The government puts rules such as speed limits in place as a preventative measure. But society has forsaken its values and has abandoned all form of rational behaviour in the name of convenience. Bill is right in pointing out that this is not a debate on a bearded woman/man having a child, but rather what this will mean to her/his child growing up. A Norwigian and Swedish report says that same-sex couples have a disporportionatly higher percentage of break ups when comparied to hetrosexual couples. Is this the kind of relationship that we want to put children in? Psychological reports have suggested that same-sex relationships are characteristically unstable and are fundamentally incapable of providing children the security they need. The real issue here is not whether a he should become a she, and vise versa, but what the moral repercussions of such decisions are and how they will affect current and future generations. This is not a matter of a narrow-minded propaganda, but rather the impact that selfish moral decadence is having on society. As quality of life is increasing, our ability as human to live a decent life is decreasing. To me, this is a sad state to be in. I can only hope and pray that society will see where it is heading and change before its too late.

Stephen Herman

The evidence, as I said, is there in abundance as to the harm children experience generally speaking when deprived of a biological mother and father. You choose to ignore that evidence because it evidently conflicts with your libertarian ideology.

And why does concern about this situation imply that I am somehow unconcerned about the homeless? I fail to see the logic in that reckless charge. And why is it a narrow-minded view? Indeed, we know, just as reports have once again confirmed this week, that homelessness is primarily the result of marriage and family breakdown. This website has for years now spoken of the need to strengthen marriage and family, and to resist the many attacks on them.

And like most people, I rely on experts in various areas, including the area of human sexuality. Just what is your professional expertise Steve?

As to diversity, it is exactly because of the ideologues and sexual libertines that the very problems you express concern about exist. By promoting any and every type of sexuality, and by pretending they make no difference to the well-being of society and the interests of children, we are simply getting more social breakdown, family disruption, homelessness, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancies, abortions, broken relationships and ruined lives.

But hey, so what? As long as people are free to do their thing, and indulge in any type of sexuality, who gives a rip about the huge social costs? Who cares about the common good? Tough luck to our children. Moral and sexual anarchists never really care about the harm their worldview causes. As long as they can indulge their lusts and passions, with no restraints and no one telling them what to do, to hell with everyone else.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

While the situation is unusual, it doesn’t bother me because, in the absence of actual evidence that the child is suffering from physical mistreatment or psychological disorder, it is no one else’s business.

Of much greater concern to society should be the many actual homeless children in the world, even in our own country, many of them the product of broken marriages or irresponsible parenting. Such issues rarely get a mention in your narrow-minded view of the world.

As for a “proper understanding of human sexuality”, what would you know about this subject? Do you have any professional qualifications in this area? Your frequent demonising of any relationships outside heterosexual marriage suggests you understand very little about human diversity.

Steve Angelino, WA

My response to Ken was simply a general reflection on his attempt at moral relativism, not a direct discussion of our bearded lady. But you misrepresent my remarks anyway. I never implied anywhere here that one bearded lady spelled the end of Western civilisation. What I did imply was that this is yet one more example of a civilisation in moral freefall. Individually such events will have limited damage and fallout. But collectively – as there is a cumulative effect to all these different attacks on marriage, family and morality – there certainly will be some very real, widespread, and negative consequences.

This particular episode is simply one part of a much bigger assault on such things has the proper understanding of human sexuality, the nature of marriage and family, and the best context for the well-being of children. As I mentioned, how is the child going to cope in such a freak show? But once again, the well-being of children is being overlooked altogether in the interests of political correctness and radical social engineering.

Screwing up the lives of our children and our social institutions means we are screwing up our future. So yes, this is a big deal, and it does have an impact on me and on every one of us. The fact that this episode does not seem to bother you may tell us more about you and where you are coming from than my supposed intolerance or deficiencies in reasoning.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

You have to be kidding in your response to Ken. A bearded lady getting pregnant in Oregon does not pose a threat to you, your family or your property. Your examples justifying intolerance are the same logical category errors that you so often accuse your critics of making.

As for this story being “part of a radical social experiment to achieve a gender neutral society”, again you surely jest. It’s nothing more than an oddball story about a couple who pose no threat to anyone.

Your continual rants about civilisation being doomed might make provocative blog fodder, but they hardly represent considered thought about the reality and impact of human diversity.

Steve Angelino, WA

Your philosophy of live and let live may sound like a nice theory, but I doubt if you – or anyone else – can really live that way. Do you actually just glibly say live and let live when someone is attacking you? Do you say it when a pedophile wants to molest your kids? Do you say it when a rapist attacks your wife? Do you say it when an arsonist tries to burn down your home?

Somehow I don’t think so. So while you try to give an air of tolerance and open-mindedness, I am sure even you have limits. And it is pretty clear that you are intolerant and not very open-minded about my beliefs. So your tolerance is pretty limited. Indeed, your worldview is really quite contradictory, it seems. You try to suggest that any belief and behaviour is as good as another, and should not be judged, but then you judge me for my beliefs and behaviours.

And I am happy to admit fault when I am guilty of such things. But I do not see how in this post I am guilty of anything. It just seems that I am guilty in your eyes, but as I say, being the relativist that you are, you should not be in the business of pronouncing anyone guilty.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Ewan McDonald.