Posted on 04/10/2002 11:55:37 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
I remember reading a novel many years ago called "The World According to Garp" by John Irving.
It was at once a hilarious and tragic story of feminism gone stark, raving mad.
For instance, in response to the rape of a young girl, whose attackers cut out her tongue so she could not identify them, a group of sympathic but misguided militant women cut out their own tongues to identify with their young heroine.
I was reminded of this once unbelievable fictional story upon reading last week of the deaf lesbian couple who deliberately bred deaf children who could share their disability.
The two women found a deaf sperm donor to increase the likelihood their first daughter, now 5, would inherit deafness. They were so pleased with the result, they used the technique again to produce a deaf son.
Sharon Duchesneau, the mother, and Candace McCullough, her lesbian lover, say deafness is "an identity not a medical affliction that needs to be fixed."
Before their son was born, the women explained that, "A hearing baby would be a blessing; a deaf baby would be a special blessing."
They believe deafness is a "cultural identity" not a handicap. They want their children to share the same experiences, including learning sign language and going to special schools for the deaf.
What can one say about such decisions?
Let me begin by suggesting that they illustrate the extremes of self-indulgent, amoral craziness to which our society and culture have plummeted in recent years.
This is what happens when you begin throwing out the old rules and making up new ones as you go along.
The horrors to come are not even imaginable if we continue on this road.
Take, for instance, those advocating marital and familial rights for homosexuals and lesbians like this couple. They tell us there is nothing wrong with such unions. They tell us they are as good or better than heterosexual marriages. They tell us it is discrimination not to recognize these facts. They tell us the only arguments against such relationships are the archaic rules and traditions of the Bible.
Let's pretend they're right for a moment. Would you like to consider the logical next stage of human evolution?
If there's nothing wrong with homosexuality – if it's just as good or better than heterosexuality – then surely there is nothing wrong with three-way marriages or four-way marriages, right? Could there be anything wrong with polygamy?
How about sex with children? I mean, why not? Isn't it just a hang-up we have against it? Where is it written that this is wrong? You may think so, but others don't. If there is no immutable law on the subject, then who is to say?
And how about marriages between species? You say there is no one pushing this cause yet? Just wait.
You think I'm kidding? You think I'm not serious? There are people who enjoy all of these abominations. If we reject one taboo, how can we not reject all of them?
Every time I make this argument, some homosexual activists say no one is yet organizing a political movement around such causes. Is that the determining issue between right and wrong?
The same groups pushing the envelope on unconventional relationships are right now promoting all kinds of self-mutilation in the name of sexual liberation – from sex-change operations to breast-removal surgery. And guess who is paying the bill for many of these procedures right now? That's right. The taxpayer.
And, let's face it, if all those things are just all right, then who is to say that Ms. Duchesneau and Ms. McCullough are wrong to breed deaf children because they want children to share their misfortune?
Nobody.
That's the problem with taking even one step down the slippery slope of moral relativism. There is no way back.
Over and over again in the Bible, we see what happens when the people "do what is right in their own eyes," forgetting the only rules that really mean anything – those given to us by God.
We can forget all that. We can disregard it. We can chalk it all up to legend, myth and superstition. But we do so at our own risk.
It's time for everyone to choose what kind of world they would like to live in. The choice is simple: The world of designer handicapped babies and anything-goes, aberrant sexual behavior? Or the world of marriage, order and accountability to God.
Is this two-mommie family saying that lesbianism is less important than deafness?
A. Slippery slope fallacy.
Sorry, but it's not a fallacy, it's a logical inevitability. Without a transcendant moral authority, all so-called morality boils down to only two elements: preference, and the power to enforce it. And if preferences change, so will the powers (the laws, etc.)
I predicted years ago, that once homosexuality was firmly entrenched, pedophila would be the next demon to come out of the closet, seeking "legitimization". Sadly, I was right -- New Book on Child "Sexuality"
There is NO logical reason WHATSOEVER to oppose ANY sexual act, if there's no God. People who rejected God's law to allow fornication and adultery -- "Hey, baby, we're consenting adults" -- found that, despite their instinctive revulsion for homosexuality, they had lost all moral basis to resist the homosexual revolution. Now that the homosexuals have won a clear victory, the limits of "adult" are being pushed; there's an agenda to lower the age of consent, and so on.
For that matter, if there's no God, there cannot be any REAL reason to oppose non-consensual sex, other than personal preference. Absurd, you say? I say not... Here's how it might happen: as the pedophiles gain power and push the limits of consent downward, nearly all of the population will grow up with the experience of having been molested.... They'll be conditioned to accept sexual victimization from an early age, and as adolescents or adultes will easily be coerced into whatever sexual act anyone wants. Most "sluts" and gay/bi men are molestation victims; I've known enough of these people and their struggles, to know that the picture I'm painting is not unrealistic. They have so little resistance to sexual advances that the question of "consent" is hardly meaningful any more -- they're too emotionally devastated to say no.
In the end the feminazis will be right -- when that stage is reached, all sex really will be rape. It's not impossible, some ancient cultures were like this. Imagine a coed prison where the strongest male cons brutally subjugate the women, the weaker men, and any children that are born among them, and predatory sex is almost the only sex there is.. That, friends, is a picture of human nature in the absence of law.
There is, indeed, a slippery slope, with a lake of fire at the bottom.
I completely agree. And I too, have the annoying trait called empathy, it costs me a lot of money and sometimes gets me in trouble. Furthermore, I observe that many atheists, though they deny a divine source of morals, do in fact have good morals -- better than a lot supposedly religious types.
However, empathy is a mere emotion, a personal preference, that is NOT SHARED by large numbers of human beings. If it were universal the world would be a much different, better place. Since this personal preference is not universal, how do we deal with those who lack it? We, hopefully the majority of mankind, impose our preferences by force on the unempathic. We prefer not to commit or suffer murder,rape, robbery, etc, so, we use our power to prevent or sanction such activities. Fine so far. But it's still only preference and power... what RIGHT do we have, absent a transcendent moral authority?
a lot of societial functionality reasons that would take too long to explain).
Feel free to explain them. I'm listening. However, first answer the root question: WHY should society be functional? Or exist at all? To preserve the human race? But why should humanity be preserved? Give me reasons OTHER than your personal preference, or the personal preferences of a 51% voting majority.
I believe that until a certain age it is impossible to fully give informed consent to sex. I also believe that until a certain age sex can lead to developmental disorders and in some cases physical harm (whether intended or not). Those would satisfy 2 and 4.
Again, I completely agree. But, once again, in the absence of God, that's just a personal preference (not harming children) that you and I happen to share -- and others, unfortunately, do not.
Homosexuality is against God's law.
Agreed. At what age do you believe it's possible to fully give informed consent?
Huh? Where's the illogic in saying that when you do away with rules, the rules go away.
Go ahead and split hairs with lectures about correlations and causalities, it doesn't matter. Gay marriage, sex between adults and children, beastiality, intentionally breeding children with physical handicaps, etc. are already on the agendas of various activists who are being given full hearings in academia and some government circles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.