Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

A Modest Proposal (by Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg)

Rob Tisinai

March 12th, 2013

With the Supreme Court case looming, it’s good to get multiple perspectives on marriage, so here’s a guest column from  Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg. It was originally published elsewhere a couple years ago, but it remains relevant today, and he’s kindly granted us permission to reprint it.

A Modest Proposal
by Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg

Children have a right to a mother and a father.

That’s uncontroversial, right?  Any opposite-sex couple, no matter how callous, abusive, or drunken, will make better parents than any same-sex couple.  Protectors of traditional marriage have made this point so often that it must feel truthy by now.

The problem is this:  they don’t go far enough.  If every child has this right, and if parenting is about the needs of the child, not the wishes of the adult, then let’s take the next logical step.  And so, full of courage, I modestly propose the following law:

The federal government will strip widows of their children.

That’s right.  Take them away and give them to women who had enough sense to keep their husbands.  Does this need explanation?  Is it not obvious?  Truthfully, how many of you are smacking your head right now, saying, “D’Oh!  Of course!”  But for those of you who have no respect for the traditional family, let me anticipate your objections.

Why only widows?  Why not divorcees? That’s easy.  A child of divorced parents still has a mother and father.  Even in unbroken homes, the mother and father are often in different rooms — it’s the same for divorced parents, except the rooms are really far apart.  That’s why we focus on making “gay” marriage illegal even as we ourselves are remarrying and remarrying and remarrying.

Why only widows?  Why not widowers? This is a really stupid question, one that only a liberal could ask.  We spit on you, stupid liberals!  But we’ll answer your question.  As our anti-homo colleagues have pointed out, mothers and fathers are different:  two fathers could never raise a child because children need a mother’s nurturing instinct, the kind you see in a mama grizzly or a good retriever bitch.  Obviously, then, a single dad — good lord! — will quickly abandon his kids, dumping them by the side of the road along with the family cat and any dog not used for hunting.   Once the children are safely deposited on a random street corner, we can be sure someone will see to their well-being.  A single mother, though, will cling to her children (that’s how boys become homosexuals).  So we must take them away.

What if the widow promises to remarry? That’s a great question.  It nails the real purpose of the law: Getting those widows to find their kids a dad.  What could better accomplish that than threatening to take their rugrats away?  So we’ll give mom some time to hitch herself back up.  Not too long, though.  The longer a child stays with an unmarried mother, the more likely he is to accept the unnatural as natural.  And become homosexual.

How much time is the right amount of time? A year is too long, obviously.  A week seems hasty.  Let’s say eight weeks.  If that’s long enough for a newborn puppy to be ready for adoption, it’s plenty for kids, too.

What if the government can’t find an opposite-sex couple to take care of the kids? We put them in orphanages.  Anything is better than letting them think their single-parent family is normal.  We ought to make the orphanages as unpleasant as possible, all the better to make the kids long for a mother and father.  We don’t want them to be homosexuals, so we’ll segregate them by gender.  The boys can reinforce each other’s masculinity by competing in sports, and wrestling, and playing snap-towel in the showers.  The girls can sew.

Right now you’re thinking the plan is perfect, but actually it’s not.  This may surprise you, but I’m a feminist (the real kind, not one of those fakes who want unequal genders treated equally).  I know it’s hard for a woman to raise her children and have a job and find a husband.  Who would want such a creature?

We need to make men desperate enough to take her.

This is where the plan turns genius.  It’s part 2 of the law:

The federal government will dissolve childless marriages.

Marriage is about procreation.  That’s it.  There’s no reason to let a marriage stand if it’s not churning out babies.  That goes for the elderly, too.  By dissolving those worthless marriages, we’ll free up men, depriving them of sex, ready to be caught in our widows’ webs.  Hopefully by week 5, so there’s time to plan a proper wedding.  We want this to be a traditional family, after all.

Not only is this plan morally sound, it’s fiscally conservative, too.  By shmushing families together, we’ll eliminate the need for programs like Welfare and Aid to Families with Slacker Children — oops, sorry, let’s be politically correct: dependent children.  This will cut federal spending and open the door to lower taxes and a smaller, less intrusive government.   God, I’m good.  I’m Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg, and I’m here to make the world better.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Priya Lynn
March 12th, 2013 | LINK

The idea isn’t just that children have a right to a mom and dad, its that they have a right to their biological mom and dad. So, divorce has to be made illegal.

AnotherLook
March 12th, 2013 | LINK

No the idea is that its reasonable that each child be educated to know that he has a biological link to a male and to a female.

Rob Tisinai
March 12th, 2013 | LINK

AnotherLook, if you wish to be understood you will need to link your comment more directly to the content of those post or other commenters.

As far I as I can tell, no one has suggesting hiding the basics of reproductive biology from children. Well, except for a number of social conservatives.

AlexH
March 12th, 2013 | LINK

It’s hard to believe that anyone would take this seriously.

Why don’t we just open debtor-prisons again and make those pesky free loading children and widows work?

BTW, where do I send my $240.00 donation for the audio/VHS tape?

Steve
March 12th, 2013 | LINK

At first he thought he was some mutant combination of Peter Sprigg, Matt Barber and Maggie Gallagher

Andrew
March 13th, 2013 | LINK

I think the author misses the boat on dissolving childless marriages.

What he should speak to is dissolving marriages once parents are no longer fertile and their children are no longer minors.

Besides, we wouldn’t need to dissolve anything if people would just step up and allow vaginal and scrotal ultrasounds and other invasive medical testing to determine their fertility up front (besides, that dovetails nicely with vaginal probes for abortions, so it makes total sense).

Regan DuCasse
March 13th, 2013 | LINK

Well, they reiterate ad nauseum the biological impossibility of two men or women making babies.
But believe fully in the biological impossibility of a virgin having a baby.
You can NEVER please these people dammit!

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.