yawner.diaryland.com

o l d-----n e w-----l a s t-----n e x t-----m e-----y o u-----m a i l-----n o t e s-----r i n g s-----

straight talk

21/07/02 @ 1:16 p.m.

There was some classic Daily Mailism this week. They had an article about a lesbian couple, Julie Williams and Joanne Leech, who’ve found a sperm donor through this website, and explained to us the danger and immorality of such an endeavour.
It’s always half-funny/half-sad to see The Mail pretending to be objective, and they surpassed all previous efforts with this article. Instead of just saying "we’re terrified of gay people", they threw in things like "to its critics... it is yet another worrying development in today’s selfish 'babies on demand' culture, morally and ethically dubious." Just to ram the point home, they explained that pro-family organisations have described the service as 'revolting... designer babies for alternative lifestyles." Note that "pro-family" always means "pro-hetero", because their idea of family never goes beyond one man, one woman.
In an attempt to make these women seem sleazy, and their actions seedy, the Mail went on to say that "the whole process worryingly resembles internet shopping." The article mentions that of the ten fertility clinics they approached, eight turned them down because they were a same-sex couple. The other two proved to be too expensive. Instead of seeing the homophobia of the fertility industry, and of the society they represent, the Mail instead tried to make the pursuit of parenthood look somehow perverse. They really are evil.
They even went so far as to say that "many people will regard Joanne and Julie as selfish, demanding the right to a child when choosing a lifestyle which by its very nature precludes them." There’s just so many things wrong with that sentence I don’t even know where to start!
There’s just such a lack of self-awareness in prejudice that The Mail reveals itself completely, while thinking it’s guarding its secrets. I’ll always remember reading a Klansman explaining "I got no problem with niggers". That this guy thought he sounded reasonable, that he thought he was being inoffensive, was mind-boggling. It’s that kind of thinking that leads The Mail into saying things like "the risk is that not all lesbian couples... will prove to be as committed and caring as Julie and Joanne." By that rationale, given that 50% of heterosexual marriages fail, every heterosexual newlywed considering starting a family is equally as selfish, equally as dangerous. But who needs logic when you can have scare-mongering instead? We can just condemn gay couples for their lack of commitment, but keep from them a way of proving it by not allowing them to get married.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The Daily Mail is the source of evil in the universe.

b o o k m a r k s-----r u d i e s-----u p d a t e s-----m y--i l l n e s s -----m o v i e--r e v i e w s

Content and layout © Yawner, 2001. Hosted by Diaryland. Best viewed with IE5, probably pants with Netscape.


o l d-----n e w-----l a s t-----n e x t-----m e-----y o u-----m a i l-----n o t e s-----r i n g s-----







straight talk
21/07/02 @ 1:16 p.m.
There was some classic Daily Mailism this week. They had an article about a lesbian couple, Julie Williams and Joanne Leech, who’ve found a sperm donor through this website, and explained to us the danger and immorality of such an endeavour. It’s always half-funny/half-sad to see The Mail pretending to be objective, and they surpassed all previous efforts with this article. Instead of just saying "we’re terrified of gay people", they threw in things like "to its critics... it is yet another worrying development in today’s selfish 'babies on demand' culture, morally and ethically dubious." Just to ram the point home, they explained that pro-family organisations have described the service as 'revolting... designer babies for alternative lifestyles." Note that "pro-family" always means "pro-hetero", because their idea of family never goes beyond one man, one woman. In an attempt to make these women seem sleazy, and their actions seedy, the Mail went on to say that "the whole process worryingly resembles internet shopping." The article mentions that of the ten fertility clinics they approached, eight turned them down because they were a same-sex couple. The other two proved to be too expensive. Instead of seeing the homophobia of the fertility industry, and of the society they represent, the Mail instead tried to make the pursuit of parenthood look somehow perverse. They really are evil. They even went so far as to say that "many people will regard Joanne and Julie as selfish, demanding the right to a child when choosing a lifestyle which by its very nature precludes them." There’s just so many things wrong with that sentence I don’t even know where to start! There’s just such a lack of self-awareness in prejudice that The Mail reveals itself completely, while thinking it’s guarding its secrets. I’ll always remember reading a Klansman explaining "I got no problem with niggers". That this guy thought he sounded reasonable, that he thought he was being inoffensive, was mind-boggling. It’s that kind of thinking that leads The Mail into saying things like "the risk is that not all lesbian couples... will prove to be as committed and caring as Julie and Joanne." By that rationale, given that 50% of heterosexual marriages fail, every heterosexual newlywed considering starting a family is equally as selfish, equally as dangerous. But who needs logic when you can have scare-mongering instead? We can just condemn gay couples for their lack of commitment, but keep from them a way of proving it by not allowing them to get married. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The Daily Mail is the source of evil in the universe.
	b o o k m a r k s-----r u d i e s-----u p d a t e s-----m y--i l l n e s s -----m o v i e--r e v i e w s







	Content and layout © Yawner, 2001. Hosted by Diaryland. Best viewed with IE5, probably pants with Netscape.