Aspie with Attitude

Sure, I'm just another Southern Recovering Alcoholic NPR- and Sweet-Tea Addicted Comic Mom with Asperger's in the SFV, but I can tell you now that I don't necessarily fit the stereotype.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

More Prop. 8 Crap

Mainly, I've written about Prop. 8 on my lesbian blog, but it's certainly time to bring it here. The economy's in shambles, the Constitution is all but gone, but by golly, none of that seems to matter if gay people have the supposed right to marry a person of the same sex. The more I hear from the Gay Agenda Persons (GAPs), the more I'm sick of them. Or as David Manos, editorial letter writer in the L.A. Times, so succinctly put it: The left believes in freedom of speech and tolerance, as long as you march in lock step with their beliefs. I say: Amen!

According to the editorial letters, and I did not read the original story, a man named Richard Raddon, Director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, lost his job after he contributed $1,500 to the Yes on Proposition 8 people. Yes on Proposition 8 means that state-approved marriage should remain between a man and a woman. For this contribution and his support of keeping state-approved marriage as the definition that has existed for centuries, Raddon was somehow forced to resign. Imagine if the situation had been reversed and a GAP had been fired or forced to resign. Everyone from the Gay and Lesbian Anti-Defamation League to the Southern Poverty Law Center would have been suing the Los Angeles Film Festival. Ah, but Raddon had a belief that, despite centuries of support, was not politically correct. Many GAPs wrote in to let the Times know their displeasure. Two of the letters, of course referred the the "civil rights" of gays and lesbians in marrying a person of the same sex, redefining marriage and family. As my readers know, I am very much against state approval for any marriage; marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman and God or whomever or whatever. However, opponents of Prop. 8 wish to redefine not only marriage but also the very idea of family. And here's where I beg to differ. God and nature, or nature if you're an atheist, have created the family as being between a man and a woman. Pro-adoptionists started messing with this natural relationship a hundred years or so ago when they began the idea of stranger adoption of infants and children. With such a background, it is no wonder that gay people demand the supposed right to take other people's children and call them their own, or the supposed right to allow an anonymous father to help create a child and then shut the dad out of the child's life forever. This is the kind of social entropy that most gay people fight tooth and proverbial nail to keep, assuring us the whole time that taking a child from its natural parents or giving it a step-mom instead of its real father is highly beneficial for the child and for society in general.

The thing about GAPs is that they portray themselves as victims. My desire to have a family was extremely strong and I realized that if I continued only having sex with women, the family thing would not happen for me. I didn't particularly get angry about this law of nature; I accepted it. It certainly helped, of course, that I was brought up in a community where marriage was highly valued. And it helped that I also dated guys. Sure, I'm a lesbian, but I have choices. Although what I'm about to write certainly is contradictory to the crap that women have been sold with the so-called feminist movement: You can't have your cake and eat it too. Those of us who realize this, and who are against the state's expansion of approval for marriage, for whatever reason, are often called bigots and homophobes and other not very nice names by those who claim to be so very very tolerant. Perhaps Jeff Iorillo, another Times editoral letter writer, expresses the GAP philosophy best with his writing:

Prop. 8 supporters like Richard Raddon financed a lynch mob that strung me up, declared me less human than themselves and robbed me of something I previously had. It is certainly my right to identify such people and to close my wallet to the businesses that provide the income they have used against me.

While my ancestors, to my knowledge, have never been on the receiving end of any lynch mobs, were I of an ancestory besides mainly European, I'd probably be laughing this guy all the way to Africa, laughing at his ignorance of the situation that many people faced one hundred or more years ago. To associate the supposed struggle of people who are attracted to the same sex to those who have been beaten, lynched, and otherwise chastised for the color of their skin and their ancestory is quite an affront to those whose ancestors truly have suffered lynch mobs. Not having state approval of your marriage seems quite pale in comparison to actually being lynched and killed because of your color. Right now, the boys and I are reading Mark Twain's Puddin'head Wilson, a book I highly suggest to show how those of even the smallest inkling of African ancestory have been treated. Are gay people afraid of being sold "down the river," as Roxy in Twain's story was? Does Mr. Iorillo actually fear that someone is going to come to his house and drag him out and hang him? Is Mr. Iorillo truly less than human simply because the state won't approve his marriage? GAPs are people who love being victims. Fortunately, there are gay people who are not victims, but we are much too scarcely represented.

To equate the supposed struggle of gay people to that of any race of people who have suffered is bizarre indeed. Nonetheless, the GAPs will continue to do this until they have completely undone the natural family relationships that have been okay for society since it began. If I want to share my life with a person of the same sex, I can certainly do so. In the state of California, there is nothing to my knowledge that can be done by those who have state approval for marriage, that can't be done by those who do not have it. The trouble really began when the state started licensing marriage.

I'm really tired of the GAPs and their intolerance for the beliefs of others. Just the other day, I talked to a lesbian on the phone and she was telling me how the relationship that she'd just gotten out of, with a woman, was one that she'd hoped "to have a family" with. That's how stupid we've become as a society. Two women can do lots of wonderful things together, but having their own family is not one of them. The thing about GAPs, of whom not all gay people are, is that GAPs want to change society and the rules of nature. As my Jewish friends would say: Oy-vay!

Monday, November 24, 2008

A Birthday Blessing

November is a month of birthdays here at the Gingerbread House. What a pleasant surprise that I received while celebrating one of them today. One of the guests, with whom I used to be in a homeschool group, said that I've "ruined" her zest for adoption. She can no longer be happy when a friend of hers decides to take someone else's child and call it her own. In other words, I'm succeeding in speaking the truth. This one person, a mom of three, can never quite accept the brainwashing of the adoption industry, a $1.6 billion business.

She also mentioned that a friend of hers, who lost a child to adoption about 12 years ago, still mourns for her lost child. "It seems worse than death," said my friend. Perhaps it is, according to the moms who've lost a child to adoption. I'm thankful that I cannot state an understanding of either loss and I hope that I never will experience either. Having said that, I can see how the loss of a child who's out there, somewhere, might be much more difficult than knowing that a child is dead, horrible as that last scenario would be. With death of a child, there is closure; people mourn and are sensitive to a mother's mourning. With adoption, people congratulate the mother for "doing the right thing" by giving her child to someone else. The stress of having a personal mourning that no one else shares, and, in fact, having people tell you that you should be grateful for your loss, seems like an especially cruel thing indeed. I mean no offense to anyone who's lost a child, either by death or by adoption. Having said all of this, I know certainly that I'd rather my child be alive than dead, even if adopted out. I'm not even saying that I agree that adoption is worse than death; again, I don't want to experience either event. I am merely saying here that I understand how adoption, in today's climate of selling children, can be its own special hell that is very close to death of a child. In fact, a child does somewhat die to its natural family in adoption; years later, if a child is resurrected through reunion, things will never be the same as if the child had been left with the family.

I am thankful for my friend's new understanding of the adoption industry. That's how we change the world regarding adoption; one friend at a time.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

And Here's What I Think About Arkansas

There was some bill, and I didn't read it but just heard about it, or proposition or whatever they call it, in Arkansas on Election Day that forbade single people from adopting. It passed. I'm all for it. Why? Not because I don't think that single people could adequately raise a child; some can. My friend Tish, for instance, had a baby nine months after Caleb and although it's difficult for her and the dad is now out of the scene for the most part, she's doing great. From what I understand, the proposition on the ballot was aimed at preventing gay people from adopting. Why is this good? Certainly not because I don't think that gay people are capable of raising children; we are in some cases. The reality is that many, many gay people don't want to raise children, which works out nicely in many cases. For those who do, however, it should be their own child, not someone else's. I used to think, before I found my parents and did research into the adoption industry, that it would be great if gay people who want to be with the same sex adopted all the children who need homes. This idea won't work, of course, partly because of a previously stated reason, i.e., that many gay people don't want children. However, a more important thing to note is that there are 40 potential adopters waiting for each adoptable infant. Make no mistake: this demand for babies is why the states are trying to increase the supply through so-called safe haven laws, which are backfiring in states such as Nebraska, where people are bringing teenage children to the fire station to abandon because those teenagers cause problems. The demand for children far exceeds the supply. Therefore, we should not add to the demand by allowing more people to adopt. Do I think that the state should have any say whatsoever in the adoption business? Nope. But not increasing the demand for children is a good thing indeed.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

How The Election Affects Me

I celebrated my birthday Monday and I was born on Election Day. We had a wonderful time at the Gingerbread House.

On my birthday, however, we had to take our new dog to have him neutered. Why? Our next-door neighbor, who threatened to call Child Protective Services the other day when our five-year-old would not come to her when she called him . He's been told not to talk with her and instead of going to her, he came into the house and told me about the incident. She has been threatening to call the Animal Control people and of course, being in the police state that we live in, it's easy to turn in a neighbor falsely. True, our dog has barked but no more than other neighborhood dogs. It's clear that this neighbor has something against us and she seems to be trying to get us to sell our house and move. She was a government school teacher for many years and my guess is that she's so brainwashed that she can't stand it that my children are homeschooling. So, she threatens us. And she calls Animal Control. Turns out, in Los Angeles County, if you don't have your dog neutered and licensed, you could end up in jail. That's right:

Failure to spay/neuter an unaltered dog is a citable violation that can result in a $100 penalty for the first offence and $500 for subsequent violations. In addition (sic) failure to license can result in the assessment of a $500 civil penalty, and dog owners could be found guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1000 and/or one year in county jail.
Yep. Or as Mr. Thinking Mama put it:
"Whatcha in here for?" said the murderer to another inmate.
"Didn't neuter my dog."

In a police state, everybody is a lawbreaker and the law has a huge advantage because of that. We live in a police state. A neighbor can hold a grudge against you and your dog or your children can be taken away. For the record, almost everyone in the neighborhood seems to despise this woman and she has made a lot of people mad. If she continues to mess with us, we are planning to get a restraining order against her and/or sue her for damages.

So, that's much more important to me than who won the presidency. No matter who won, life in socialist Amerika will pretty much continue toward more socialism. On a homeschool list the other day, it was almost forbidden to say anything against King Obama, whom Vox Day calls The Magic Negro. And forget it when I tried to say anything about voting "Yes" on Proposition 8, which I did. I also voted against some proposition that required minors to obtain parental permission before having an abortion. I think that if a person is old enough to get pregnant, she is old enough to make a decision about having an abortion. And I think that if parents want their children to come to them about such an important decision, those parents should have earned trust when the children were toddlers, or earlier. You can't legislate trust between parent and child. You just can't do it.

There was Proposition 2, which seemed to be against animal cruelty, or so it was marketed. It allows the government more control over private property, which people, such as my strange neighbor, seem to welcome.

So, so, so, how does it shake down that King Obama will now reign in the place of King Jorge? King Obama, via Executive Orders, will be able to institute martial law just as well and he'll be able to screw up health care by nationalizing it. He's already voted to do that with the banks.

Oh, but government needs to help out in social issues, such as slavery, said one brainwashed homeschooling mom. Really, I sort of hate learning how these women really look at things sometimes.

As for me, I wrote in Ron Paul. The boys and I and Mr. Thinking Mama were in the polls as they closed. I asked for a write-in ballot and the poll workers had to ask their leader about how to do it. I guess that I may be the only one in my neighborhood who voted for Ron Paul. But I wrote him right in that ballot, proudly, even though he's not officially running. I didn't vote for either of the two-major-party socialists and my children will always remember that I voted for freedom.

As for King Obama, well, he's leading us to socialism, just like McCain, but the difference is that no one really cares. After all, he'll be the first black president! Therefore, no white people can really say anything against him or they'll be branded racist. And I'd love to meet a black person who didn't support him. I hope that those black people exist, just as you can find some women who didn't vote for Hillary.

As King Obama leads us down the primrose path toward Communism, people will throw palm leaves down for him to walk on. Personally, I couldn't care less about his skin color; I care a LOT about the socialism and huge national debt that he will leave for my children, for the health care that he is trying to destroy, and for the nationalized banks, which he has already wholly supported. Sigh. But he's black, so everything's wonderful in Amerika.