Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Thursday, 22 January 2009

He who must not be named has an entry up linking to a story about a Christian ™ woman who is now “ex-gay” and wants to deny her former partner visitation rights to their child.

Naturally, he makes a snide question “But oxymoronic “same sex marriage” won’t have any impact on us, will it?

The question implies that marriage equality will introduce a new condition to marriage.  That of former marriage partners using the children to get back at and punish the other parent by withholding the child from them.  Which would indeed be a terrible consequence.

Imagine!  What a terrible world it would be if heterosexual divorcees started using their children against their former partners!

Of course, what HWMNBN fails to point out is that it is the newly-minted “heterosexual” parent who is using the child as a pawn.

Another question not asked by our intrepid nameless one’s commentary is, why is visiting the still-gay parent suddenly causing nightmares and behavior disruption?  Is this something that never happens to children of heterosexual couples who divorce?  Does the irrevocable dissolution of a family never cause anxiety and distress in the six-year-old children of heterosexual divorcees?  Or is it that the methods and skills for helping them through it are not expected to work if the parents are homosexual?

The WND article caused me to ask some questions as well.  The article makes a big deal about how the couple was never married.  It appears that they had a civil union.  Apparently, the WND believes that a civil union is not enough to legitimate a parent-child relationship.

So what ever happened to the idea that we don’t need marriage equality because gay people have civil unions, and civil unions are just as good?  I must have a different definition of “separate but equal” than your average fundy.

One thing they DON'T say is whether or not the non-custodial, visitation-seeking parent is up-to-date on her child-support payments...

And remember....these are the same people who also consider the rights of heterosexual women to be "separate but equal".  You know, just a little less equal than men:


(Hat Tip: Pharyngula)
Thursday, 22 January 2009 06:40:00 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [10] |  |  | #
Thursday, 22 January 2009 08:41:09 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
These are the same pathetic morons that call me a "false teacher" and "phony Christian" even though I was raised by Christian parents, I've attended church since birth (where I was in several choirs, the youth group, and many other church activities), then went to a Christian college (where I was involved in leading daily Chapel for several years in addition to many other activities) and I'm now an ordained elder in the PCUSA. But those 37 years of faith are "phony" and "false."

But if tomorrow, after 13 years with my husband, I suddenly claimed to be "ex-gay" by mentally airbrushing Brad Pitt's face on some poor woman's mug who was stupid enough to marry me, suddenly I'd be completely and totally "ex-gay" without question and the same morons would not only claim I was a fully functioning heterosexual now, but would defend me against the "hate" and "intolerance" of the gay community and would work to help me deny parenting rights to my current partner (if we had kids.)

Sometimes it's hard to decide if it's the bigotry or the complete and utter abject stupidity of these people that I find the most appalling.
Thursday, 22 January 2009 08:57:37 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Thursday, 22 January 2009 09:24:32 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Alan, how do you like his most recent "conundrum" for pro-choicers?

"just bring up sex-selection abortions".

As if it is such an impossibility to concieve that someone can recognize that questions of "right and wrong" and questions of "legal and illegal" often part company in the real world...and that completely reconciling the two is often impossible.

"wow! This'll really blow your mind! Sometimes, something that is wrong is not illegal! Whoa! Can you dig it? Doesn't that just change EVERYTHING? Nothing you ever thought before makes sense anymore, right? Free your mind!"

I wonder if Neil has ever really LOOKED at his hand...I mean...REALLY looked at it...LOL!
Thursday, 22 January 2009 10:04:01 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Oh, that's the same stupid moronic position he has regarding abortion and homosexuality. He thinks he's clever with the, "Just ask them if they think selecting kids based on sexual orientation is OK and watch their heads spin."

The fact is, it isn't liberals who think that eugenics are A-OK. It's no less than the Grand High Potentate of the Southern Baptist Convention and Neil's idol, Al Mohler, (and BTW, Neil himself) who believes that altering a fetus's sexual orientation is OK. (And the number of evangelicals that believe that abortion of a gay fetus is OK would blow your mind. Let's not forget that their abortion rate is the same as the national average.)

Want to blow his mind? Ask him to adopt a gay kid. Oooh...see what I did there? Wow, I bet he can't get outta that one!

What utter BS.

Not only is it impossible for him to conceive of the fact that right and wrong and legal and illegal aren't the same thing, he also finds it hard to conceive that people might agree with abortion in one instance but not another.

But given his diminished brain capacity, I'm frankly surprised he can tie his shoes without setting the laces on fire.
Thursday, 22 January 2009 13:31:13 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Besides, if Neil were REALLY pro-life, he would be just as vocal about passing a law against these people, as he is about passing laws against abortion:

These people let their child die, because they believed that the only Godly treatment for her diabetes was prayer. Where is Neil's moral clarity about that? Where are his calls for the state to step in and over-ride the concience of the parents for the good of the child?

Know what? It's not illegal to seek ineffective treatment for your child and pass up more effective treatment. It's wrong...but it is not illegal. How come Neils' head is not spinning? How come he is not calling for the state to be able to impose requirements for standards of care upon parents over their wishes to save the lives of children?

Thursday, 22 January 2009 13:40:48 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
You're not actually expecting him to be consistent, are you??

Silly rabbit. :)
Thursday, 22 January 2009 13:42:21 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) really.
Thursday, 22 January 2009 14:24:19 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Seriously, if Neil had a blog post saying that the sky was blue, I'd have to run outside to check.

His blog is like Bizarro world with slightly better grammar. If I were going to write a theological blog instead of a personal one, I would simply link to his and tell people to do, say, or believe the opposite. It's surprising how many times that would lead them to good old-fashioned orthodox Reformed theology, instead of the nutjob fundamentalism he spouts. :)
Thursday, 22 January 2009 15:04:53 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Teresa -

"How come Neil's head is not spinning? How come he is not calling for the state to be able to impose requirements for standards of care upon parents over their wishes to save the lives of children?"

Because these children are no longer in the womb. Not that he would ever claim (out loud) that the born are of no value, but it's an unmistakable fact of all right-wing rhetoric that the unborn are of far greater propaganda value. If he starts drawing attention to such a plight as this, it raises questions about "traditional family values" and the role of government that he can't spin as easily, and would risk leading his readers toward honest answers that he doesn't want them to consider.

He's a vile, hateful, soulless excuse for a man, and his blog is a cesspool of narcissistic fascism.
Thursday, 22 January 2009 22:05:39 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

But he's such a NICE fascist. It's like...fascism but he gives you a cookie.

The weirdest moment was in a conversation at another blog...I don't remember for sure if it was Neil that said it...but he was in on the conversation, and I am fairly sure it was him, but it might have been Hank. It was over at icanplainly see, anyway. Someone said that Islam is not even a real religion...and thus not worthy or tolerance as a religion. It is actually a political philosophy bent on world domination and should be destroyed because it is impossible for it to exsist peacefully with other philosophies...
...and I thought; "wow. Those were almost exactly Hitler's words in Mein Kampf when he was explaining how he shed his liberal sympathy for the Jews...chilling.
Comments are closed.
Admin Login
Sign In
Pick a theme: