They have the proof: All gay men are identical faceless aliens.

This website - dubbed “Gay Answers” - is something else. The main notion presented is that anyone who doesn’t want heterosexual sex is no better than a racist. Confused yet? It gets worse.

Claim: Gay men are inherently misogynistic, anti-diversity sexists.

Try to wrap your mind around this one:

Most gay folks don’t feel hate towards the opposite sex. However, when it comes to ‘love’, homosexuality causes an otherwise loving person to always exclude equal treatment of the complementary gender simply because that person is different. This is why gay marriage is called same-sex, not diverse-sex. In fact, gays claim to have a genetic (preconceived) orientation for their own gender superior to the diverse gender.This is no better than a white person always preferring whites above blacks.

Riiiight. Because we all know that lust overrides every sort of love a person can feel, and that if you’re not willing to go to bed with everyone you meet for one reason or another, you’re being a discriminatory bastard.

I’m going to say right now that I love and am loved by people of many different gender identities and sexual orientations. Some of the friends I’ve made through my university’s LGBT organization have become my family away from home. College life has its ups and downs, and I don’t know how any of us would have made it through some of these rough patches unscathed had it not been for the unconditional support of our friends.

On the other hand, I’ve had my share of straight men who’ve been willing to say just about anything for the better part of a week in an attempt to get me in bed. We talk a little, maybe go on a date or two, and when they realize that I’m not really looking for a purely sexual relationship and won’t fall flutter-eyed at their charisma, they’re off after the next woman. According to “Gay Answers,” these men are the diversity-seeking progressives, and I’m just the unrelenting bigot.

Ironically, if the website’s statement somehow had any basis in reality, the obvious conclusion would be that the only way to avoid being a self-devoted bigot would be to become bisexual. Don’t hold your breath on that one.

Claim: Any woman who becomes a surrogate for a male couple is being relegated to the status of second-class citizen because… well, just because.

To support this, they provide the single most blatantly propagandistic (and over-hyphenated) monologue I have ever seen:

“…If our all-male-dominated same-sex union wants a child, we contract a woman as a second-class womb-donor or nanny to serve us, then our unproductive same-sex union collects the marriage tax benefits while the woman who bore our child gets nothing but what we give her. This is what we call equality… Equality for sex-segregated all-male-dominated public civil-marriage.”

If you’ve read any of my posts, you know that I spend the majority of my time tackling women’s rights issues. I have never been given any reason whatsoever to believe that surrogacy infringes on women’s rights when the women involved are emotionally and financially stable, informed, and willing. In my opinion, willfully using your body to help another person (through surrogacy, egg/sperm donation, organ donation, and so on) is a highly respectable decision. There is nothing inherently misogynistic about forming a fair, mutually agreed-to contract with a competent woman (unless, of course, you believe that there isn’t such a thing as a competent woman).

And, please, let’s not pretend that women haven’t been used by men largely for their reproductive capacity throughout the entire history of the known world. SO overdone.

Claim: By nature, heterosexuals cannot be sexist or misogynistic.

This one is a little more subtle, but given the struggle women have put up over hundreds of years to only just recently gain basic civil rights in many parts of the world, I find it pretty damn offensive. You may also pick up on the “parts fit” and “it’s all about the babies” rhetoric:

Men and women are complementary by natural design, being uniquely qualified since the beginning of time, in every way psychologically, spiritually and biologically to be synergistically united together in love. Both sexes are required equally in order to create a complete family. This is true from any scientific, religious or evolutionary perspective. However, nature never gave any qualifications or significant purpose to same-sex.

First off, no individual is “in every way psychologically, spiritually, and biologically” qualified for ANYTHING based only on the sexual organs they possess. There’s a hell of a lot more to it than that, and individuals are far too diverse to lump them into any group based on sex alone.

Second, a “complete” family does not necessarily include children, and heterosexual lovers are not the only ones who can acquire or raise kids. Nor are they always capable of doing so. Adoption and surrogacy are nothing new, and scientific advances continue to give couples of all types more and more options. As a side note, a well-rounded person will have loved ones of both sexes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they must be parents or lovers.

Third - and this is a big one - no type of relationship is “required” to give equal consideration to all involved. For thousands of years heterosexual relationships have been dominated by males, and until recently women weren’t treated much better than livestock. Their input counted for little to nothing. Is this the “natural design” of the “equal” relationship? I think not.

And finally, nature gave human beings plenty of reasons to engage in sex aside from reproduction. Virtually everyone, no matter how far to the right they may be, eventually has sex with the hope or assurance that a pregnancy won’t result. Sex can be a deeply intimate bonding experience, and it can also just be a lot of fun.

For any anti-gay conservatives who might be reading this: If you’re going to keep your bigoted views, at the very least don’t try to promote them under the charade that you’re pro-diversity or give a shit about liberating women. It’s as pathetic as it is despicable.

In the not-so-distant future, it may be possible for lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters.

Women might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today.

Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman’s bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue.

The researchers said they had already produced early sperm cells from bone-marrow tissue taken from men. They believe the findings show that it may be possible to restore fertility to men who cannot naturally produce their own sperm.

But the results also raise the prospect of being able to take bone-marrow tissue from women and coaxing the stem cells within the female tissue to develop into sperm cells, said Professor Karim Nayernia of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Creating sperm from women would mean they would only be able to produce daughters because the Y chromosome of male sperm would still be needed to produce sons. The latest research brings the prospect of female-only conception a step closer.

To rational people, this might seem like nothing more than an interesting (and possibly helpful) new development - but for the fundies, it is a sign of the masculine apocalypse:

Let’s see, now that the lesbians can reproduce free of “evil” men, I wonder how long it will be before one of them gets the idea to create Neo-Amazonia and purge all who possess the Y chromosome?

They’d have to get past Islam to do it.

Once the homosexuals succeed in destroying what’s left of Western Civilization, there will be nothing to protect them.

I new this day was soon approaching. The next step is the gender-specific virus.
I think there were a number of sci-fi episodes and even movies based on such concepts.

The Revolution will be swift; the Neo-Amazonians will soon have the entire planet in their rule. The newly-created man-killing virus will be unleashed into the water supply, and the few remaining men will become enslaved workers in the diamond mines. Witchcraft will be declared the New World’s official theology, and having abortions will become something of a national pastime. Buahaha!

Or, you know, not.

Nope, not kidding:

If sex bonds two people, then sexual pleasure without a partner will still powerfully bond you, but the bonding will be to whatever sights and thoughts are present at the time. For some people, the bonding will be to the sight of their own body. If so, it will be this – and possibly the sight of their own gender – that will begin to dominate their passions.

Likewise, looking at yourself in the mirror the wrong way is bound to turn you homo. If you’ve ever thought to yourself, “damn, I look sexy,” you have already begun the transformation. You have been warned!

It gets better:

Then there are those who try to convince themselves they are being godly by masturbating while focusing on spiritual things. If Jesus walked this planet today, would you try to have sex with him? Sexual bonding is exclusively for a husband and wife. Anything else is a perversion. Sexual bonding must not be used to join a person to a relative or a friend or an animal or an object or to the Holy Lord.

And I thought my mind was in the gutter. I can honestly say that I have never, ever fantasized about taking Jesus to bed. Ever.

A portion of the pro-life crowd has a big problem with oral contraceptives: if they don’t stop ovulation, block the sperm, or prevent conception, they may prevent implantation. Research neither confirms nor denies this claim, but it’s certainly possible since they do cause changes in the uterine lining.

And so these pro-lifers go on the war path, decrying artificial contraception and chanting slogans about babies and murder. Those who become pharmacists may refuse to fill some prescriptions (particularily emergency contraception, which works much like the pill). Sexually active women and even rape victims are turned away (40% of them in Connecticut). And while these women are left without any options, the anti-birth control crowd happily pats its own back.

Here’s the kicker: oral contraceptives almost always work by preventing ovulation, which will obviously prevent an egg from being fertilized. When an egg does become fertilized and an embryo does form, there’s about a 50% chance that it will never implant - and this is without any form of contraception whatsoever.

So which is more likely to result in an embryonic death? A person using oral contraceptives carefully, or a person having unprotected sex because they view birth control as immoral?

Of course, you might say, that’s why many of them stick to natural family planning (NFP).

Most of them probably don’t know that NFP may very well also prevent implantation (or create weak embryos), and that there are “numerous indications” that this is the case:

Natural family planning is the more widely used, contemporary term for the broad range of techniques aimed at helping women to predict fertile days so they can avoid having sex then. These techniques may rely on cues like the presence of cervical mucus or small changes in body temperature, which occur around the time of ovulation. Dr. Bovens notes that some couples choose this approach because they worry that other forms of contraception, like birth control pills, may act in part by preventing an early embryo from implanting in the womb.

However, if a fertilized egg produced on the fringe of the fertile window is less likely to develop and implant, he writes, “the same logic that turned pro-lifers away from morning after pills, I.U.D.’s and pill usage should make them nervous about the rhythm method.”

All in all, the reality is that we birth control-using heathens are probably killing just about the same - if not fewer - embryos than the people who claim to love them oh-so much. And while pro-lifers rant on that contraception companies “lie” about their products, you’ll find that each of them acknowledges that they may have an effect on implantation right on their websites. Try finding an NFP site that does that.

Now, you may genuinely care about embryos and want to dedicate your life to never having one die inside you. That’s your decision. The only way you can ever be sure to accomplish that is to practice abstinence - not until marriage, but forever. Good luck with that.

I, on the other hand, will continue to not give a shit about embryos.

It is a crime to have sex with someone who does not consent to it. Simple, right?

Not so much.

Over the years - hell, over the past few months - nuts have tried to argue that everything but agreeing to have sex is agreeing to have sex.

Among them: she was dressing slutty, she worked a dirty job, she thought she had rights, she dared to leave her home at night.

Real rape victims are beaten to a bloody pulp. They were virgins. There were religious and oh-so-pure. The real crime is that they were tainted by sex, not that it was against their will.

And they certainly aren’t married, says Phyllis Schlafly:

By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.

People - rape is rape. There isn’t one kind of victim, and there isn’t one kind of rapist.

Feministe has a downright frightening post about the girls of puritygirls.com, a fundamentalist Christian website that encourages young women to completely repress their sexuality until marriage - no kisses, no touching, period. Jill quotes multiple forum posts where girls are told to blame themselves when boys lust after them, as they “bear part of the sin” for having dared to look attractive. It’s not difficult to see the harm this indoctrination has had on these kids; one regretful girl tells of the ’scars’ she still has because she ‘messed up.’ Her story:

I agree totally!!!!! God is gonna write my love story!! The thing is, that when you do mess up, it’s hard to forgive yourself! I have never had sex outside of marriage,(Thank goodness!), but when I was younger, 5,6,7, I kissed a guy. Not on the lips, but it still leaves a scar. I knew better than that then too! I didn’t know how it would effect me in the future obviously, and I didn’t totally know all about purity, but I knew not to go around kissing boys! I feel soooo bad now, and it is soo hard sometimes to forgive myself for it! Purity is sooo important, and whether you can see it now or not, even something as small as a kiss can effect you!

STAY STRONG IN PURITY!!!!

Young women also discuss feminism, which is apparently bringing about the family apocalypse. Many of the girls agree that women should not be permitted to teach men, hold any level of leadership (”Exception: If there is no male person available to do the job needed, then a woman could step up to the job needing to be filled, and fill it until a man is available to do the job”), or ‘feminize’ men by having a career that supports the family. Talk about taking a step backwards.

Jill makes a good point: many of these girls are intelligent and thoughtful young women. Hopefully they’ll grow to respect themselves enough to realize that they don’t deserve to be treated as second-class citizens just because they happen to be female.

Check out this letter to the editor in today’s Washington Post:

Regarding the Jan. 13 letter by Jatrice Martel Gaiter, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, about mandatory vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV):

Perhaps instead of vaccinating young people to prevent a disease transmitted by (promiscuous) sexual relations, or promoting artificial birth control and abortion to alleviate the problem of unwanted pregnancy due to promiscuous sex, Planned Parenthood and the District government should promote abstinence programs, whose main side benefit would be respect for the dignity of young women.

ISABELLE BUCHANAN
Kensington

Maybe nobody told Isabelle, but sperm doesn’t stop to question whether or not you’re ‘promiscuous’ as it’s making its way to the egg. As for HPV, 20 million Americans are infected and the virus doesn’t give a shit whether it’s being passed on through casual sex, intimacy in a long-term relationship, or marital relations.

It’s a moot point anyway, because Planned Parenthood does promote absintence as a 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. However, the organization recognizes that the big disadvantage to Abstinence-Only education is that most people will someday have sex - and without the proper education and willpower, they may be unprepared to protect themselves from STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Outside of Isabelle’s world, there’s no dignity in abstaining early on only to become a human incubator against your will later.

In Tipton County, Tennessee, sex education has been outsourced to a pro-life, privately-funded Christian counseling center. The name of the new abstinence-only program is “Why kNOw,” which pretty much sums up its intentions to not teach anything about sex but how great it is not to have it. Forget that the vast majority of these kids will have sex at some point in their lives; they don’t need to be taught trivial information like how to protect themselves from STDs or unwanted pregnancy - everyone knows that nothing bad like that ever comes from sex when you’re married, and the 95% of Americans who’ve had premarital sex are just dirty whores who deserve what they get.