Posted on 06/27/2011 11:04:45 AM PDT by madprof98
My daughter and I were in Manhattan over this weekend so I could do some research at the Met. Waves of people were coming into the city for Sunday’s big gay-pride march, where they could celebrate the Empire State’s new same-sex-marriage law. We sat behind some of them on the train, three young women with a precious, excited toddler girl in tow. The very evident leader of the clan was the patriarch. Adorned as if she might be an actor portraying a hip-hop teen from Cleveland, she had her meticulous corn-rows tucked under a backwards navy-blue flat-billed ballcap, a matching wife beater revealing a mural of tats on her arms, shoulders, and back. Baggy jeans rode low, leading to her construction boots with untied laces dangling free.
She was the only one of the adult threesome that interacted with the child, mindlessly uttering reassuring words like “Daddy will be right back” or “Sit over here by Daddy.”
You see, this is one of the things that most concerns me about the legal institutionalization of genderless marriage and parenting. We are told that nothing will really change with such laws; people who really love each other will just be able to enter really meaningful, legally protected relationships.
But, to use the language of our women’s-studies scholars, such a turn “does violence” to our concept of sex difference. They would have us believe that their way of looking at the world transcends the “narrow” confines of socially constructed gender difference, but these very folks end up playing to those very confines, usually in comically stereotypical ways. Think drag queen in her everyday clothes, like our Urban Outfitters dad on the train.
And while this adorable little girl on the train got to call one of her parents “Daddy,” did she really have a daddy? Well, her DNA would prove that she does somewhere, but in reality she only has a woman playing make-believe daddy, and like make-believe games, it’s all about the world this woman has created in her mind for her own imaginary fun and games. One problem: There’s a little toddler as one of the props.
Gender does matter for marriage, the family, and society, and those trying to teach us that it doesn’t can’t help but default to the very thing they are trying to overthrow.
This is the primary fallacy of the legislation New York just passed — not in theory, but in the reality of this little girl and her “daddy” on the train at Penn Station.
Lesbianism and gay marriage are just an excuse for people to be fat and unattractive.
Two ugly heifers approve of their appearance and could not care less what others think.
We are doomed as a society with this garbage.
“she might be an actor “
ACTRESS ... not actor.
Alas, PC has infected National Review.
BTW, the comments are from liberals.
"Five minutes to showtime, Ms. Maddow."
They are 100% wrong. Social issues are tearing this nation apart.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
That is such a broad brush you just used and entirely unfair. I know a lot of fat, “unattractive” women and they are not lesbians. Fat does not equal lesbian, neither does unattractive...what is unattractive to you, may be beautiful to someone else. Totally unfair...
Its all about perception, whether we like it or not!!!!!
Gender Free = Child Abuse as far as I’m concerned.
I feel sorry for any male children these lesbos have. :(
Much as man's law was used to justify the moral wrong of slavery, man's law is being used to justify another immoral behavior.
Cheers,
OLA
|
So, what is to stop two siblings of the same sex from being “married” in NY? Just wait, more freaks will enter the societal stage and demand that siblings and first cousins should be allowed to marry. Don’t think it will happen? Well, 20 years ago, few thought that any state would have “Gay Marriage.”
Makes me ill.
What I have trouble understanding is why would another Lesbian be attracted to a Lesbian who has done all she can to look and act like a man.
It would seem to me like the act of getting fat and mean, cutting off their hair, and getting mannish tattoo’s, like most Bull Dykes do would be a turn-off for Lesbians.
If they want what looks and acts like a man, why not get a man. Are they sinply frightened of the Penis? I mean that is the only thing these Dykes don’t have.
Yes I know there are many Lesbians who are good looking and have good looking Girlfriends, but I believe these are the ones who ar playing at it, and will eventually go back to being women.
Law or no law these people will still think of themselves and male “mommies” and female “daddies”.
Oh no! Please! Not “unfair”. How horrible and unamerican.
I had the unfortunate timing 30 years ago to take my family on a tour of New York City the day of the Gay Pride Parade. I lived in New Jersey and had no idea what a Gay Pride Parade was. It was like a costume party times two, with men dressed up as women, men wearing nothing but tight short leather shorts, men with leashes on, non stop public display of affection/grouping/touching. I thought I was in a different country. That was 30 yrs ago, I can’t even imagine what they do today....
Actually, long before feminism it was appropriate to refer to both men and women as “an actor”.
Much the same way both men and women are “a musician” or “a painter”.
Not always fat. Look at Rachel Madcow.
I don't know what it is, but from what I've seen with gay men, there's usually a dysfunctional relationship with their mothers. Maybe its the same thing with women and their fathers?
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.