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.
Agreed.
Given a group of humans with mutual desires -- continued living and property posession -- they could potentially form an agreement whereby no one will kill or steal from another. To make the agreement have merit, punishments for violating the agreement are determined
Once again, agreed. This is called the "Social Contract".
Should the majoirty decide that a minority no longer has a "right" to life and property it can be removed
This is the fatal flaw in the Social Contract: It can be rewritten at will by the changeable preferences of humans. You don't really have any "unalienable rights" unless there's an authority beyond mankind, that says so. "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...", remember that?
"You can observe a lot just by watching"
Yogi Berra
Why, that too is an arbitrary point in time. There’s no such term of art as “emotional maturity”, obviously it can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Your emotional maturity with regards to consent is measured legally by mental capacity, but generally it's used as a measure for our most mature citizens. IQ is what measures mental capacity, though an argument can be made for the “biology of G” as a fair measure as well. Barring arbitrary age constraints, generally legal functioning mental capacity to live on ones own is minimally an IQ of 70. 25% of the population is between 70 and 90 IQ with 9% between 80 and 70 IQ.
A case can be made that if a child has an equivalent adult IQ above 70, and many do below the point of puberty, then there is no reason to deny equal rights as those given to equal mental capacities. Why is the 73 IQ marginally mentally handicapped 25 year old who is allowed to live on their own any better equipped to make discretionary decisions than the 10 year old who has an adult equivalent IQ of 90?
The slippery slope comes from the justification of homosexual unions; the same case can be made for incest, bestiality and pedophilia (w/adult equivalent capacity). The only justification for the special status of marriage is for procreation, survival of the species. Deference is given for the “possibility” of reproduction, obviously the only thing those who practice perversion can reproduce are dirt babies.
Well if you say so it must be true, right? But then again I was speaking in legal terms for “mental capacity” so I wouldn’t want you to step on your dick again and look foolish. So tell me sodomy boy where specifically am I wrong? Why is an emancipated 25 year old with an IQ of 73 any more capable of giving consent than an 11 year old who has an adult IQ of 90, hmm? Age is arbitrary unless you care to share why it’s significant. As far as animals go, legal consent is measured by the presence of “acquiescence” or tacit submission, we know animals are capable of this from their fight/flight/bite responses. But since your impotent logical reasoning has apparently been dulled from fecal ingestion gone to your head, I’m guessing any response from you will be the usual inane one-liners.
OK...can you tell me why there isn't one? What rock-solid principle prevents the concept of "adult equivalent capacity" from taking hold regarding sex between children and adults?
BTW, aren't you aware that NAMBLA has made appearances at Pride parades?
I am so happy you said that. Hello, "adult capacity equivalent!"
Anything older than that encourages teens not to take responsibility for their own actions.
Oh, brother...OK, I'll bite. What magical positive effect will lowering the age of consent to 15 have on irresponsible teenagers?
Having 18 as age of consent makes no kind of sense, opens up a legal can of worms that shouldn't be (20 yr old dating a 17 yr old, etc).
Yeah...much better to have a can of worms about a 20-year-old dating a 15-year-old.
regards
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.