Tuesday, April 26, 2016

It's your child unless you're gay

So let me get this right. In America today, a hetero rapist can block his rape victim from having an abortion, and the rapist can sue for (and win) visitation rights to the bastard offspring, but a gay man cannot legally be listed as the biological father of his genetic offspring? I wonder if he could if he'd raped the woman instead of using a laboratory to artificially inseminate her...

dads

America today is such a fucked up mess of irrational contradictions based on inconsistent self-righteous non-rational morality.

I mean, seriously, we've been waging a battle since the 1980s to hold biological fathers financially accountable for the children they bring into the world. And we throw in the moralizing about being a man, being a father, and children with two parents turn out better adjusted, and blah, blah, blah.

Let's be real, the moralizing is really about reducing the financial burden on the nanny state, and those "welfare moms" are such sluts, anyway, so now we cut the financial aid to help poor children, so those dads better fucking pony up, right?  Yeah, there's a pile of irrationality in there, with a kernel of good sense (children really do better in two parent homes, there's no argument there, and any man shoving his dick into a woman does have a responsibility for the consequences) (but let's not elaborate too much on either of those two points, or we're back to splitting hairs in useless ways.).

Anyway, some judge in Texas decided two men - who are the biological sperm donors, and therefore 30 years of law says they are responsible for being the fathers are now suddenly denied the right (and obligation) to be the fathers they are supposed to be.  Okay, contradiction much?

It's interesting the article doesn't address the issue of whether this judge denied them parenthood because the laws of Texas are so fucked up, or if the judge was legislating from the bench.  Given that Texas has been owned by the GOP and "conservatives" for more than 20 years, this judge is probably a "conservative," and therefore probably moralizing from the bench.  Both of those last two points may be wrong, since as I said, the GOP and "conservatives" have been screwing up the laws in Texas for decades, so it may simply be the  law put the otherwise reasonable and rational judge into this absurdist position.