Eyes, Ears, Nose, Mouth, Shoulders, Skip to the Knees . . .

The first time I was supposed to be taught about sex, we were 10 and the teacher was a nun. I think she was actually going to give an in depth technical explanation of reproduction (there was a chalk drawing of a flaccid penis on the board, not that I realized it at the time), but the girl sitting next to me had a tonic clonic (grand mal) seizure before the nun could begin, and that was the end of sex ed. (Apparently, you either got sex ed on that day or you didn't get it at all.)

Until I was 14, and the football coach walked into homeroom and said something that has stuck with me ever since. "When you're little your parents tell you these are your ears" points to ears "and these are your eyes" points to eyes "and this is your nose and this is your mouth" points "these are your shoulders" touches shoulders "and then they skip down to your knees as if there were nothing in between."

And he was right, in my case anyway. Which made it way more difficult than it should have been to tell my mom when I had a UTI- the main symptoms of which are frequent urination and a burning sensation in the urethra when urinating. If you can't discuss your urethra, it's kind of hard to discuss a UTI.

I'm not bashing my mom here. She graduated high school in 1961 was a faithful Catholic- up until my father leaving with a woman younger than me and the priest child abuse scandals hit simultaneously and she was left bereft and righteously pissed about it.

The thing is, until the football coach told me so, I had no idea my vagina and my urethra were not in the same place*. Think about that for a second. At 14, I could have a reasonably intelligent discussion about my amygdala and duodenum (I was a strange child), but I thought I peed out of my vagina.

I was absolutely determined that no child I had responsibility for would grow up so ignorant of their own body. Which is how I became the preferred sex ed teacher for a good portion of Northeastern Pennsylvania. It's not just my family and my husband's family that send their kids to me. I've had friends and coworkers** ask me to give their kids "the talk".

Anything to avoid saying "penis" or "vagina" to your own child, I suppose.

Why? I know and I don't know. "Penis" and "vagina" are medical terms, just like "duodenum" and "amgydala". I don't think anyone would have a problem discussing lungs with their child, but get to what's covered by their underwear, and all of a sudden they're whipping out phrases like "down there" (Australia, perhaps?) and "privates" (in the Army?).

There has been quite a trend lately to start telling even tiny tots all about the human body and its capacity for reproduction, in scientific and clinical terms. Some parents do this because they shun "lying" and insist on telling the two-year-old just exactly how his baby sister got into mommy's tummy--oh, wait, into her uterus--while others believe that child development requires frank talk about sex as soon as a young child asks any questions. I was not a part of that generation and don't really think it's a good idea; while you can, certainly, give a child all the anatomical names for body parts and explain to him or her using simple charts or diagrams just what reproductive activity involves, you can'tgive him or her an adult understanding of these matters. Which means, at the very least, you can't stop him or her from shouting out in church, at a crowded restaurant, or on a plane "My [anatomically correct body part] is really itchy!" or from telling a pregnant neighbor, helpfully and in detail, just how that baby got into her uterus.

I fail to see the problem here. I don't think this person would be upset if their child said "my elbow is really itchy!" And wouldn't you want to know if your child's labia are "really itchy"? That could well be an infection or allergic reaction. It's the sort of thing you'd think a parent would want to know.

I also want to know why small children can't handle knowing how fetuses end up in uteruses. Would this person quail at telling their small child how their lungs work? I think not. Ignorance is only a virtue with itchy labia and fetuses, I guess.

As for the child telling a pregnant woman how she got pregnant (a) so what? I'm sure the pregnant woman knows how that happened, and (b) you can stop that conversation by saying, "Honey, she's pregnant. She knows how that happened, and we don't discuss other people's sex lives. It's rude." End of conversation.

I fail to see how ignorance, which leads to pregnant teens with syphilis is better than a lapse in etiquette.

*For any guys out there wondering how crazy I am, female genitalia is a black box unless you get out a mirror and are particularly flexible. It's not right out in front like a penis is. Women have to work to see their own genitals.

**I've done it for friends, but not for coworkers. I don't want a coworker freaking out on me at work after discovering I've told their teenage daughter there's nothing wrong with kink if that's what you're into.

The Word You're Looking For Is "Victim"

The last line. I got all the way through to the last line of this article about tween pregnancy ("not uncommon", yet the author could only find 4 examples- worldwide) before I exploded.

After listing the health risks of young pregnancy, Tom Henderson has this to say about young girls and pregnacy:

The moral of the story? If you want to start a family, wait until you graduate from elementary school.

And maybe -- at least -- a good 12 years after that.

Yes, Mr. Henderson, a pregnant 6-year-old*, 9-year-old** or 10 year-old child was surely the agent of their own sexuality, carelessly seducing the grown men who impregnated them. I'm just going to have to assume that Mr. Henderson is a pedophile, because I can't think of any reason a person would think that. Ever. Except in the case of the 10-year-old Roma girl, who was impregnated by a 13-year-old iirc, all the other cases mentioned were cases of rape- the rape of children by grown men, all of them family members.

Yeah.

So, can we stop with the slut shaming of children now?

*Not a tween.

**Also not a tween.

Think of the Children!

Ever since I really started reading the Bible, actually paying attention to what it says instead of simply believing in it, I have been fairly disturbed by the fact that people read this to their children. Can you imagine any other story featuring rape, genocide, infanticide, murder and incest that anyone would find acceptable for children? Yeah, me neither.

This person has her children copying the Torah (Old Testament, if you were raised Christian) as part of their homeschooling. And this is the portion her daughter copied.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

10When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Allow me to translate that for you: If you, a soldier, see a pretty woman while slaughtering your enemies, you may kidnap and rape her, after shaving off her hair and cutting her nails. She is now your wife. If you grow bored of raping her, you can kick her out and leave her with nothing. But don't sell her into slavery, because that's just wrong.

Yes, that's totally appropriate reading material for a small girl.

Wait, Which One of Us Is Selfish Again?

If you're a woman who chooses not to have children, you will be called selfish by 90% of people who find out you're childless by choice. (Thank you to the other 10% who, at the least, restrain themselves from expressing that opinion.)

So I found it very interesting when a woman with a very large family, in a very small home, published 100 mostly selfish reasons to have children.

Pay less income taxes.

That's not a bad benefit, but (a) you spend a lot of money on your kids, and (b) "mommy wanted you to lower our taxes, and that's why you're named Tenforty!" is probably not something anyone should ever have to hear.

The ultimate diet plan: morning sickness and breastfeeding.

Average weight gain during pregnancy: 25-30 lbs. Around 8 lbs of that is baby. About 3 lbs is amniotic fluid and such. The rest? You do the math.

Enjoy snuggles on demand, around the clock.

A child is not an emotional security blanket. Get a dog.

Disposable diapers. There. I said it.

What?

Receive preferential treatment in grocery lines.

Be seated first (or last, if you prefer) on planes.

Park in the "stork" space at grocery stores.

Selfish, selfish, selfish. (I thoroughly agree with stork spaces and such, but that's not a reason to have a child.)

Have an excuse to buy cool toys and cute little outfits.

Charities need those, too.

Children will love you on your worst day, and...

they think you're beautiful, even on bad hair days,

or when you're not wearing makeup.

Repeat after me: children are not your therapist, your prozac or your dog. Seriously, please leave children out of your emotional issues.

Have someone to help you when you're old.

Have someone to help care for your pets.

Children as slave labor. Nice.

Get a lollipop every time you go to the bank, along with your children.

Buy yourself some candy if you want it. You can afford to with all the money you're not spending on cute outfits.

Have an excuse to buy junk food.

Sharing your junk food means less stays on your own hips.

Get real about your eating habits. If you like junk food, eat a little. It won't kill you. Do not do what this moran recommends, which is how my mother ended up with a lifetime of disordered eating habits. (which she worked so hard not to pass on to us. Thanks, mom!)

Save money by not buying birth control.

Let's do the math, shall we? Birth control pills (one of the more expensive options available) at $30 a month for 30 years of fertility would be . . . $10,800 total. The cost of raising one child? $124,800. Um, yeah. You're not saving money with the kids.

Pregnancy requires you to eat more. I can appreciate that.

Please work on your food issues.

Learn alongside your children.

Or learn on your own. That works, too.

Improved immune system. It's a law of nature: Moms never get sick.

Really? I wish all the constantly sick parents spreading disease around my office knew that.

If you do get sick, you have someone to take care of you without your spouse taking time off work.

The one-year-old?

Expand your wardrobe: share clothes with your teens.

Gather candy from the piñata without getting funny looks.

Have help cooking.

If any of you start wearing teenagers' clothes, I will come over there. Buy yourself some candy. Order in.

Perpetually late? You don't even have to blame it on the kids. People will assume.

Perpetually rude to everyone you know? Pop out a kid and have a few months of excuses before everyone you know starts muttering about you behind your back. (Why, yes, this is a pet peeve of mine.)

Homemade friends. My children are some of my favorite companions.

Children are not a crutch for social disorders.

Well, that was a whole lotta selfish right there.

The Evil- You're Reading It Right Now!

When my niece was 4, I babysat her every night while her mother was at work. Liberal though I am, I never allowed her more than 1/2 hour of TV a day, not because TV is evil, but because TV isn't particularly good for developing minds. One day in October, I was baking cupcakes for a bake sale at her preschool and completely lost track of time. When it came time to ice the cupcakes, I called for her to help me and she said, "I'm watching a Halloween movie!"

Then I heard the Jason sound: shuh shuh shuh shuh

I almost broke a leg getting out to the living room to turn the TV off, much to the disappointment of my niece, who was sure she'd just missed the good stuff.

So you can see that, liberal though I am, I certainly understand, and agree with, being careful what children are exposed to, but some people carry things a little too far.

There is good to be found in the below categories but I want us to examine the various choices of entertainment:

TV/Movies--the obvious offenders are evident, lust, sexual immorality, sensuality, foul language, witchcraft, but what about the ones that are not? Feminism, children deemed as superior and parents portrayed as imbeciles, rebellion towards authority and God, homosexuality, and the list goes on.

That's weird. Sex comes up 4 separate times, but violence? Not once. Actually, considering who lives and who dies in a Friday the 13th movie*, I guess this person would allow a 4-year-old to watch one.

Books/ Magazines-- glossy pages send strong messages, books can have hidden messages, philosophies and agendas that mom and dad don't have time to read through

Glossy pages send strong messages? Wtf does that mean? Oooh, shiny- BURN IT! As for "books can have hidden messages"? Um, yeah, that would be the point of . . . don't you read the Bi- . . . oh, fuck it, I give up. Don't give your kids books or magazines, ever. Better they never read than that they get exposed to glossy agendas. (Actually, here is a list of acceptable books. It is the saddest thing I have ever seen. I weep for the trees killed to produce these travesties of English.)

Video Games--violence, sex saturated, dark and evil, desynthesizing our children, satanic-- now they have video games that access the internet and so we move unto..

"Desynthesizing our children"? Wow, you managed to wtf me twice in two paragraphs. That doesn't happen every day. I looked. There is no such word as "desynthesizing". Maybe she meant "desensitizing"? And where are these "sex saturated" video games of which she speaks? I'd like to get a hold of one. Sure, GTA contains some implied sex, but "sex saturated"? I am so missing out!

Internet sites, blogs, Youtube and Facebook--all which put our children and ourselves on the fast track of information--good and bad. Be sure to have your filters on as a smorgasbord of depravitiees exists for the unsuspecting. Not only that, but also know what your children are reading and who they are visiting. Never let a child be online alone. I use the 'buddy system' for accountability. No one goes online without someone with them. Sometimes, even blogs for girls/boys (that appear godly) can dive into topics like sex, suicide and such so beware!

"a smorgasbord of depravitiees" This woman homeschools her children. "Sometimes, even blogs for girls/boys (that appear godly) can dive into topics like sex, suicide and such so beware!" ZOMG- a website aimed at teenagers deals with subjects that concern teenagers? That's insane!

Music--Since there are many points I want to discuss here, I will be discussing this subject in a different post.

Wow, the internet gets one paragraph, but music gets a separate post? Are these people still that worked up about heavy metal?

I have 'cleaned house' before and it is amazing how things still find their way in, it is definitely an ongoing process! Our family has adopted a 'walk beside, talk beside' method of dealing with these things and that in the event if they are exposed to ungodly influences-- we counter it with biblical worldview teaching. We must arm our children with the weapons of war that they will need for their time here on earth as we cannot shelter them from everything.

Everywhere I look I see evil, but that's okay because we have a system of brainwashing our children! Someday, I'll figure out a way to make sure they never think without checking with me first!

*Classic 80s horror movies punish immorality pretty much immediately. That drunk guy and the girl who has sex with him? Dead in the first 15 minutes. The dorky kid who wouldn't take a drag of a cigarette, on the other hand, stands a good chance of making it to the end of the movie.

I Wonder How God Feels About His Spokesman

abortion, disability, disabled, children, wtf
God needs a better PR team:

State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas says disabled children are God's
punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy.

He made that statement Thursday at a press conference to oppose state
funding for Planned Parenthood.

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion
with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first
born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children," said
Marshall, a Republican.

"In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man,
was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would
suggest."

I don't even know what to say about that. Do I attack the science first? I doubt that his statement about children born subsequent to an abortion are any more likely to be disabled. Do I attack the disturbing theology? "I'll punish you, completely uninvolved infant, for the sins of your parents- because god is love." Do I attack the appalling idea that the disabled are punishments rather than people?

Hey, Manassass- may I suggest taking a little more care with whom you elect?

The Kids Are Alright

children, gay, marriage, traditional, same sex,
For all the traditional marriage advocates' hysterical shrieking about The Children, it turns out the children of gay couples end up the same as the children of hetero couples. Much ado about nothing, as usual.

In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay.

Reality: infinity, Traditional Marriage Advocates: 0

Bottle Caps for Chemo

health care, reform, cancer, children
(Subtitle: Why We Need Some Kind of Health Care Reform)

A friend of mine called me last night asking me to save the caps from 2 litre and 20oz bottles. She is a nurse at a local hospital and they are conducting a bottle cap drive. For every 1,000 bottle caps they collect, a child gets a free chemo treatment.

Immediately, my thought was that you could get me to do almost anything by invoking children with cancer, and collecting bottle caps is easy, so no big deal.

Then I realized that the whole thing made me angry. Why is it that in the United States of America, bottle caps need to be collected to make sure a child gets life saving medical treatment? Is that not the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard?

My coworkers made my anger even worse. They agreed to give me bottle caps to give to my friend, but not without saying things like, "Why do we need to do this? If you get cancer, you automatically get health insurance. I don't even think this is real."

Sorry, it's real. No, you don't automatically get coverage just because you got cancer. Not even if you're a child. A look at some statistics, if you don't believe me.

A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses. Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

A new survey shows that more than 25 percent said that housing problems resulted from medical debt, including the inability to make rent or mortgage payments and the development of bad credit ratings.

About 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs.

A survey of Iowa consumers found that in order to cope with rising health insurance costs, 86 percent said they had cut back on how much they could save, and 44 percent said that they have cut back on food and heating expenses.

Just to make matters worse, even debating health care reform has become dangerous in this country:

Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) will not be hosting any town hall events this August -- instead, he's making himself available to constituents for one-on-one meetings about health care reform -- and at least part of the reason is this: His offices have received threatening phone calls, including at least one direct threat against his life.

Children Shouldn't Pay

palestine, palestinian, israel, conflict, children,

As a general rule, I don't weigh in on the Palestine/Israel situation. It's complicated, it represents decades, if not centuries, of festering hatred, it involves religious and racist elements, passions run high on both sides . . . I'd rather debate abortion with Bill O'Reilly on national tv, naked.

However, no matter how you feel about the issue, I think you, and anyone else in the world, can agree that children shouldn't pay the price of this conflict. And they are. It's horrible.

More than 300 children were among the 1,400 Palestinians killed and many more were wounded during the 22-day Israeli offensive that ended on January 18, according to Palestinian figures.

And experts say a vast majority of the children who make up more than half of Gaza's 1.5 million population, will bear the psychological scars for years to come.

"Children here have lost joy in life. They can laugh but there is no joy. They are unable to maintain hope," says psychiatrist Eyad Sarraj, who heads the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme.

Seven-year-old Ahmed Salah al-Samuni smiles timidly as he is tossed a green plastic ball but quickly loses interest, instead digging his nails into a couch in a brightly coloured room used for psycho-social counselling sessions.

"I remember that Israelis came and ordered us out. Shells were fired," he says when asked what he remembers of the war.

"Grandmother and grandfather are dead," he says, going on to list about 10 others who died when his house was bombed. In all, 29 were killed in the attack, 18 of them from his direct family.

"I love Azza and want her back," he says of his two-and-a-half year-old sister who was among the dead.

After the attack, he lay in a pool of blood. It's only when he cried out for his mother that she realised he was still alive.

A large scar runs across his face, another along his hip. His nose is still deformed from the shrapnel wounds.

Just a few months ago he had regular fits of rage, when he'd beat his brothers and break whatever was in his path.

"He'd scream out at night: 'The Jews are coming to kill me'," his father says.

I have no answers, no comfort for a little boy who misses his dead sister, no words of wisdom to end decades of hatred and conflict. I can only say that I wish hugs could fix the world.

Children: The Harbingers of Immorality

gay, marriage, prop 8, same sex, children, divorce, premarital, adultery, ivf, immoral, immorality
or "Asking the Obvious Question"

The Playful Walrus is determined to ask the obvious question when it comes to other people's private lives:

WHERE IS THE MOTHER? We know these two guys did not conceive and carry these children. If they rescued these kids from a group home, that's a different matter than breaking up a marriage, making babies out of wedlock, or intentionally depriving these children of a mother. Since the media loves focusing on couples with kids in these stories, I will keep asking the obvious question every time they fail to answer it.

Now, you might say Walrus is combining bigotry with an unseemly interest in other people's private lives, but I say why stop at gay couples' children? Children potentially represent all kinds of immorality: divorce, premarital sex, adultery, IVF (but what about the zygotes!), the list goes on.

So I say don't just ask gay couples where the mother/father is, ask that question of any child you see on the street with only one adult accompanying them. Sure, daddy or mommy might be at work, or simply might have stayed at home, but surely we all have the right to make sure we're not witnessing the results of a divorce, or even worse, a couple who never did get married. Of course, it's entirely possible you may confront a recent widow/widower, but don't let that stop you.

But why stop there?

What about divorce, or what about all those women who just can't help but spreading their legs for every guy who comes along, and then pass off their children as their spouse's, another favorite topic of the Walrus? Those children represent immorality so any time you see a child that does not resemble the man (s)he is with, you should inquire as to the paternity. In fact, you may just want to go ahead and take a DNA sample, just to be sure. Don't let a little thing like an assault charge stop you.

What about the use of IVF? They don't just fertilize one egg, you know. And they don't store the rest of the frozen darlings forever, either. So, if you see a family composed of what looks suspiciously like multiples, you should ask how they were conceived. Don't let anyone tell you it's not your business, it totally is.

What about those childless couples you see? Well, they're just selfish and paving the way for the muslim takeover of the world. So the next time you see a man and a woman out in public without children, you should make sure they're taking their reproductive responsibilities seriously. Sure, their children could be at home, and you run the risk of asking that question of someone whose child just died, but don't let that stop you in your quest to save the world's children.

What about older couples with young children? You know that's some kind of immorality. Sure, it could just be grandma and grandpa taking their grandchildren out for some fun, but it could be the horror of older people having babies, or grandparents forced to raise their grandchildren due to their children's uncontrollable immorality, which is always the parents' fault, anyway.

Frankly, I think Playful Walrus hasn't gone far enough. Though, if you're going to root out all the immorality those little things some people call the future represent, Walrus is spot on: you shouldn't let a little thing like common decency get in your way.

Next, I Suppose They'll Teach Children What Facism Actually Means

homophobia, homosexual, same sex, children, home schooling,
From the "how dare they teach my children about reality" school of thought comes this thoughtful rant.

Parents are being purposely excluded from multisexual issues in schools, as seen in mounting evidence from California school districts, the National Educational Association, and more.

“This is an effort to force parents out of the classroom. If it’s not this way in your school, it is only a matter of time before your school is confronted with efforts to exclude parents,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.

Kindergartners learn the definition of “gay,” “lesbian,” and “transgender.” Students learn about different kinds of families, including kids raised by a mom and dad, grandparents, and same-sex parents. In all age groups, the multisexual message is being woven into everyday instruction.

State law now mandates that schools accept homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual behaviors. San Francisco Unified School District explicitly interprets state law to mean that the district does not need to notify parents about many multisexual discussions in school curriculum and activities.

Amazingly, in real life, these same children may actually meet children raised by a heterosexual couple, grandparents or same sex parents. And the schools will not be teaching them how to effectively discriminate against the wrong sort of family. The horror!

The next thing you know, those schools will be teaching children about history and science and how to look both way before crossing the street. When will the liberal indoctrination of our children end?

/snark

Functioning Genitalia Do Not Make You a Good Parent

abuse, child, children, homophobia, homosexual, SAHM, swope, jennifer, prop 8, marriage, tradition, gay
Jennifer Swope, a stay-at-home mother in Derry, gives us this little gem from Redefining marriage will come with costs:


What makes marriage unique among all human relationships and raises it to the level of a sacred bond is this: The union of one man and one woman is the only natural way that children are conceived. Moreover, the people best suited and motivated to take on the great task of raising a child from helpless newborn to independent adult are the mother and father whose love first brought that child into the world.

Catch that? In Jenny's world, all children are planned and conceived in love. If you can create a child, you are the best qualified person in the world to raise it. Conversely, if you can't create children, you must be a terrible person.

I don't know where Jenny's been living, but over here in the real world, none of that is true. Specifically, creating a child does not make one best qualified to raise a child. (Anyone who has experienced this first hand, raise your hand with me.)

In fact, according to the US Administration for Children & Families, in 2006, nearly 80 percent (79.4%) of perpetrators of child maltreatment were parents, and another 6.7 percent were other relatives of the victim . . . Of the perpetrators who were parents, more than 90 percent (91.5%) were the biological parent of the victim.

Clearly, in 2006, 657,492 children would have been better off with complete strangers than with their biological parents*. (If that number doesn't make you cry, it should.) Also quite clearly, simply sharing DNA with a child does not a parent make.

Really, people, do a little research before you make assertions, m'kay?

*total number of abused children in 2006 estimated to be 905,000. So, (0.794 x 0.915) x 905,000. If I did that wrong, please let me know.

It's Not Logic, but It's Something

cameron, homosexual, homophobia, intolerance, gay, marriage, traditional, children, bigotry, asshat, speenweasel, stupid,
In the "It's not logic, but it's sure something" category, another attempt at logic from Playful "I call women fat so I feel like a man!" Walrus.

Is it possibly to truly achieve marriage equality? Despite you, but certainly not with you.

Much of existing family law is predicated on marriage being something that involves both a husband and a wife, as it has been throughout history. who's history, asshat? I love this argument. "Traditional marriage" as these spleenweasels define it has existed for maybe 100 years. Also, keep in mind before the invention of things like antibiotics, the average marriage lasted all of 7 years. "Til death do us part" wasn't really that much of a commitment. If we are truly to have "marriage equality" so that the voluntary association of two men or two women must be treated, under law, exactly the same as natural marriage "natural" marriage? what's that? i love how these asshats add qualifiers to the word "marriage" the way Angelina Jolie adds children to her family., I'm curious as to how this would work in the following areas: you could try doing some research this time.

Adoption – Same-sex couples would have just as much standing to adopt as a bride-groom couple, correct? actually, in some places they do without marriage. Some people who devalue either masculinity or femininity, gender stereotypes are meaningless. they change from culture to culture. try again. fatherhood or motherhood, being gay doesn't mean one "devalues" fatherhood or motherhood. though by this logic a woman whose husband died would be positively abusive towards her children to wait more than a week to get married. don't see this is as a problem, but I think most people do most people you know, perhaps, even if they support neutering state marriage licensing. adding to something is not neutering. neutering is removing. just ask my dog.

Paternity Assumption the opiners in general have a serious bug up their collective asses about this issue, which really makes me wonder about their personal lives. this is an easily solvable problem: if you get married, any child born during the marriage is automatically considered the child of both partners, unless one partner sues for paternity/maternity testing. that's how it works currently, so why change it?– In a bride-groom couple, for the protection of the child (and to keep the state from being on the hook for child support he's got a bug up his ass about welfare, too. look, asshat, if the parent ordered to pay support does not or cannot, what do you think happens? yes, we give the custodial parent help so that the child doesn't starve to death. do you think starving children to death is a just punishment for their daring to be poor? or are you trying to argue that a gay couple would be more likely to be poor? is there even an argument here beyond your reflexive hatred of gays/poor people/minorities/single mothers? ), the groom husband, actually. if you're not married, there is no presumption is considered the legal father by default of any child born to the bride. Would the non-carrying lesbian be considered the default parent of a child her partner carries, whether or not she agreed to the pregnancy, and regardless of how that pregnancy was accomplished? If not, then neither should a groom. Would a lesbian woman be held accountable if it turns out that her partner is secretly bisexual and turns up pregnant? BWAHAHAHAHAHA that's so ignorant/bigoted it's like dadaist humor.

Child Custody - Women are often given preference over men in child custody matters, even when the man begs for custody. perhaps this is walrus' problem in life? Hey, gay people didn't steal your kid. neither did fatties. leave them alone! How would this work when it comes to same-sex couples who are being divorced? so, women being given preference for no real reason is a good thing? fairness and equity in child custody would be bad? what?! Would fathers being divorced from mothers gain more from this? Would the biological parent, if any, be favored? not with the presumption listed above, no. If not, what implications would that have when it comes to traditional stepfathers and stepmothers? as a stepparent is a different thing from a parent, no. get a dictionary.

I will skip "Child Support" as I've already dealt with that issue twice now.

watch in wonder as Walrus answers his own asinine question. Abortion Rights - One woman gets pregnant, there is a split, the other woman - who has paid for the reproductive medical treatments, perhaps donated the eggs, and wants the children - sues to block abortion. Currently, a wife can get an abortion even if her husband objects. Will "gay rights" trump abortion rights? Oh, I can see the dilemma now! I suspect abortion rights will win that battle, especially if feminists realize that men could also use any precedent set. duh, asshat. married hetero couples also use expensive reproductive technologies to procreate, and no, you can't block an abortion by complaining about how much you paid. also, why would a lesbian, after going through that kind of effort to get pregnant, abort just because the relationship ended? it makes no sense.

Community Property was based on the idea that a marriage was creating a cooperative microcosm of society with a division of labor, more likely than not to raise children biologically related to both spouses, thereby perpetuating society. In order to treat all couples equally, would the concept of community property be diminished? since community property is not diminished in cases where both spouses work and there are no children (you know, like mine), no. asshatting asshat. seriously, i'm missing fitz at this point. he does enjoy pulling a fitz, but he does understand the law.

I'll skip alimony, because the question can be answered the same way as the community property question.

And now, for the coup de grace: Walrus argues that we shouldn't allow same sex marriage because it will throw off marriage statistics. seriously.

Marriage Statistics - Would government agencies be allowed to collect, compile, and release statistics that distinguish between natural and neutered marriage? If not, marriage statistics could show marriage as being less favorable than they have in the past in terms of longevity (of the participants as well as the marriage), fidelity, domestic violence, poverty, mental health, positive effect on children, etc. how about we not allow adoption because it would be hurtful to ask people if their children are adopted or not, and that would throw off statistics related to procreation? also, there is no evidence, none, that same sex marriages don't last as long, or that same sex marriages are more subject to infidelity* (none of the government's concern anyway), domestic violence*, poverty, mental health issues*, or problems with children*. nice try at slipping it in there, though, spleenweaseling asshat.

So there we have it: yet another mess of bigotry, assumptions, baseless assertions, and squickiness, courtesy of the guy who thinks that you have to be fat to be offended by a fat joke.

*You give me some debunked study by Paul Cameron, et al. to prove this point and I will come over there.

Quote Mining Will Now Be Referred to As Pulling a Fitz

fitz, opine, stupid, asshat, quote mining, gay, marriage, tradition, children, iowa, homophobia, homosexual, prop 8,
We will now refer to quote mining as "pulling a Fitz". In case you've missed my running argument with Fitz from the Opine Editorials, here it is. In this argument, Fitz, who is a lawyer and really ought to know better, pulls quotes from Varnum v. Brien. Being a bigoted Opiner, Fitz of course is trying to prove that gays shouldn't be allowed near children, gay marriage ruins straight marriage, and gays should get back into the closet and stay there this time, damnit!

Cute, but Fitzy, I'd like to see you pull this shit in front of a judge.

Fitzy's comment to Efficacy and Reasoning.

I really wish you were more knowledgeable about the state of this debate. Honest & Goodwill arguments have ceded many points relevant to both sides in this argument. Perhaps if you use some of the link I referenced before you can go beyond the blanket assertions of professional organizations regarding the state of the science & approach the level of sophistication exercised by leading (goodwill) opponents on either side.

. . .

Declaration of Alan J. Hawkins as Expert Witness for Defendant at 8–9, Varnum v. Brien, No. CV 5965 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Mar. 15, 2007),

. . .

The Iowa State Court had noted that those advocating for same-sex “marriage” did not dispute, and frankly offered no evidence to contradict, two salient findings:

1. "Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married natural mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures- including single parent families, adopted families, step families, divorced families and the like (note – Courts, social scientists & advocates of same-sex “marriage” themselves concede that same-sex families have not been adequately studied so that solid conclusions can be made)”

*2. "Children reared in a stable natural married family are likely to do better on various measures of educational attainment; exhibit fewer behavioral problems, including conduct disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and juvenile delinquency; will not be as likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults; engage in sexual relations as teenagers, and to experience an unwed pregnancy; have a decreased risk for mental/emotional illness; have a decreased risk of physical illness and infant mortality; experience decreased risk of suicide; have a greater life expectancy; likely to benefit from high levels of parental investment, commitment, and closeness (particularly with their fathers); be victims of physical and sexual abuse; experience higher levels of family stability as adults, including a decreased divorce risk."Your opinion on this matter will be quite telling.

It will tell me whether I am arguing with someone persuadable by evidence, or someone who (as you assert) is more like those “bigots” you seem so readily to impute on any opposition.

Here's the thing: The Iowa Court found IN FAVOR of same sex marriage. Yes, in the same case that Fitzy cites to argue against same sex marriage.

Varnum v. Brien, page 62

It Is Therefore Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as follows:
I. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendant's
opposing motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

2. Iowa Code §595.2(1) is hereby nullified, severed and stricken from Iowa
Code Chapter 595.

3. All remaining provisions ofIowa Code Chapter 595 are to be interpreted in a
gender-neutral manner so as not to exclude couples ofthe same sex from
eligibility for a marriage license.

4. Defendant is hereby enjoined from refusing to issue marriage licenses to
Plaintiffs or any other same-sex couples who a) are otherwise eligible for said
licenses pursuant to Chapter 595 as amended and interpreted by this order,
and b) who properly apply for such licenses.

5. Court costs are hereby taxed to Defendant.

Dated this 30th day ofAugust, 2007.

Way to pull a fitz, Fitz.

Efficacy and Reason

prop 8, heterosexual, homophobia, homosexual, gay, marriage, tradition, traditional, adoption, children, logic, reason
I can't say as I've ever heard "efficacy" used in quite this context before:

The whole argument about “fairness” misses the point on marriage. Marriage isn’t about fairness…it’s about efficacy. It’s not a gay/straight equation, it’s a marriage vs. everything else equation.

No other living arrangement works as well for the stability of children and families as a loving lifelong marriage between a man and a woman.

That is the true case, and that’s why gay “marriage” will never be equal.

Um . . . efficacy? And who will be deciding the efficacy of marriages? Clearly, simply being straight isn't all there could be to efficacy. I mean, the whole basis of her argument is marriage and children. What about my marriage? There's no children involved. There never will be. There can't be.

So, as efficacy is being determined by children, and I can't have children (and don't want to), my marriage will automatically be . . . what? Denied? Just like she's denying marriage to same sex couples?

I rather think so.

Methinks someone might enjoy wearing a brown shirt a little too much.

For the reason portion of this post, we revisit our old friend emissary, who seems to think he can reason his way out of a wet paper bag. (Hint: that part you see light coming through- it's the opening.)

The Best Place for Raising Children

Traditional marriage is being attacked from all angles. you're a bunch of bigoted morons is not "all angles". But one of the most damaging cause it's true! is the idea that "there is no best place to raise a child." i'm voting for sweden, but i'm a big fan of their tiny deer. Studies have supposedly been done showing that children raised by same-sex couples are not harmed in any way because of it. yes, they have been done. it's science! But if we try to counter with other studies debunked flawed studies comparing two parent households to one parent households. (as if two gay guys is only equal to one woman or something). or stories of the opposite stories are not science, it's claimed that statistics are misleading or studies can be biased. yeah. that's not a claim, that's fact. stop using debunked studies.

If we can't use statistics, studies, or personal stories, you can use statistics, just not debunked ones. what does that leave us with? bigotry. We can reason through it. who is this "we" you refer to? To do so, I used a tool called a "best-best comparison". wait, you're tool-using now? who knew? It basically acknowledges that any individual may be an incredible parent. maybe, ya know, unless their gay. So we compare the BEST married father and mother to the BEST same-sex couple to the BEST single parent. how do we do that? do we hold tryouts? what exact criteria are we using for "BEST"? did you interview everyone on the damn planet to determine this? probably not. This removes the "it depends on who the parents are" argument. why keep the good arguments when you can use bad ones instead? And what does it leave us with? a lot of bunk? Is there anything that makes the best married parents superior to any other form of parenting? did he just ask if best is better than better?

The answer is a resounding YES. Yes-es-es-es-es

While I encourage everyone to do this experiment, other than yourself? i see no evidence of an experiment here. this word, i do not think it means what you think it means. here are three main advantages that my "best-best comparison" shows. I have mentioned some of these in other contexts, but want to include them here.

First, it provides a parent to emulate. Girls learn how to be women from their mothers. Boys learn how to be men from their fathers. nothing like turning conformity to gender stereotypes into the highest form of parenting. asshat. This is especially important in the context of big changes, like puberty. One of the most valid comments I read was, "When a girl is starting her menstrual cycle, which of her dads will really understand?"

no, that's not a valid question, it's a stupid question. clearly, emissary has never menstruated. i'm menstruating right now, and i can tell you, there's not a lot to understand.

Second, it provides a parent to represent the other sex. In the vast majority of society, girls grow up to marry men, and men grow up to marry women. They see from their parents how to find someone they want to be with, and how to make the marriage work well. Many girls know how to find a marriage partner by looking for someone like their fathers. Boys look for someone like their mothers. There are so many problems caused in today's society by girls who never had fathers. They don't know how to find a good man, so many of them try to find just any man.

by this logic, hetero couples should not be allowed to raise gay children, because their gay children will have no representation of a loving gay marriage. i don't think he means that.

Third, it provides security and belonging. which a same sex couple couldn't provide . . . why? There is nothing quite like security to a child. To know that your parents are the same people who wanted you, conceived you, bore you, legally own you legally OWN you?, and will raise you to the best of their abilities . . . . It is almost impossible to describe the belonging that gives to a child. Adopted children have similar feelings because they have a father and mother who stand in the stead of their biological parents. so children adopted by hetero couples have this security, but children adopted by same sex couples do not? why? in fact, according to asshat here, the biological child of one half of a same sex couple should feel more security than the unrelated adopted child of a hetero couple. it's your logic, asshat, own it. But any other arrangement eventually produces a loss of that security. When children realize that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, children in same-sex homes or with single parents realize that something is missing. lulz! They are missing their other half -- the other parent they should have. you mean like the adopted child of a hetero couple who is missing BOTH halves? be very careful with the logic that is pointy on both ends, my dear.

So what does this mean? not what he thinks it does.

Does this mean that other kinds of parents cannot raise healthy, successful children? No; but it requires concerted effort to give them good role models they can interact with on a consistent basis. not their parents, because we can't trust gays to parent properly. The intact, married family, on the other hand, is self-sufficient (so to speak). that's why hetero couples never need daycare or baby sitters. As such, I believe it's important that society and government support the married family to give children the best chance. I do not believe that the government should support, promote, or pay for any procedure that will purposefully not give a child a mother and a father. is this a screed against IVF or something? i can't even follow the illogic at this point. hell, he proved half my points for me, which is no fun at all.

Redefining Optimum

homophobia, homosexual, ivf, childless, children, babies, infertile, infertility, lesbian, gay, prop 8, stupid,
I won't bore you with the entire post, mostly because it just makes my stomach hurt, but the salient details in the back story are: Lesbian couple in Scotland wants the same access to government sponsored IVF that hetero couples in the UK enjoy. Government says "go have sex with men." Lesbian couple sues and wins.

Now for emissary's conclusion on all this:

The regrettable part of this story is that the board eventually changed its mind after being sued. It sets a bad precedence for two specific reasons. The first is that it forces the taxpayer money to pay for children who will be given to a home without a mother and a father. The second is that, since IVF is so expensive, the government may not be able to help as many heterosexual couples who could provide a more optimal life for their children.

First of all, it sets a bad precedent, taxpayers will pay, not taxpayer money, and the children will be born in the home, not given to the home.

Now that I've corrected the basic English, let's review emissary's argument. Basically, if the government pays for IVF for homosexuals, less heterosexuals will be able to have babies, and heterosexual couples are automatically better parents.

The first argument is patently false on its face. The UK health care system (socialism!) views infertility the same as any other medical condition and pays for a certain number of treatments over a certain time period. For everyone. If more people need IVF, more IVF will be paid for, they won't ration it any more than they would ration bypass surgery. They may well raise taxes to pay for the increase in IVF, but heteros will still get the same amount of IVF as they always were.

The second argument relies on debunked research into same sex parenting. Hetero couples are not automatically better parents than gay couples. (Research does show that children do better with two parents instead of one, but that has to do with economics and the time available with the child, not the sex of the parents.) According to emissary, a man and a woman are automatically better parents, even if the man is a pedophile and the woman is a junkie. When you find yourself making that argument, you need to admit that you're a homophobe, and that you don't really like children all that much.

The DNA Continues to Define Two-Faced

dna, gay, homophobia, homosexual, marriage, adoption, children, stupid,
Once again, the DNA gives us an excellent example of what "two-faced" means.

Exhibit "A": members of the DNA protesting the use of government funds to advertise the benefits of allowing gays to adopt children.

Exhibit "B": members of the DNA happily supporting the use of government funds to advertise the benefits of marriage.

So, are we in such a fiscal crisis that we can't use money to promote social programs, or not? Which is it, asshats?

Converting Children

evangelical, evangelism, evangelist, religion, religious, witness, christian, christianity, conversion, convert, children
I found this comment on the Rapture Ready message boards more than a little disturbing.

This could shut down Child Evangelism Fellowship Good News Clubs that are on so many elementary school campuses across the country. There are many of us that spend time on those campuses and give kids the gospel every week. We have seen so many children come to Christ! Just in the area where I live, we have seen so many professions of faith this year. Because these clubs are sponsored by churches, many of these kids become regular attenders at local churches and bring their parents with them. It has been a wonderful evangelism tool through the years. Before the law was passed to allow them into the schools, we used to have them in various homes in the community. Don't think we won't go back to that method if we have to!

Think about that for a second. You send your child to a public school. It doesn't really matter what religion you are or aren't, do you want someone converting your children without your permission?

Messing with someone else's children is beyond low, and I imagine the same Child Evangelism Fellowship's Good News Clubs' members would be enraged if I did that to their children. Social boundaries alone should inspire people to kick these idiots out of elementary schools. Elementary schools! I could get first grader to believe anything, absolutely anything. That's . . . I'm speechless with anger. Wow.

More on this later.

American College of Pediatricians

pediatrics, pediatricians, children, gay, adoption, marriage, prop 8, stupid, parents
This made me wonder: Pediatricians hate gays?

The organization referenced in the article is the American College of Pediatricians, a wingnut breakaway group (founded in 2002) from the American Academy of Pediatricians (founded in 1930).

The American College of Pediatricians supports:

Opposition to adoption by homosexual individuals
Support for parentally guided access of young children's television viewing
Support for parental choice regarding HPV vaccinations for young children (as opposed to legal mandates)
Opposition to the legalization of marijuana use
Support for the right to life of preborn children
Defense of traditional mother-father heterosexual marriage

The American Academy of Pediatrics, on the other hand, believes:

Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families.
Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

Not all academies are created equal.

No Uterus, No Opinion

martin luther, children, gay, nazis, abortion, prochoice, prolife, choice, women, feminism, feminist, stupid

[censored] and I have the same opinion on the abortion debate: if you don't have a uterus, shut up. A man is never going to have to make that choice, is he? So why do so many men think they know exactly how a woman feels, exactly what the choices are, how they feel to make, or anything else about pregnancy? I won't try to tell you what erections feel like, you stop trying to tell me what having a uterus is like.

Emissary gives us this gem today, comparing abortion to slavery.

Yeah, I know, what the fuck?

One of the main arguments for abortion concerns the woman's body. The fetus grows within her, so it's technically considered "part of her" during development. yes, it is a part of her. fetuses cannot survive on their own. as they are inside of the woman's uterus, they are inside her body, and therefore, a "part of her". are we having trouble with the complexities of the english language again? And since it's "part of her body", she gets to choose what happens to it; termination or birth. yeah, pretty much. is there some sort of third option i am unaware of?

I thought a lot about this argument today not long enough, apparently, trying to determine what status a fetus has under this "pro-choice" logic. It is obviously not considered to be a human child because it's not a child. it's a fetus. children are capable of, I dunno, breathing. It has no right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness how precisely would a fetus make use of liberty or pursue happiness? it's in placenta in a uterus. where is it going in its pursuit of happiness?. In fact, it's not even considered to be "alive" by the pro-abortion populace. That would make it even less than a pet. my dog is not living inside my uterus, and, i can put my dog to sleep any time i want, so what was your point again? So what would it be? a fetus, asshat!According to the argument, it seems that a woman in essence owns the fetus. in the same way she "owns" her kidneys, i suppose. That would make the fetus her property.

stop it! right now! fetuses are not slaves. you know what a fetus really resembles the most? a parasite. no really, in a scientific sense, a fetus bears every resemblence to a parasite. See how ugly these sorts of comparisons can get?

i am really getting tired of false analogies, people. religion is not a cultural phenomenon like sports, homosexuals are not like nazis and fetuses are not like slaves. if you can't come up with a real argument, SHUT.THE.FUCK.UP.