The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Gay Hate Machine

Posted on | October 27, 2014 | 161 Comments

Janna Darnelle is a mother whose ex-husband destroyed their marriage because he became homosexual. Rivka Edelman grew up as the the daughter of a lesbian couple. Edleman describes how Darnelle was viciously harassed for criticizing the gay agenda:

Janna Darnelle’s recent Public Discourse essay, “Breaking the Silence: Redefining Marriage Hurts Women Like Me—and Our Children,” reveals what is behind the heartwarming pictures of gay families from a mother’s point of view. As someone who was raised by a lesbian mother, I would like to weigh in. I will comment not only as a former child who was once all smiles in those pictures, but also as an academic, a woman, a mother, and a feminist.
Darnelle’s essay struck a nerve and went viral. It is not surprising that, within a few hours, LGBT activists had taken up arms against her. Keyboard warriors manned the ramparts. Soon, the usual thugs took up their clubs and pitchforks.
For those of you who avoid the subterranean landscape of online same-sex parenting debates, it is useful to be introduced to Scott “Rose” Rosenzweig, a virulently misogynistic LGBT activist. As soon as Darnelle’s essay was published, Rose went into action, darting from the blog Good As You to other sites in an effort to destroy her personally. . . . Darnelle’s ex-husband even weighed in. A helpful fellow, he left her personal information in the comments section of several activists’ blogs, including her full legal name. . . .
Many families headed by gay male couples are built upon exploitation of women. Practically speaking, Scott Rose and his compatriots have formed a men’s rights group that seeks to use women as breeders. These egg donors and surrogate mothers supply infants for a bustling market full of same-sex couples, for whom reproduction is naturally and biologically impossible.
In the name of equality, groups such as GLAAD (which employs Jeremy Hooper as a consultant) have pushed through gender identity laws that have legally erased women. The term “woman” now legally can refer to the way that a man chooses to identify himself. Once women have been erased legally as a group and as individuals, it is not hard to erase “mothers.” This lends support to the practice of using one woman’s eggs and another woman’s womb to supply children for gay male couples, obscuring the concept of motherhood and making it seem dispensable.

Having spent months researching radical feminism, permit me to say that this idea of “erasure” will resonate very strongly with radical feminists like Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys who have spent decades criticizing both surrogate motherhood (women as babymakers for hire) and transgenderism (whereby men appropriate the female identity for their own perverse purposes). Raymond and Jeffreys (and other radical lesbians like Julie Bindel and Cathy Brennan) are certainly no friends of the traditional family. However, they also refuse to be pushed around by men, including gay men hiring rent-a-wombs to provide themselves with trophy babies and perverted heterosexual men who want to be “translesbians.”

All of which is to say that Rivka Edelman and Janna Darnelle should have support from hard-core feminists in taking on gay hatemongers like Scott Rosenzweig. Whether they’ll get that support or not remains to be seen. Rivka Edelman has been targeted now:

Since my essay was published, there have been hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts calling me a liar or trying to shame, discredit, intimidate, and threaten me. . . . People I do not know have gone directly after my family and my job. They have posted information, mis-information, accusations, and threats against me. . . .
As with other adults who have come forward to criticize their childhood with gay parents, I am framed as a bigot or a liar or in some other way “unreliable.” In this flip-flop, a children’s rights activist and feminist is called “anti-gay” and a “bigot.”
Jeremy Hooper, Mr. Rose, and a gang of the allies who congregate and exchange information on Hooper’s blog, “Good As You,” are concerned about an amicus curiae brief I wrote in the Texas case regarding same-sex marriage (Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals). Along with three other adults who were raised by same-sex couples, I came forward to push back against the assertion that children have no disadvantages when raised by same-sex couples. . . .
Once “activists” connected my Public Discourse piece of October 2, to the Texas brief, they went full throttle. Jeremy Hooper, the blogger at Good as You, uses his blog as a platform to harass, bully, and silence with impunity. Hooper published comments from his readers and thereby shared our home address and my daughter’s private information. They contacted other family members looking for information. They are not picky; true or made up assertions work for them equally. . . .
This cautionary tale should travel far and wide: a family threatened, people’s privacy invaded, harassment, threats, bullying, unwanted contact, abusive mischaracterization, incurred financial hardship.
These men may have revealed much more about themselves and the movement than they realize and damaged their credibility.

READ THE WHOLE THING.

 

Category: Feminism, Gays

Comments

161 Responses to “The Gay Hate Machine”

  1. Joe Joe
    November 3rd, 2014 @ 12:47 pm

    It’s very sexist. You need to examine your own misogyny.

  2. Joe Joe
    November 3rd, 2014 @ 12:47 pm

    It’s a business. It’s not free. End of story.

  3. Kalcen
    November 3rd, 2014 @ 12:48 pm

    “It’s a business. It’s not free”
    DUH. But it not being a business and being free is not an argument about anything. You’re just narrating at this point. Yes, surrogacy is a thing…..whats your point?

  4. Joe Joe
    November 3rd, 2014 @ 12:49 pm

    There is no proof that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. The removal of homosexuality from the DSM-IV was a political decision. No scientific or medical proofs were given for its removal. Only a bunch of ranting protestors and some friendly fellow travelers in the APA made it happen. That’s what political is.

  5. Kalcen
    November 3rd, 2014 @ 12:56 pm

    “There is no proof that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder.”

    Just like there is no proof that heterosexuality is not a mental disorder.

    “The removal of homosexuality from the DSM-IV was a political decision”

    There is no proof of this outlandish claim

  6. Joe Joe
    November 3rd, 2014 @ 1:36 pm

    Heterosexuality matches real biological functions that perpetuate the species. Without heterosexuality, there would be no species.

    Homosexuality acts in opposition to these functions. That’s enough of a reason to find it aberrant, if nothing else.

  7. Joe Joe
    November 3rd, 2014 @ 1:36 pm

    It’s a business.

    I am arguing against the nonsense you are spewing about “free gifts” and sometimes the only way to argue is to keep repeating the truth.

  8. Kalcen
    November 3rd, 2014 @ 1:50 pm

    “I am arguing against the nonsense you are spewing about “free gifts”
    I never said anything about it being a ‘free’ gift, I just said it was a gift. Both from the women that partake in surrogacy and god.

  9. Kalcen
    November 3rd, 2014 @ 1:52 pm

    “Without heterosexuality, there would be no species.”

    Thank you Bill Nye

    And here we have the conclusion ladies and gentlemen. Heterosexual/homosexuality may or may not be a mental disorder, they are both factually two different types of sexual preference, and if the human races stops procreating then we will die out.

  10. Tracy
    November 3rd, 2014 @ 4:38 pm

    LMAO! The more you post the funnier it gets. LOL! I have been posting from the court documents of the actual trials that are over turning the bans on gay marriage. It’s based on the constitution. LOL! Too funny, thanks for the laugh.

  11. Andy Fox
    November 3rd, 2014 @ 5:48 pm

    Proverbs 29:9 “When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest” (NASB tranlsation)

    Of course you’re laughing Tracy. See the above quote, straight outta the good book. So you must be familiar then with the case out of Puerto Rico, which upheld the gay marriage ban, and said that the Windsor case reinforces that the federal government has no business entering into the marriage fray — that decision about what relationships receive state sanction is within state’s police power. By the way, that was a Democrat appointed judge who issued that opinion.

    I note that you still are engaging in question avoidance techniques, which again show that you are a liberal drone. Are you going to answer my question from earlier? Here is another question — was the Supreme Court wrong in Bowers or in Lawrence? Those cases dealt with the same issues, but came out opposite. So I guess that means that courts even the “magnificent” Supreme Court gets it wrong sometimes.