Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Who’s Responsible for the Octomom? Lesbians, Of Course

OctupletsAs you all know from our secret meetings where we plan out our world domination, the gays are responsible for all the world’s ills– or at least that’s what Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council believes. Our latest victory, according to the virulently homophobic jerk is to force America’s women to turn out litters of children. Nadya Suleman’s eight children are not the result of a sloppy fertility treatment, but rather, the result of procreating lesbians. You’re going to want to read this one.

Says Perkins:

“Last week, taxpayers learned that they would be partially liable for the family’s care through hundreds of dollars in food stamps and disability payments. The news fueled even more conviction that the fertility doctor should have refused the procedure. But is he really to blame–or are our courts? In California, the state Supreme Court made it virtually impossible for a physician to exercise his own judgment after two lesbians sued in 2001 for the right to be artificially inseminated over the doctors’ personal or social objections.”

That’s right. Don’t blame the physician when you can blame lesbians instead. We like the idea that in Tony Perkins’ world, everything is the work of the gays. Coffee too hot? Lesbians. Cable goes out? Lesbians. “Honey, I accidentally broke your favorite vase, but seriously, if lesbians didn’t force their vagina-shaped earthenware on us heterosexuals, this would have never happened!” Give us a break.

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Feb 13, 2009
Tagged: , ,

  • 15 Comments
    • Greg Ever
      Greg Ever

      Who’s

      Feb 13, 2009 at 12:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Anthony in Nashville
      Anthony in Nashville

      I wonder if Perkins was an english major, because that was an excellent example of using current events to set up what he really wanted to talk about, even if they are not related.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 12:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake
      blake

      The doctor could have easily explained to Ms. Suleman that he could not help her because of the safety issues associated with implanting 6 embryos.

      Perkins, of course, seems to be ignoring the whole point that Suleman followed the conservative line of considering her embryos human life and did not allow her embryos to be destroyed. Wasn’t Perkins and his ilk who fought against use of embryos in stem cell research? When the Duggar family, a nice white Christian family with a show on TLC, had its 18th child, did he make any kind of denunciation?

      P.S.

      Japhy,

      I strongly object to your use of the term “ocotomom.” It’s a horribly dehumanizing label. The woman admits to having some kind of mental illness or instability. No matter how cute or fun the label may seem, it’s wrong on many levels: it’s sexist, dehumanizing, and cruel.

      Gay people have had similar labels tossed at them. You are better than this.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 12:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      I like the label “octomom” and I personally am not going to stop using it.

      BTW – Statistically how many of her bread will turn out to be gay?

      Feb 13, 2009 at 1:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      Labels “tossed” at gay people are for who they are and how they were born. This idiot brought this on herself.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 1:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gregoire
      Gregoire

      Octomom is offensive? Guess I should stop calling her Madison Square Womb.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 2:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darth Paul
      Darth Paul

      @Gregoire: Madison Square Womb is far more apt. Octomom implies she’s 8 moms, not that she had 8 kids (at once). The ‘correct’ name would be Octospawn.

      Blake needs a waaaambulance. Seriously.

      As for this Perkins queef…I just have to roll my eyes at any male that thinks he knows what motivates women to reproduce on any level. That’s the one aspect of femininity that’s essentially forever sealed away from men. Leave the discourse to women, ok?

      Feb 13, 2009 at 3:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ConservativeRepublican
      ConservativeRepublican

      @Sebbe:

      I guess whether she brought this on herself depends on how you look at severe mental illness.

      That having been said, I have no problem labeling Mr. Perkins. I think he fits the definition of ‘asshole’ quite easily.

      Feb 13, 2009 at 3:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dgz
      dgz

      Perkins is so confused.
      There’s a difference between objecting for “social” reasons and objecting for health reasons — that’s a physician’s oath-sworn JOB, idiot! Gah!

      Plastic surgeons refuse surgery to people all the time for safety/mental reasons.

      Feb 14, 2009 at 12:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Condi
      Condi

      Wait, I thought lesbians were responsible for forcing unwilling people into the gay lifestyle. Now is seems we’re causing a nationwide breeder fetish? That crosses the line, Tony!

      Feb 14, 2009 at 6:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake
      blake

      This crap about Ms. Suleman making her own choices and deserving to suffer for it is nuts. By the virtue of her being mentally ill, she is unable to make good choices.

      Her doctor should have assisted her. Ms. Suleman’s mother explained in her interview that she and her husband spoke to their daughters fertility doctor but he ignored their please. The doctor, according to publish reports, charged tens of thousands of dollars for fertility treatments. Could that have been one of the reason why he chose to proceed with assisting Ms. Suleman?

      Also, the question of reproductive rights for the poor are always under question. Had Ms. Suleman been a wealthy, married woman no one would say anything. Instead, because Ms. Suleman is a single mother with limited means there is a harsh reaction to her.

      Americans have had a strong and sometimes brutal reaction to the poor reproducing. This was infamously demonstrated through the horrific eugenics laws that allowed for forced sterilization from the late 19th Century until the early 1970s. Poor whites, orphans, people with illnesses, and people of color saw their reproductive rights eliminated through the whims of those in power.

      There, I don’t care if you want to call me names. Whatever. The fact remains that making fun of someone who obviously suffers from an illness is wrong.

      Moreover, if you can’t look at how this woman is being treated in the context of our society’s overall treatment of women, class, mental health, and reproductive right then you should read more and maybe remember the manners that your parents (should have?) taught you when you were a kid. Just because some moron thinks it’s cute to slap a label on Ms. Suleman doesn’t give the rest of us an excuse for poor behavior.

      Feb 14, 2009 at 7:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie in Las Vegas
      Jamie in Las Vegas

      I like “Octopussy.” But I can’t claim credit, I read it at Huffington Post by Steven Webber.

      Feb 14, 2009 at 11:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      In a world with over 6 billion people that is expanding at an alarming rate and the trashing of the planet and it’s resources to support that many humans, we should be working toward limiting our numbers, not increasing them, as the Vatican is directing the Christian world to do.

      I can’t, for the life of me, understand why anyone, in this day and age, should feel that they have a God-given right to have as many children as they feel like, poor or rich, whether it is 8 children or 18 children and that is especially true if the burdon of supporting that many kids falls on the taxpayers.

      No one would deny the right of a couple to have a child, even if they are so poor that they cannot support it. But what is the justification for having 8 kids that they cannot afford to take care of, besides exercising their “civil-rights”? It’s nothing more than a giant fuck-you to the taxpayers.

      In olden times, when most farming was still done by hand, having large families was desirable in order to have more hands to work the fields. In today’s mechanized society, there is absolutely no reason, or justification for having that many children. Even China, no matter how we may criticize that country, has had the good sense to limit how many children a couple may have.

      And we wonder about the madness of lemmings?

      Feb 15, 2009 at 11:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hairybutt
      hairybutt

      she’s a dog she should’ve been put down a long time ago

      Feb 15, 2009 at 2:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • garychapelhill
      garychapelhill

      It is especially hypocritical considering the reaction to multiple births in the past, albeit by a nice white christian women…

      “Predictably, a spokesperson for the conservative Family Research Council hailed McCaughey’s decision to disregard medical advice and not abort any fetuses as “a wonderful example for this country,” adding that it proves “the community can come together and provide for the need of those who are faced with a crisis pregnancy and are having difficulty thinking about how they’re going to provide for their new child.”

      Feb 17, 2009 at 9:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.