold him accountable for child support. That makes sense to me.

If a woman has a baby and decides to put it up for adoption, she can do that too (like my birth mother did). The state can then find a fitting couple — or even a qualified single person in some cases — to raise that child. In that case, the new set of parents should be named the kids legal protectors; the biological mother has given up her dibs.

If a woman in a lesbian relationship uses a sperm donor or a gay male couple hires a surrogate, the situation is the same. In both cases, a donor has agreed that despite being the biological progenitor, they will give up their dibs to raising the child.

None of those points seem contradictory to me. They all seem in the best interest of a child's well-being.

Me:

Yes, a parent is accountable to his or her children, but a sperm donor or a surrogate is not.   You want to say that sexual difference does not matter at all in parenting.  But you have to admit that sexual difference is indispensable to the production of the child, and therefore, you have to separate the production of the child from the parenting of the child.  And that is why you have agreed that motherhood is nothing more than surrogacy and fatherhood nothing more than sperm donation.  Surrogacy and sperm donation are not supposed to be connected with your concept of asexual guardianship.

But then you also want to say that the production of child implies parental obligations, and that the law should recognize this, as it does when it forces a father to pay child support. but then sexual difference does matter to being a parent and fatherhood is obviously a lot more than sperm donation and motherhood a lot more than surrogacy.

So, on the one hand you say that fatherhood is merely sperm donation and motherhood is merely a surrogacy, and on the other hand you defend the current parent laws which assume that fatherhood is a lot more than sperm donation and motherhood is a lot more than surrogacy.  How you are NOT contradicting yourself, I do not know.

PJ:

We're talking about liability here. If you get a girl pregnant, you're responsible. If you donate your sperm and somebody else uses it to conceive a child, then they're responsible. What matters is who is responsible for the pregnancy. Children deserve the support of two parents; it makes sense for the law to hold biological parents responsible first because they're the ones that initiated the pregnancy.

The only sexual difference I see is that it's a lot harder for a woman to run away from her own baby than it is for the man, who has nine months to make an escape. But women do it too, and there's not an inherent difference there.

Me:

If impregnation entails parental responsibilities, then fatherhood must be more than mere sperm donation.  You still are contradicting yourself.  Furthermore, impregnation is enough to trigger a paternity suit, and the lack of intent to impregnate is not a defense.  So, the parallel you draw between impregnation, where intent does not matter, and contracting with a sperm donor, where intent obviously must matter, is simply false.

It’s much, much harder because of the mother-child bond that develops for nine months. You are denying decades of attachment theory simply because your lunatic ideology tells you to do so. Face it, the human being is sexual, the human being is NOT an amoeba.

PJ:

I stand by all my points.

Me:

And by doing so, you contradict yourself.  On the one hand, you say that sexual reproduction does not matter at all to parenting because parenting is an asexual enterprise, and then, on the other hand, you claim that sexual reproduction entails parental responsibilities, thereby admitting that sexual difference does matter to parenting.  Again, how this is not a contradiction, I have no clue whatsoever.

PJ:

I think that every child should have adults responsible for raising her. If indiscriminate adults get pregnant, they’re responsible. If a couple arranges to adoption/sperm donor/surrogacy, they’re responsible. That’s why I support birth control. It’s a burden on straight couples; if you get accidentally pregnant, then yes, you’re responsible. Somebody has to be. But stupidly having sex without protection is not the same as donating sperm, where you’re not responsible for the intent to get pregnant.

You want arbitrary absolutes based on biology. That just doesn’t fit for many kids. And nothing really justifies such an oversimplification of things.

Me:

So, you finally admit that opposite-sex relationships should be treated differently under the law from same-sex couples and, thereby, concede that sexual difference does indeed matter for parental obligations.  Still, you try to downplay this admission by comparing once again an accidental pregnancy to a contract with a sperm donor or a surrogate, but this is a false comparison.  A contract is an explicit acknowledgment of obligations whereas a reckless act obviously isn’t.  To say that responsibility attaches to an explicit promise to be responsible is tautological.  To say that responsibility attaches to a certain act is not.

And why, as you claimed in an earlier post, does a child deserve TWO parents?  How the deuce do you arrive at the number two?  Well, it takes two people to make a baby but that’s only if you believe that sexual difference matters in parenting, and you insist that you do not (except, of course, when you do).  Once you throw out sexual difference as a standard for parenting,  what’s to stop—oh, I don’t know—a legislature in a state such as, say, California from saying that sometimes a child deserves to have three or more “parents”?



By the way, absolutes or anything else for that matter cannot be arbitrary if they are based on something.  “Arbitrary” means “baseless”.

The National Review has Capitulated

I printed the whole damn thing out, all ten pages, and tried to read it. I gave up at page nine. The incoherence is just staggering. I'd rather try to understand the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Phenomena. So, while I can't claim to understand the entire argument (and I really do not want to, either), I think I sorta understand the author's justification for the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage". He argues that the purpose of marriage that applies to all couples, fertile and infertile alike, is the promotion of sexual fidelity. Since same-sex couples can practice sexual fidelity, same-sex "marriage" should be legally recognized.

This is just bullshit. And I say this not because I think fidelity is impossible within a same-sex relationship. I say this because sex is impossible within a same-sex relationship. Sex is an abbreviation for sexual intercourse. Intercourse simply means communication or interaction. Human intercourse means human interaction, bovine intercourse interaction among cows, and so on. Thus, sexual intercourse must mean interaction among those things that are sexually distinctive. A hand is not sexually distinctive, neither is the mouth or anus. "Same-sex sex" is impossible because sexual difference is the sine qua non for sex. If same-sex couples cannot have sex, they cannot practice sexual fidelity.

Now one could re-define 'sex' as anything involving two people that may lead to orgasm. The New Hampshire Supreme Court contemplated doing just that, and the Liberal Majority (the Conservatives dissented) decided against it, explaining that such a re-definition would be so subjective as to be legally incoherent and, hence, unactionable. The case was Blanchflower v. Blanchflower, and the winning plaintiff in that case was none other than a Lesbian!

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Homophobia

If you think marriage is the union of a man and woman, that's homophobic. Check.

If you think it mattered that your mother is a woman, then you obviously think that sex somehow matters to being a parent, and that might make you look askance at same-sex "parents". So, that's homophobic. Check.

The very use of "mum" and "dad" suggests that the sex of parents is important when it clearly is not. Therefore, the words themselves must be homophobic. Check.

If sex doesn't matter at all to be a parent, then when does it matter? It can only matter for surrogacy and seed donation and for one's own private adult desire, and if you think it matters beyond that, then you are not only a homophobe, you may be a pervert as well.

Gendered pronouns re-inforce the heterosexist mentality of sexual complementarity. So, gendered pronouns are homophobic as well. Check.

Marriage was the only institution that reflected the public importance of sexual difference. Now that this institution has been de-sexed, there is no institution designed to bring the sexes together. If it is no longer important to have an institution specifically set up to bring the sexes together, then it follows that it is no longer important to keep the sexes apart. Therefore, all sexual segregation (e.g. of public restrooms, locker rooms, dorm room assignments) must be homophobic. Check.

And sexually distinctive dress in public must be homophobic, too.

Feel free to add to this list.

A talking point

The proponents of "marriage equality" insist that the sex of parents does not matter. This assumes a re-definition of "parent" to mean "guardian". Therefore, "marriage equality" NECESSARILY reduces fatherhood to sperm donation and motherhood to surrogacy. "Marriage equality" reduces fatherhood and motherhood, in other words, to discrete, commodifiable services. "Marriage equality" is just another capitalist trick.

Monday, May 18, 2015

"Marriage Equality" is insane

This is an exchange I had recently with a fellow alumnus of my Catholic High School.  He is now "married" to a man in California.  You decide whether he's just humoring my Chicken Littlism or not:

ME:

One of the claims made on behalf of "marriage equality" is that same-sex couples raise children just as well as opposite-sex couples.  This has been proved by rigorous scientific study after rigorous scientific study--if, that is, one considers convenience sampling to be rigorous science.  So, if  same-sex couples raise children just as well as opposite-sex couples do, it follows that the sex of a parent does not matter.  Fine.  Then we should stop using the words "mother" and "father" because those words imply that a parent's sex somehow matters, and such a proposition is nothing but unscientific bigotry.

Furthermore, if sex does not matter in regard to parenting, then in what regard does it matter?  It can matter only for one's private sexual preferences, n'est-ce pas?  Therefore, parents should not use gendered pronouns to refer to the children they raise.  For it is just sick for parents to treat children as objects of sexual desire.  The use of gendered pronouns, in fact, constitutes child molestation.  For, again, if sex matters only for one's own personal sexual desire, then it is simply wrong to use gendered pronouns with children, thereby labeling these innocents as objects of adult desire.

Gendered pronouns should be used only in private between consenting adults.

HIM:

There certainly is a movement to try to ensure an environment as sex-neutral as possible.

I would propose sexual difference is only relevant for those who actively want to reproduce "naturally", and they can share that information amongst themselves.

For everyone else there is no need to be a genital detective.

ME:

So, if a parent who just happens to be female calls its child, who happens to be male, by masculine pronouns, it is thereby revealing its intention to have coitus with the child for the sake of natural reproduction?  So, this parent is a sick pedophile, then, and social services should be called immediately.  Thank you, Sir, for confirming the utter insanity of “marriage equality”.

HIM:

The parent could employ non-gendered pronouns.  The child cannot consent to coitus, so any conversations about sex or gender between parent and child would be unrelated to reproduction.

ME:

You stated quite unequivocally that sexual difference is related only to the desire to reproduce naturally.  Therefore, a mother who refers to her son with masculine pronouns can have no purpose in mind other than to rape him.  How this is not lunacy, I really do not know.

HIM:

Ok - you got me!  Now what?

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Evil priests? So what?

So, why am I a Catholic when the Church protects evil priests who have ruined the innocence of thousands of young boys? My answer: The many unnecessary, unjust, and criminal wars of the U.S.A. have driven not just thousands but hundreds of thousands--perhaps, even millions--of women and girls into prostitution and sex slavery. The Catholic Church simply cannot compete with the sheer magnitude of America's sadistic perversity. But, even so, I am still an American citizen.

Unleashed Libertarianism

I have not been visited by the JWs in a while. I feel snubbed. But their absence is understandable.

Several years ago a family of JWs drove up and sent their twin teenage boys up to evangelize me. I cut to the chase, as I always do, by asking them if the world ended in 1914, 1925, or 1975 and where the Bible states that Jesus Christ is St. Michael the Archangel. They had absolutely no clue. 

"Well," I said, "can't you at least tell me that Michael is Hebrew for 'like God' and since you think Jesus is NOT God but merely like God, then He must be Michael?" Blank stares. It was clear that I knew much more about Watchtower Apologetics than these callow sprouts (Yeah, yeah, I know, I have TOO MUCH time on my hands).  

This made me angry, and so I started yelling, "Look, if you're going to pitch your bullshit, then you could at least know something about it." The boys immediately scurried down the steps as I worked myself into a frenzy. "What? You think I'm stupid? You'll think I'll just be won over by the innocence of youth? Fuck that. If youth is stupid, then innocence is not worth a rat's ass." 

Then the father got out of the family's Suburban Assault Vehicle and told me to calm down. That just provoked my inner Libertarian (every one has one--except, perhaps, Elizabeth Stoker Brünig), and my voice got louder, my waist line got wider, and my cotton jeans became polyester. 

No, I didn't scream, "Get off my lawn," (they weren't on my lawn, anyway) but did say in the loudest volume yet, "This is my fucking property. You don't tell me to calm down. You got that?" 

Thereupon, the father announced that he was calling the police. 

"What? Are you fucking insane?" I shrieked, "There is no fucking law against telling Jehovah Witnesses on one's own property to piss off ." The boys having long since climbed back into the SAV, the father got back behind the wheel, slammed the door, and sped off. Sometimes being a Libertarian is oodles of fun.

American Justice

Bomb a marathon, get lethal injection. Bomb entire countries, get a presidential library.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Rain, rain, go away

It's raining. And it will rain for the next several days. I won't be able to mow until the grass flowers. Geez. And what's worse is that my cat is inside. She insists upon being inside because cats, of course, go into all kinds of conniption fits when the least bit of water musses up their precious fur coats. So, she's inside for the day, and that means that if I try to read, she'll think I am not busy and, therefore, that I should devote all my attention to her. Women!

Saturday, May 9, 2015

From the Mailbag

About three months ago I sent a fellow Catholic a copy of Karl Keating's New Book The New Geocentrists in the hope that she would read it and realize that geocentrism is and never has been a Dogma of the Church and that scientifically it is now and has been since the observation of stellar parallax in the 19th century simply an untenable notion.  Well, that hope was empty, and I might as well have flushed twenty bucks down the toilet or given it to a pothead.

Today I received a letter of thanks from this Catholic.

True, she thanked me for the book.  But she was being patronizing in the same manner the Church Lady would say, "Well, isn't that special?!"

She wrote:  "I have always liked Karl Keating, and I just can't figure out why he is so opposed to the geocentrist idea that he would write a book just to discredit it."

Well, maybe, just maybe, he is sick and tired of people like you making Catholics look like morons and raving lunatics.

There are days that I wish I were still an atheist.  This is one of them.

Ugh.  Ugh.  Ugh.

It's that simple

If Piss Christ is protected speech, so are unflattering caricatures of Mohammed.  End of story.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Note to Journalists

Would you please, PRETTY PLEASE, re-introduce the distinction between just and unjust discrimination and STOP employing "discrimination" as a bad word. Discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it's put to very good use every single day. It's simply thinking, and you really should try it some time.

Monday, May 4, 2015

Fun, fun, fun!

Hey, kiddies, you want to have a lot of fun? There are many proponents of "marriage equality" who call their female parents "mother". Ask them if, as has been demonstrated by convenience sample after convenience sample, a parent's sex does not matter--at all--, why they continue to use words that suggest otherwise. You may want to add that it is precisely because race is completely nugatory to parenting that we don't have a word for "black parent" or "white parent" and that the entire push for "marriage equality" is premised on the notion that sex is just as nugatory as race. Then ask them again why they use "mother" when they would not dream of calling their parents "whitie" or "darky". Then just watch them hem and haw until they decide to call you an unpleasant, right-wing bigot, say something vague about Auschwitz, and then, satisfied that they have done their best to put you on the path to Enlightenment, resume their blank but haughty stare and walk away.

Sunday, May 3, 2015

The New "Adultery"

[Nota Bene:  Lest any reader think that the argument below is evidence of what happens when the American School System keeps its charges in the dark about all things sexual, I  would kindly tell him to check out the New Hampshire Case Blanchflower v. Blanchflower (click on the link, please; I'm too lazy to summarize the facts of the case here).  The argument I give below was not taken from NOM, any other SLPC-designated hate group, or any seemingly sexually unenlightened group like, say, the Catholic Church.  Rather, the argument is pretty much the same one which was given by the Liberal (and, therefore, enlightened) Majority.  The knuckle-dragging Conservatives dissented!  Furthermore, the Liberal Majority Opinion was a victory for a Lesbian, who was, as co-respondent in the original divorce case, one of the plaintiffs.]

The legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" has nothing to do with the societal approval of whatever same-sex couples may do to express physical intimacy because the re-definition of marriage required to accommodate same-sex couples necessitates a re-definition of what constitutes marital consummation.

But no concept of marital consummation will cover both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. The English Parliament tried to do so when it legally recognized same-sex "marriage" and failed. It just cannot be done.

If you define marital consummation as coitus, then you exclude all same-sex couples, and that's just heterosexist bigotry. But if you define marital consummation more broadly to include any penetration, then you've still excluded Lesbians who eschew strap-ons and fisting and gay men who prefer frottage.

And even if you re-define it to mean anything that leads to an orgasm, well, then you’ve just made any legally coherent definition of marital consummation impossible. Given that there are as many kinks as there are fantasies, it would be impossible for the law to acknowledge every single potentially orgasmic act. What? Two dacryphiliacs request an annulment because of Sjögren's Syndrome? Can an autagonistophiliac marriage be annulled because of stage fright?

In short, what constitutes consummation becomes hopelessly subjective, thereby making it impossible for the law to acknowledge any objective or coherent concept of marital consummation. Thus, the law will have to jettison it altogether and therewith the idea that marriage has anything at all to do with sexual activity or physical intimacy of any sort. If "marriage" then has nothing to do with sexual relations or physical intimacy, then it cannot be said that "marriage" constitutes societal approval of any physical relationship, be it heterosexual or homosexual.

"Marriage" becomes no more than a friendship, and if the state still wants to encourage that these friendships be exclusive by means of various sanctions for adultery--be they criminal penalties, as is still the case in the military, or simply possible grounds for a fault-based divorce--then obviously adultery must be re-defined. It can no longer be understood as extra-marital sexual relations because "marriage" no longer is a sexual relationship. It is, to repeat, simply a friendship, and, therefore, "adultery" would have to be extra-marital friendship.

Same-sex "marriage" is a patent absurdity.

Saturday, May 2, 2015

Middle-Aged Men are Slow on the Uptake

This evening at a bar a young woman looked at me as I finished my meal and told me, "You look content." Having lost my youthful wit with the onset of middle-age, I was at a loss for words. I should have said, "Ah, but I assure you that on the inside I am seething with Revolutionary Rage," but, alas, did not.

File this under "how fucking insane things have become"

At a busstop today I heard a mother tell her little boy, who could not have been more than seven, never, never, never to point his squirt gun--and this squirt gun was pretty obviously a squirt gun, not the type of squirt gun that opens the film Charade--at a police officer.