Apr. 12th, 2007

for denying any recognition of formalized couple status for us homosektchuls.

And I was thinking of it in the context of the rage about women having the God-damned audacity to choose to have a child without the benefit of a present, wedded-to-her father.

And I know I’m preaching to the choir, here, but allow me to get my thoughts in order.

The thing that keeps coming back to me is that there are these limits being put on child-rearing that are mutually incompatible, and also incompatible with the reality of the world.

For example:
A child should be raised by its biological and wedded parents
BUT a child should be raised by two parents.
Where’s the problem here? Well, it contradicts itself with the fact that
Two biological wedded parents aren’t always available:
* One parent may get sick, and die.
* One parent may become injured, and die.
* One parent may be called to war, and die.
* One parent may be overcome by an enemy, and die.
* One parent may grow too old, and die.
These are all unavoidable scenarios, acts of God, if you will, and all leave a child with only one biological parent.

Which, in this case, is the primary directive? Should the remaining parent remarry, to provide the child with two parents? Or should the remaining parent remain single, to provide the child with the nurture solely of a biological parent? ~ Or should the remaining parent kill the child, so that neither directive is violated? Or, less overtly, abandon the child to the streets or to an orphanage, that “God may decide its fate”? Don’t laugh; this actually happens in some places!

OR
A child should be raised by its biological and wedded parents
* BUT one of the parents abandons the family.
* BUT one of the parents is imprisoned
* BUT one of the parents is underaged.
Let me refer you to the choices above.

OR
A child should be raised by its biological and wedded parents
*BUT its mother dies in childbirth and its father is unknown
*BUT both of its parents are murdered while it is an infant
*BUT a plague kills all of the family except for the infant
Should not adoption be an option? Or must we expose it because of the lack of biological family?

(Obviously, there is a group of people who have horribly confused “best” with “only acceptable,” and have put on blindfolds and earplugs about the consequences to that confusion!)

But here’s what I keep getting back when I point this out: “I have all sorts of respect for those who endure this situation when it happens by chance/God’s will/tragedy, but it should never be chosen.”

Obviously a great many people grow up just fine in such situations. Presumably God gives them the strength to overcome the problems. Would God withhold such strength if the situations were not crisis-based?

But, no: I digress, and I need to come back to the point. The point is not that children in such situations need to be put down like the wounded animals they are. The point is that women must never choose to act outside the social compact that dictates whom they may have sex with and what the result of that sex will be.

Women must never choose. Each act of choice that we make violates the structure of reality: whether it is to remain single, to bear only the children we want and are ready for, to pursue sensuality by our own decision, to avoid sensuality by our own decision, to ally ourselves with the individual or group of our own choice, to marry or to refrain from marriage, to work for compensation or joy or need, to rule or to submit, to seek knowledge or to avoid scholarship – all these things spark the most furious of thundering.

Because it is by our own will, and not by the will of God, let alone the will of God in him.

I have a button that says Eve chose to know. I choose to know, to act, to work, to love, to breed and not to bear. I choose.