TBD on Ning
Gender: Optional
Joseph Romero, a 6 year-old Arizona boy, was diagnosed as transgender last October and is beginning his/her transition to becoming a female. When he/she reaches the age of 12, he will be given female hormones containing estrogen and plans to undergo surgery when she is an adult in order to become a full woman.
In the UK last September, a 12 year-old boy turned up at school as a girl. Over the summer holidays his parents changed his name to a female one and allowed him to don female garb and wear his hair in pigtails. The youngster is now preparing to undergo hormone treatment and surgery - and could become the world's youngest sex-swap patient in the coming years. His school has graciously provided him/her a separate toilet and changing room.
Here in the U.S., the IRS ruled earlier this month that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation. And in Portland, Oregon, there is a move afoot to have the city pay for the sex-change operations of any employees that decide they are unhappy with their gender.
Hollywood is firmly on board, as they plan a new film about the world's first post-operative transsexual, starring heavyweights Nicole Kidman and Gwyneth Paltrow.
Over in Italy, the first prison for transsexuals is now open for business.
These cases represent the tip of the iceburg in the growing movement to make gender optional. When coupled with increasingly successful campaign to legitimize same sex unions via gay marriage, the result is an all out assault on the centuries old concepts of family and marriage.
Consider: On September 4, 1969, California Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law the nation's first no-fault divorce law. California legislators made the case for no-fault divorce with the valid argument that no-fault divorce would remedy some very desperate situations. A woman who desired a family married to a man in an insane asylum, for example. Who wouldn't want to make her case an exception? Who wouldn't allow this woman legal divorce from a marriage that had ceased functioning? No-fault divorce was enacted to address these untenable situations. It was intended to address the exception, but instead, quickly became the rule.
No-fault divorce quickly spread across the United States. By 1985, all states had enacted no-fault divorce legislation except for New York. This policy, enacted in good faith, weakened the concept of family to the point where divorce is now the norm, not the exception.
A case can be made that the push to redefine gender roles and broaden marriage to include gays also has the potential of becoming the new norm. And while the very few legitimate cases of genuine gender confusion are indeed heart wrenching, the re-structuring of our society to accommodate them will very likely result in the destruction of traditional family and marriage.
Traditional families are the bedrock upon which our culture and society are based. And marriage is the glue that binds these families together. With twin assaults from the left on these institutions, America is facing the very real possibility of a radical reformation. A reformation that is based on the needs of a few at the expense of the majority. A reformation that has the potential to destroy two of America's most basic and trusted institutions.
The left is unrelenting in its desire to redefine society. Billing themselves as champions of the oppressed, the left has made significant progress in labeling anyone who disagrees with their agenda as being motivated by hate and ignorance. Genuine objections based on faith, history, common sense and morality are ignored as the left focuses the debate on the plight of the 'victim.' It is a successful, proven political strategy. After all, as David Horowitz points out, "The appeal to help the underdog and defend the victims resonates with all Americans."
The left has attained the moral high ground in this cultural battle. And they will continue to maintain it as long as the focus is on the supposed 'victims' and not on some very basic questions that are being left out of the equation. Namely: At what cost?
Do the feelings of the minority of gays and transsexuals trump the rights of the majority of heterosexuals? Do the feelings of 6 year-old Joseph Romero, oops, Josie Romero warrant blurring the gender roles of all citizens? Do the desires of gay couples to attain social legitimacy warrant the destruction through redefinition of the centuries old tradition of marriage? And finally, who will pay the very real costs when these social experiments fail?
These are questions that need to be addressed before the left succeeds in fashioning their brave new world. A world that caters to the feelings of the few at the expense of everyone else. A world where fealty to God and family would be replaced by political correctness and transient social experiments. A world where traditional family and marriage are considered moot and America turns into one country under men instead of God.
Pandora's Box has been opened. It remains to be seen if we can close it. Drip, drip, drip.
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
In the UK last September, a 12 year-old boy turned up at school as a girl. Over the summer holidays his parents changed his name to a female one and allowed him to don female garb and wear his hair in pigtails. The youngster is now preparing to undergo hormone treatment and surgery - and could become the world's youngest sex-swap patient in the coming years. His school has graciously provided him/her a separate toilet and changing room.
Here in the U.S., the IRS ruled earlier this month that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation. And in Portland, Oregon, there is a move afoot to have the city pay for the sex-change operations of any employees that decide they are unhappy with their gender.
Hollywood is firmly on board, as they plan a new film about the world's first post-operative transsexual, starring heavyweights Nicole Kidman and Gwyneth Paltrow.
Over in Italy, the first prison for transsexuals is now open for business.
These cases represent the tip of the iceburg in the growing movement to make gender optional. When coupled with increasingly successful campaign to legitimize same sex unions via gay marriage, the result is an all out assault on the centuries old concepts of family and marriage.
Consider: On September 4, 1969, California Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law the nation's first no-fault divorce law. California legislators made the case for no-fault divorce with the valid argument that no-fault divorce would remedy some very desperate situations. A woman who desired a family married to a man in an insane asylum, for example. Who wouldn't want to make her case an exception? Who wouldn't allow this woman legal divorce from a marriage that had ceased functioning? No-fault divorce was enacted to address these untenable situations. It was intended to address the exception, but instead, quickly became the rule.
No-fault divorce quickly spread across the United States. By 1985, all states had enacted no-fault divorce legislation except for New York. This policy, enacted in good faith, weakened the concept of family to the point where divorce is now the norm, not the exception.
A case can be made that the push to redefine gender roles and broaden marriage to include gays also has the potential of becoming the new norm. And while the very few legitimate cases of genuine gender confusion are indeed heart wrenching, the re-structuring of our society to accommodate them will very likely result in the destruction of traditional family and marriage.
Traditional families are the bedrock upon which our culture and society are based. And marriage is the glue that binds these families together. With twin assaults from the left on these institutions, America is facing the very real possibility of a radical reformation. A reformation that is based on the needs of a few at the expense of the majority. A reformation that has the potential to destroy two of America's most basic and trusted institutions.
The left is unrelenting in its desire to redefine society. Billing themselves as champions of the oppressed, the left has made significant progress in labeling anyone who disagrees with their agenda as being motivated by hate and ignorance. Genuine objections based on faith, history, common sense and morality are ignored as the left focuses the debate on the plight of the 'victim.' It is a successful, proven political strategy. After all, as David Horowitz points out, "The appeal to help the underdog and defend the victims resonates with all Americans."
The left has attained the moral high ground in this cultural battle. And they will continue to maintain it as long as the focus is on the supposed 'victims' and not on some very basic questions that are being left out of the equation. Namely: At what cost?
Do the feelings of the minority of gays and transsexuals trump the rights of the majority of heterosexuals? Do the feelings of 6 year-old Joseph Romero, oops, Josie Romero warrant blurring the gender roles of all citizens? Do the desires of gay couples to attain social legitimacy warrant the destruction through redefinition of the centuries old tradition of marriage? And finally, who will pay the very real costs when these social experiments fail?
These are questions that need to be addressed before the left succeeds in fashioning their brave new world. A world that caters to the feelings of the few at the expense of everyone else. A world where fealty to God and family would be replaced by political correctness and transient social experiments. A world where traditional family and marriage are considered moot and America turns into one country under men instead of God.
Pandora's Box has been opened. It remains to be seen if we can close it. Drip, drip, drip.
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Views: 16
Tags: culture, gay, gender, marriage, transsexual
Comment
-
Comment by DannyO on March 17, 2010 at 1:42am
-
"the result is an all out assault on the centuries old concepts of family and marriage."
No, it's the continuation of the centuries-old assault against people who have never walked a mile in the other persons shoes but still insist on telling them whether they should wear loafers or heels.
-
Comment by Nancy Morgan on February 18, 2010 at 2:57am
-
Toby,
Would you care to cite specifics? As in 'where am I wrong?'
-
Comment by Dallas on February 16, 2010 at 9:20pm
-
The more I look at those two maps (see below), the more questions I have ...
1) Married Gays in Iowa? How does the court decide who gets the tractor if they divorce?
2) Do more Arkansas first cousins elope to Alabama or Mississippi?
-
-
No, they were not cousins. However, being so would not have prevented them from marrying in New Jersey.
-
-
Nancy,
Can you name some school districts that teach that gender and sexual preference are volitional? I don't know of any research that supports that assertion. Of course, my personal research in such matters is limited to experimental trials with women. So far they have all repeatedly claimed to be straight.
Powergirl,
Happy Valentine's Day, you Bulgarian Southern Belle!
Dazzlerina,
Thanks for the map. It is inspiring to know that Tony Soprano could have married Vito Spatafore, even if they had been first cousins. I don't mean nat inna bad way...whaddaya gonna do, run away to Vermont? Fuggedaboutit!
-
Comment by Powergirl on February 14, 2010 at 1:07pm
-
Nancy, I sure hope no school here in US teaches kids that gender or sexual orientation are a lifestyle choice. If that is true I am happy my kids did not got to that kind of school. They are not a choice dear. Go read the big books with long words in them. Or than you have to tell me how I can go to that choice place and chose my blue eyes I always wanted.
Dallas, I love you, Dazz, I love you too and see Mississippi is not on the second map
-
-
Dallas,
You make some good points. But in schools across the nation, our children are being taught that gender or sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice.
I don't know if there is a gay gene...but I would say that the truly gender confused should be understood and tolerated - not made the norm.
Nancy
-
Comment by Dazzling Zoomer Gal Diana on February 14, 2010 at 2:29am
-
It's Valentine's Day. Let's have a laugh!
-
-
Dear Nancy,
Is that an iceberg tip, or are you just glad to see me?
Let's see:
- The guardians and physicians for an Arizona boy and a UK lad
- The IRS (which knows a thing or two about screwing people)
- The City of Portland (I don't have a joke. Just go there some Saturday.)
- Nicole Kidman and Gwyneth Paltrow (I presume Gwyneth is playing the "Before" in that movie)
- Italian prison officials (I don't envy them the task of identifying Italian transsexuals)
are all part of the "growing movement (emphasis added) to make gender optional"? Are you serious? A "movement"? How did they all meet each other, at a Viagra shareholder meeting?
Just how are they going to "make gender optional"? Will they force us to take those long pencils to one of those little boxes under "Which gender do you prefer?" when we enter First Grade? This is an insult to our intelligence.
Surely you must know that candidates for gender reassignment procedures are not self-selected. They become candidates only upon clearing a rigorous medical qualification process which involves no "optional" preferences on the patient's part. If you didn't know that, you're lazy. If you did know it, you're mean and dishonest.
I cannot imagine the pain, confusion and distress a person with such a condition must feel. Do you honestly think that the availability of treatment for them is going to make all the rest of us suddenly consider the same path in life? Do college classes in prisons make people want to steal cars?
Here's another beauty! ... "When coupled (your term, you naughty girl) with increasingly successful campaign to legitimize same sex unions via gay marriage, the result is an all out assault on the centuries old concepts of family and marriage."
What a laugh! I know two married gay couples. Neither wedding ceremony made me regret taking a woman to the reception, if you know what I mean. It's gonna take more than some Bette Midler tunes and persimmon placemats to get me to switch teams.
I wouldn't be gay if you stuffed $1,000,000 in Brad Pitt's trousers, and I'm sure gays feel the same way about Angeline Jolie, although you could probably get more cash in her pants...hey, I'm just the messenger.
Your comparison of the history of no-fault divorce is no better. Sexual identity is a medical matter. Marriage is not.
In 1701 Maryland became the first US state to grant couples the right to divorce. South Carolina did not offer divorce until 1949. Divorce rates have risen steadily since they were introduced in all states.
While it is true that the '70s saw a divorce rate spike that was probably the result of no-fault laws, so what? That's like saying that cable TV "caused" people to abandon network TV by the millions. It's the other way around: network TV drove people to channels that were finally available after all those years of network offerings like "My Mother, the Car".
Before such laws the only grounds for divorce were: Abandonment for various periods (as long as three years or more), Adultery (with a high standard of proof), Cruelty (usually defined as physical harm until the 1970s), Imprisonment (if for a sufficient term or heinous act) and Permanent Mental Disability (as you already noted).
I can think of plenty of good reasons to get divorced that don't fit into any of those categories. Do you want to force a legally binding state of misery upon a couple whose only sin is that they quarrel all the time now about things that never even entered their minds years ago? Slamming doors, cold shoulders, pointless arguments with in-laws, petty little chips at their mutual dignity until nothing remains of any respect for each other or themselves? Talk about destroying a family...
Smile more, OK? C'mon ... See the silly tiger? That's it! Big ole smile!
-
Comment by Bull on February 13, 2010 at 11:35am
-
Pickle, I tend to agree, however, as much as the right keeps spewing how government needs to stay out of our lives it seems the opposite is true. Ms Morgan and here ilk will do or say anything to as Toby so eloquently put it paint anyone who disagrees with them as the destroyer of their utopia. Sometimes I believe it is more about defusing attention from their hypocrisy.
As much as I would like to ignore her, I feel it imperative we don't.It is always interesting to kind of poke around and see where some of these right wing bloggers may be leading. They seem to use talking points that will be mainstream soon. I found this article after a quick search.
http://dcprogressive.org/2009/11/30/ban-divorce-in-california/
In response to the passage of California Proposition 8 – which banned the brief law allowing gay marriage in the state last November – one man is taking a stand on government involvement in marriage. Since the proposition was passed, the state, and nation, have seen an eruption of protest and legal challenges on the part of gay rights activists.
Joe Marcotte has filed with the California Attorney General’s office to include a ban on divorce in the state of California. The ballot proposition, entitled the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act,” aims to undermine the argument against gay marriage as a defense of traditional marriage.
© 2024 Created by Aggie.
Powered by
You need to be a member of TBD to add comments!
Join TBD