Slog
News & ArtsThursday, December 29, 2011
Religion / LGBTQITSLFA Let's Play Let's Pretend
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Let's pretend that I got together with some of my Catholic friends—let's also say that I had returned to the Mother Church myself after suffering a blow to the head—and let's say my friends and I started a charity that placed children in the homes of qualified foster parents and oversaw adoptions. Now let's pretend that our charity refused to place children in the homes of Jews—or Muslims or Hindus or atheists or Lutherans or members of Mars Hill Church—because, according to our sincerely held religious beliefs, Jews and Muslims and Hindus and atheists and Lutherans and members of Mars Hill Church go to hell. Since only Catholics go to heaven, placing children in homes where they would be raised as Jews or Muslims or Hindus or atheists or Lutherans or members of Mars Hill Church would essentially mean that we were condemning children to hell!
This would could not in conscience do! Sincerely held religious beliefs and like that! So no kids for Jews, sorry, and you can fuck off too, Lutherans, atheists, etc.
Now how many government contracts do you suppose our charity would be awarded per annum? Um, none. And how seriously would people take our claims that by refusing to shower us with public money the government was trampling on our religious freedom? Not at all.
Catholic Charities and the Catholic Church are free to discriminate against anyone they wish... but not on the public dime. And while Catholic Charities and the Catholic Church are free to discriminate against anyone they wish, it seems they only wish to discriminate against gays and lesbians. (And they're willing to harm children in the process.) Now maybe it would never occur to the Catholic Church to discriminate against other groups of people (Jews, Muslims, atheists, Lutherans, etc.)... or maybe the Church realizes that it couldn't get away with discriminating against other groups of people (ding! ding! ding!). Either way, what the Catholic Church is demanding here is a "special right" to discriminate against gays and lesbians while spending $2.9 billion in public money every year.
And this is not a right to which they are entitled.
1
Excellently written and right to the point. If only the people who need to would actually read it and listen.
3
LOL! But they have their special right to discriminate. We gays are threatening to infringe on their specialness.
4
I hadn't thought about where they would place adoptees and foster kids, but now that it's been brought up, I guess I would be surprised if they did place them with non-Catholics--or at least non-Christians. So do they actually do this?
5
This is the part that bothers me the most. You can't discriminate against people and then claim you are being discriminated against when you don't get rewarded for your discriminatory policies. Can't have it both ways.
Fine, hold true to your hateful and bigoted beliefs, but don't expect support and don't whine that you're a victim when you don't get it.
Fine, hold true to your hateful and bigoted beliefs, but don't expect support and don't whine that you're a victim when you don't get it.
6
Even describing it as a "right" goes too far. As a registered non-profit, they are certainly "eligible" to receive government funding for certain types of services, but only so long as the agree to abide by the rules put in place by the grantor. If they don't want to adhere to those rules, they're free to make that choice, but by the same token the granting agency is under no obligation whatsoever to give them money if they don't.
7
@2 - I wouldn't necessarily say better, though he definitely said it well and pithily. I might have to print up some "The time for reasoning with these gown-wearing boy-fuckers is long past." t-shirts.
8
It should be clear to anyone who can see the reason this church has been behind so many crimes against humanity.
9
From Catholic Charities of Illinois' brochure:
We welcome prospective parents of all religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds who have a financially secure and stable family life.
http://www.catholiccharities.net/www/pdf…
We welcome prospective parents of all religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds who have a financially secure and stable family life.
http://www.catholiccharities.net/www/pdf…
10
How hard is this? Really, how hard is reality for liberals? You folks just kind of stumble around it, get hints of it here and there, and then run off on some weird tangent every time.
The Catholic Church stopped taking public money to run this charity, and stopped the charity since new rules made it morally impossible for them to do either. All of your problems answered, Savage and Constant. Now will you please stop the whining?
@7
And someone on that post answered it even more cogently. "Who then will run The Stranger?"
The Catholic Church stopped taking public money to run this charity, and stopped the charity since new rules made it morally impossible for them to do either. All of your problems answered, Savage and Constant. Now will you please stop the whining?
@7
And someone on that post answered it even more cogently. "Who then will run The Stranger?"
11
'course, even if they aren't taking money directly, their tax-exempt status means they're still discriminating on the public dime.
12
I totally get this. Personally, I discriminate against people who associate themselves with organizations that systematically abuse children, protect and enable those that commit the greatest abuse, that consort with dictators engaged in mass genocide, that place women beneath men, and who refuse to promote policies and practices that would enable third-world adherents from finding themselves with families the size of a high school lacrosse team. But then I don't demand that the public fund my hatred.
13
@10, Great! It's really best for children if priests aren't in charge of distributing orphans anyway. They always keep all the best kids for themselves.
It's clearly in the best interest of children to get them away from the Catholic Church so I 100% support their decision to get out of the adoption game. I just think it's telling that they would rather fuck over kids (figuratively this time) than follow the law in their adoption practices. Of course, they could just raise the funds themselves and provide the services to whoever they choose. But they'd rather charge discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate while sucking off the government teat.
It's clearly in the best interest of children to get them away from the Catholic Church so I 100% support their decision to get out of the adoption game. I just think it's telling that they would rather fuck over kids (figuratively this time) than follow the law in their adoption practices. Of course, they could just raise the funds themselves and provide the services to whoever they choose. But they'd rather charge discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate while sucking off the government teat.
14
The Catholic Church discriminates against all women of possible child-bearing age, not just gays and lesbians, viz their refusal to allow any birth control to be prescribed by Catholic hospital doctors or to allow abortions in their hospitals.
15
Luv you and agree with your point, Dan, but you've got your doctrine wrong. Catholics believe that all people of faith are saved (including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc), not just the Catholics.
16
@10: The issue is that they are claiming to be put-upon by this dilemma. They want to take taxpayer money, but they don't want the taxpayers to have any say in how they spend it.
The issue is also that the Catholic charities would rather see children go uncared for than in the homes of people who are gay.
The issue is also that the Catholic charities would rather see children go uncared for than in the homes of people who are gay.
18
Let's be realistic. If an adoption/foster care agency did discriminate against atheists, most of the country wouldn't care.
19
I am telling you, between gay-married to god Catholic priests and heteroseually married coaches of sports teams, a child just ain't safe no more.
wait, I forgot heterosexually married non-married to god pastors too.
wait, I forgot heterosexually married non-married to god pastors too.
20
Hm, I believe all temples, churches, synagogues, mosques, whatever cult, religion discriminates. Get over it and open your own charity then Dan, the reality of shit is shocking.
21
@16
It's the state of Illinois that doesn't care about kids. Illinois has around 13 million people as of the 2010 Census. Assuming about 400,000, or 3%, of these are gay and that one quarter of those wish to adopt, the state put 100,000 of their 13 million population, people who chose their status, above the helpless kids in the foster or adoptive system who made no such choice. Good job Illinois!
Yet I hear not one peep about that from the 'gays are citizens with more rights than others' brigade. Interesting.
It's the state of Illinois that doesn't care about kids. Illinois has around 13 million people as of the 2010 Census. Assuming about 400,000, or 3%, of these are gay and that one quarter of those wish to adopt, the state put 100,000 of their 13 million population, people who chose their status, above the helpless kids in the foster or adoptive system who made no such choice. Good job Illinois!
Yet I hear not one peep about that from the 'gays are citizens with more rights than others' brigade. Interesting.
22
My apologies. Those numbers were incorrect. Nearly a quarter of Illinois citizens were under 18 in that census. Being minors unable to make adult sexual decisions by definition, including them in the figures of potentially gay citizens was an error.
Therefore, Illinois put the interests of 60,000 or 70,000 citizens who chose homosexuality above the welfare of kids in the foster care system.
Therefore, Illinois put the interests of 60,000 or 70,000 citizens who chose homosexuality above the welfare of kids in the foster care system.
23
The hypothetical government funded organization you describe is actually how we do things where I come from:
http://ccas.toronto.on.ca/search.php
http://ccas.toronto.on.ca/search.php
24
@ 22, I love reading your twisted logic. The entertainment quotient is better than that of any Hollywood movie.
25
@22: I'm so glad so see someone honestly argue that the civil rights of minorities depend upon their percentage of the population. You have finally laid bare the assumptions underlying attacks on gays and lesbians: "They're only 3% of the population, so fuck 'em."
FINALLY. THE TRUTH EMERGES. Straight people who have been married multiple times, dumped spouses and children, no problem. They're such a large percentage of the population that we dare not discriminate against them. Fags? Dykes? Fuck' em.
Again, THANK YOU for transparently making the argument that disregarding he rights of law-abiding, moral, taxpaying, upstanding citizens is JUST FINE so long as they're only 3% of the population.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, you bigoted fuck.
FINALLY. THE TRUTH EMERGES. Straight people who have been married multiple times, dumped spouses and children, no problem. They're such a large percentage of the population that we dare not discriminate against them. Fags? Dykes? Fuck' em.
Again, THANK YOU for transparently making the argument that disregarding he rights of law-abiding, moral, taxpaying, upstanding citizens is JUST FINE so long as they're only 3% of the population.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, you bigoted fuck.
26
#22, I don't understand...
It's interesting that Catholics, and others, will say that homosexuals DO have the right to marry...those of the opposite gender. Which means that their rights to marry are NOT impinged upon, they just have to marry opposite gender folks.
So, Catholic Charities DOES have the right to place children, except they don't get paid by the state to do that.
The Catholic Church in Illinois is complaining that Teh Gays are impeding their religious rights by A) wanting to parade by a Catholic Church on a Sunday (a change the parade folks agreed to, but not in a timely manner according to the Diocese of Chicago) and B) by getting Illinois to deny the Church state funding because they will not place children with openly gay families.
The State of Illinois has "granted" gay partnership rights, which are nearly, close to, almost married rights, which means that they should be able to adopt according to state laws. The Catholic Church refused to place children with gay families, and so the State will not fund them FOR THIS SERVICE (they are funded for other services, by the way). So this impedes on their religious expression.
Except no one is telling them that they can't believe what they believe, only that they cannot get compensated by state tax dollars to practice their bigotry as it applies to adoption and foster parent laws.
Their property and income tax exemptions are not removed, they just won't be able to discriminate in their publicly funded works. That's it.
I don't know that many in Illinois are getting their backs up for this issue.
Oh, by the way: big story in national news is Ireland pardoning amnesty to 10% of soliders who "deserted" the Irish Army to fight in WWII, which the Irish Army had officially declined to participate in. Those nearly 5,000 men fought to free prisoners of war and to protect Western Europe, which included Ireland according to them, against Fascism; their reward was governmental and church-sanctioned torture of them and their families. The children of those returning soldiers were frequently taken away from them and placed in orphanages run by the Church that everyone now knows were hell-holes unto themselves, those children specifically targeted, apparently. Where is the Catholic Church's rage here, hunh? Anyone, anyone?
More...
It's interesting that Catholics, and others, will say that homosexuals DO have the right to marry...those of the opposite gender. Which means that their rights to marry are NOT impinged upon, they just have to marry opposite gender folks.
So, Catholic Charities DOES have the right to place children, except they don't get paid by the state to do that.
The Catholic Church in Illinois is complaining that Teh Gays are impeding their religious rights by A) wanting to parade by a Catholic Church on a Sunday (a change the parade folks agreed to, but not in a timely manner according to the Diocese of Chicago) and B) by getting Illinois to deny the Church state funding because they will not place children with openly gay families.
The State of Illinois has "granted" gay partnership rights, which are nearly, close to, almost married rights, which means that they should be able to adopt according to state laws. The Catholic Church refused to place children with gay families, and so the State will not fund them FOR THIS SERVICE (they are funded for other services, by the way). So this impedes on their religious expression.
Except no one is telling them that they can't believe what they believe, only that they cannot get compensated by state tax dollars to practice their bigotry as it applies to adoption and foster parent laws.
Their property and income tax exemptions are not removed, they just won't be able to discriminate in their publicly funded works. That's it.
I don't know that many in Illinois are getting their backs up for this issue.
Oh, by the way: big story in national news is Ireland pardoning amnesty to 10% of soliders who "deserted" the Irish Army to fight in WWII, which the Irish Army had officially declined to participate in. Those nearly 5,000 men fought to free prisoners of war and to protect Western Europe, which included Ireland according to them, against Fascism; their reward was governmental and church-sanctioned torture of them and their families. The children of those returning soldiers were frequently taken away from them and placed in orphanages run by the Church that everyone now knows were hell-holes unto themselves, those children specifically targeted, apparently. Where is the Catholic Church's rage here, hunh? Anyone, anyone?
27
@21, 22: I don't even know where to begin.
My home state of Illinois requires adoption agencies accepting state funds to consider same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples as adoptive parents. Considering the current dearth of persons willing to adopt, this policy is clearly in the best interests of children.
I might also remind you that the current sum of the evidence indicates that sexual orientation is innate, not chosen. I have reminded you of this many, many times, and yet you continue to insist that the evidence is invalid.
Finally, I challenge you to name one right, one measly single right, that homosexuals have but that heterosexuals do not. Remember, hate crime legislation protects EVERYONE equally.
My home state of Illinois requires adoption agencies accepting state funds to consider same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples as adoptive parents. Considering the current dearth of persons willing to adopt, this policy is clearly in the best interests of children.
I might also remind you that the current sum of the evidence indicates that sexual orientation is innate, not chosen. I have reminded you of this many, many times, and yet you continue to insist that the evidence is invalid.
Finally, I challenge you to name one right, one measly single right, that homosexuals have but that heterosexuals do not. Remember, hate crime legislation protects EVERYONE equally.
29
@27: Not innate NOR chosen: the current evidence strongly suggests that sexualities are the result of a confluence of different factors including genetics, physical environment, social/cultural context, and personal history. The fact that it's possible to alter some of these is not the same thing as the person in question having the ability to choose them. "Choice" and essentialism are not the only two possibilities. Were sexuality actually 'innate' (dependent on genetics and early physical environment only), 100% of identical twins (same genetics, same physical environment) would have identical sexualities, but they don't (though they are more likely to have similar sexualities than dizygotic twins, indicating (a) genetic factor(s) that is/are neither necessary nor sufficient for but contributory to the development of various sexualities). Social environment and personal history play roles (this is obvious once realizes that the categorization of people as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" is not universal across history or cultures - one can only have "gay" or "straight" people if one's culture has some conception of "gay" or "straight" people; likewise, one can only have leather fetishism in a culture that has leather, etc.) in the development of sexualities, but a child is not free to choose hir social environment nor the events in hir life. And, of course, I agree that Seattleblues is an idiot who consistently refuses to engage in reality-based thinking.
30
@27 VM,
With all due respect, I'm not so sure sexual orientation is innate or chosen. I have not reviewed the "sum" of the evidence. It would be a gargantuan task to do so and I probably wouldn't come to conclusions anyway. It's been mentioned but terms like "gay & "straight" do have a cultural basis.
As for Catholic Charities, as long as they don't accept public or taxpayer money, they are free to provide or not to provide whatever services they stipulate. That goes with out saying.
With all due respect, I'm not so sure sexual orientation is innate or chosen. I have not reviewed the "sum" of the evidence. It would be a gargantuan task to do so and I probably wouldn't come to conclusions anyway. It's been mentioned but terms like "gay & "straight" do have a cultural basis.
As for Catholic Charities, as long as they don't accept public or taxpayer money, they are free to provide or not to provide whatever services they stipulate. That goes with out saying.
31
@29: Just because not all monozygotic twins share the same sexual orientation doesn't mean that it's not innate. A highly complex system such as the embryonic brain can be affected by small-scale fluctuations in hormonal levels or similar.
Also, there are some pretty substantial physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals as far as the amygdala goes (source). To wit, lesbians have masculinized brain structure and gay men have feminized brain structure at certain loci. Remember that the amygdala is responsible for certain aspects of emotions.
Also, there are some pretty substantial physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals as far as the amygdala goes (source). To wit, lesbians have masculinized brain structure and gay men have feminized brain structure at certain loci. Remember that the amygdala is responsible for certain aspects of emotions.
32
@25
We have certain rights we'd grant one citizen among the lot of us, as they are Constitutional gaurantees. Free expression of religion, or speech or basic criminal civil rights for example would apply in this way.
But living in a society implies obligations too. Or do you only mouth that sentiment as a weak justification for using tax code to steal hard earned money from productive citizens to give it to layabouts?
Regardless, adults understand that while we can and should be able to choose our sexual expressions such choices place not a single solitary obligation on others to enable our choices in legal codes or social practices, or even just to condone them.
Want to choose sexual expression that only gratifies itself with same sex partners? Your choice and I'd never dream of stopping you. Want others to let you alter marriage, adoption, protection from offense and hurt feelings and all the other things gays want? Yeah, society has a right to contest that one.
We have certain rights we'd grant one citizen among the lot of us, as they are Constitutional gaurantees. Free expression of religion, or speech or basic criminal civil rights for example would apply in this way.
But living in a society implies obligations too. Or do you only mouth that sentiment as a weak justification for using tax code to steal hard earned money from productive citizens to give it to layabouts?
Regardless, adults understand that while we can and should be able to choose our sexual expressions such choices place not a single solitary obligation on others to enable our choices in legal codes or social practices, or even just to condone them.
Want to choose sexual expression that only gratifies itself with same sex partners? Your choice and I'd never dream of stopping you. Want others to let you alter marriage, adoption, protection from offense and hurt feelings and all the other things gays want? Yeah, society has a right to contest that one.
33
@30 Sure, as long as they're willing to forgo tax-exempt status. Then again, if they are keeping children in institutions in lieu of adopting them to otherwise eligible same-sex couples, then no, they're not free to do whatever they want, because the children's welfare trumps their right to discriminate.
As for whether sexual orientation is a choice or not, who gives a shit if it's a choice or not?
As for whether sexual orientation is a choice or not, who gives a shit if it's a choice or not?
34
@27
Clearly in the best interests of children? That's an opinion, to which you and the officials who wrote the policy are welcome in private. Risking kids on an unknown as a matter of public policy is however something else entirely.
But it doesn't matter. What I wrote was that the Catholic charity doesn't think it is in the childs interest to be placed with a gay couple, and they put their money where their mouth is. They stopped accepting state funds. So what again is Constant getting his panties in a bunch over?
I don't agree about the sum of evidence. A lot of self serving studies and so on have 'proven' that gay men or lesbians want to engage in gay or lesbian sex. Nice anecdotal evidence there, but not much in the way of a smoking genetic gun, old buddy.
Hate crime is the protection of the feelings of one class from the abuse of another. While laudable in sentiment, it's discriminatory as practiced by the criminal justice system.
Apart from that, Savage and his ilk want their vote to outweigh 97% of their fellow citizens on matters like marriage and adoption. Why? Because they were born black or Chinese or female, some attribute immutable in their make-up? Of course not! They just don't like the consequences of the sexual choices they made so they want everyone else to change societal rules just for them. It would be cute in a 4 year old, even though still needing trained out of them. In adult men and women it's simply pathetic.
Clearly in the best interests of children? That's an opinion, to which you and the officials who wrote the policy are welcome in private. Risking kids on an unknown as a matter of public policy is however something else entirely.
But it doesn't matter. What I wrote was that the Catholic charity doesn't think it is in the childs interest to be placed with a gay couple, and they put their money where their mouth is. They stopped accepting state funds. So what again is Constant getting his panties in a bunch over?
I don't agree about the sum of evidence. A lot of self serving studies and so on have 'proven' that gay men or lesbians want to engage in gay or lesbian sex. Nice anecdotal evidence there, but not much in the way of a smoking genetic gun, old buddy.
Hate crime is the protection of the feelings of one class from the abuse of another. While laudable in sentiment, it's discriminatory as practiced by the criminal justice system.
Apart from that, Savage and his ilk want their vote to outweigh 97% of their fellow citizens on matters like marriage and adoption. Why? Because they were born black or Chinese or female, some attribute immutable in their make-up? Of course not! They just don't like the consequences of the sexual choices they made so they want everyone else to change societal rules just for them. It would be cute in a 4 year old, even though still needing trained out of them. In adult men and women it's simply pathetic.
35
Sorry about the 'panties in bunch' comment. It gets used hyperbolically with guys on jobsites a lot who don't, you know, wear panties. Since Constant probably does have daily experience of panty bunching I shouldn't have raised this sensitive topic for him. My apologies.
36
@ 34, "What I wrote was that the Catholic charity doesn't think it is in the childs interest to be placed with a gay couple, and they put their money where their mouth is."
No, they shut down. If they simply went fully private instead of deliberately placing the families they approve of in jeopardy, it wouldn't show their hate and spite so clearly.
No, they shut down. If they simply went fully private instead of deliberately placing the families they approve of in jeopardy, it wouldn't show their hate and spite so clearly.
37
Whoops, my SB quote was supposed to include the next sentence: "They stopped accepting state funds."
38
#6,
Actually, under federal statute, if the granting agency is part of the federal government, they are under a statutory obligation NOT to fund organizations that discriminate.
Actually, under federal statute, if the granting agency is part of the federal government, they are under a statutory obligation NOT to fund organizations that discriminate.
39
#34,
You talk about things we know as if they are "unknown" just because you don't like the results of studies conducted on the subject. Many studies have been conducted which have concluded that being raised by same-sex adoptive/foster parents is not harmful to children, at least not anymore harmful than placing them with heterosexual couples. Obviously, any time anyone places a child with someone, they are gambling with the child's life. They could not possibly know how that child is going to turn out. But the criteria they use to determine where to place a child should be based on research, not on 2000 year old dogma.
You have it all backwards. If an organization like Catholic Charities is going to discriminate against a group of people, then they must demonstrate why it is in the public good. It is not up to me as a gay man to justify why I deserve to be treated equally.
Your argument about "gambling" with children by placing them with same-sex couple could also be used to discriminate against interracial couples, interfaith couples and atheist couples, since such pairings are outside the historical norm.
You talk about things we know as if they are "unknown" just because you don't like the results of studies conducted on the subject. Many studies have been conducted which have concluded that being raised by same-sex adoptive/foster parents is not harmful to children, at least not anymore harmful than placing them with heterosexual couples. Obviously, any time anyone places a child with someone, they are gambling with the child's life. They could not possibly know how that child is going to turn out. But the criteria they use to determine where to place a child should be based on research, not on 2000 year old dogma.
You have it all backwards. If an organization like Catholic Charities is going to discriminate against a group of people, then they must demonstrate why it is in the public good. It is not up to me as a gay man to justify why I deserve to be treated equally.
Your argument about "gambling" with children by placing them with same-sex couple could also be used to discriminate against interracial couples, interfaith couples and atheist couples, since such pairings are outside the historical norm.
40
@39
Any study conducted is recent and involves statistically insignificant numbers of individuals . This is demonstrably true since gay adoption is very recent and involves very small numbers of people adopting or being adopted. Get back to me in a generation or so when the full effects can be measured over a statistically significant number of people and over a lifetime. Otherwise all such studies are propaganda pieces for or against gay 'families' without any redeeming academic value.
We have the explicit right to free expression of religion in this country. We have the right not to have what we don't choose, like race or gender, held against or for us in hiring or housing or state policies by Constitutional Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
Please show me where we have the right to have our sexual choices protected under discrimination statutes in the federal or state constitutions. I'll save you time. You can't. We're entitled to pursue happiness. Whether we catch it or not and how much it costs is our problem as individuals.
And yes, having made your lifestyle choice, it is entirely up to you to demonstrate why you deserve legal protection from the consequences of that choice. No-one is telling you how to live your life. Kindly stop tellling others how to do so in law.
Any study conducted is recent and involves statistically insignificant numbers of individuals . This is demonstrably true since gay adoption is very recent and involves very small numbers of people adopting or being adopted. Get back to me in a generation or so when the full effects can be measured over a statistically significant number of people and over a lifetime. Otherwise all such studies are propaganda pieces for or against gay 'families' without any redeeming academic value.
We have the explicit right to free expression of religion in this country. We have the right not to have what we don't choose, like race or gender, held against or for us in hiring or housing or state policies by Constitutional Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
Please show me where we have the right to have our sexual choices protected under discrimination statutes in the federal or state constitutions. I'll save you time. You can't. We're entitled to pursue happiness. Whether we catch it or not and how much it costs is our problem as individuals.
And yes, having made your lifestyle choice, it is entirely up to you to demonstrate why you deserve legal protection from the consequences of that choice. No-one is telling you how to live your life. Kindly stop tellling others how to do so in law.
41
@34: Constant's issue with the situation is that the Catholic charities are claiming to have been slighted, to be somehow put-upon by what you yourself state is a fair arrangement.
And as far as unknown quantities go, a proper null hypothesis ALWAYS assumes that the treatment has no effect in comparison to the null. In this case, the treatment would be the effect of being parented by a gay couple as opposed to being parented by a straight couple. Unless there is evidence suggesting otherwise, it is IRRESPONSIBLE AND ILLOGICAL to assume that being parented by gays is somehow superior or inferior to being parented by straights.
@40: Again, until we have studies performed on statistically significant samples, we cannot reject the null hypothesis, which is that gay parenting is equivalent to straight parenting. For now, we must accept the null hypothesis.
You have yet to present any evidence that sexual orientation is chosen. I have presented several studies indicating that it is innate. Therefore, in the absence of additional evidence, we shall presume that sexual orientation is NOT chosen, but rather is innate. I'm sure you'll understand.
And as far as Constitutional rights go, please show me where in the Constitution of the United States women and men are guaranteed equal rights and protections OTHER than the right to vote. I'll save you time. You can't. Instead, such rights are protected FOR ALL GROUPS under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Again I challenge you to list one right that homosexuals have (or that the gay rights movement has claimed for them) but that heterosexuals do not. You're no scientist, Seattleblues, no scholar, no statistician, and no gentleman.
And as far as unknown quantities go, a proper null hypothesis ALWAYS assumes that the treatment has no effect in comparison to the null. In this case, the treatment would be the effect of being parented by a gay couple as opposed to being parented by a straight couple. Unless there is evidence suggesting otherwise, it is IRRESPONSIBLE AND ILLOGICAL to assume that being parented by gays is somehow superior or inferior to being parented by straights.
@40: Again, until we have studies performed on statistically significant samples, we cannot reject the null hypothesis, which is that gay parenting is equivalent to straight parenting. For now, we must accept the null hypothesis.
You have yet to present any evidence that sexual orientation is chosen. I have presented several studies indicating that it is innate. Therefore, in the absence of additional evidence, we shall presume that sexual orientation is NOT chosen, but rather is innate. I'm sure you'll understand.
And as far as Constitutional rights go, please show me where in the Constitution of the United States women and men are guaranteed equal rights and protections OTHER than the right to vote. I'll save you time. You can't. Instead, such rights are protected FOR ALL GROUPS under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Again I challenge you to list one right that homosexuals have (or that the gay rights movement has claimed for them) but that heterosexuals do not. You're no scientist, Seattleblues, no scholar, no statistician, and no gentleman.
43
But Seattleblues (who wrote: Want others to let you alter marriage, adoption, protection from offense and hurt feelings and all the other things gays want? Yeah, society has a right to contest that one.),
the whole argument against your position is that society is slowly changing towards accepting this re-definition. More and more, as the stats go, the society you're talking about is disagreeing with your position, and people like you are slowly becoming a minority.
So, following your own logics, shouldn't you let society do what it increasingly is showing it wants to do?
Remember: it won't be the first redefinition of an institution in history, nor will it be the last. As always, it will be the result of society realizing a certain institution doesn't work, or is unfair.
You're entitled to your own opinions, of course, but as you yourself said you shouldn't try to force them on a society that increasingly disagrees with them.
the whole argument against your position is that society is slowly changing towards accepting this re-definition. More and more, as the stats go, the society you're talking about is disagreeing with your position, and people like you are slowly becoming a minority.
So, following your own logics, shouldn't you let society do what it increasingly is showing it wants to do?
Remember: it won't be the first redefinition of an institution in history, nor will it be the last. As always, it will be the result of society realizing a certain institution doesn't work, or is unfair.
You're entitled to your own opinions, of course, but as you yourself said you shouldn't try to force them on a society that increasingly disagrees with them.
44
SB, I realize you're probably not going to answer to anything I said -- if you do answer at all, it will be to say something unrelated that will basically just express your emotions, but not contain any new real data, or counterarguments, or anything that actually takes into account what I said (and how could you, in fact?).
But still, doesn't it make you feel in the least bad to see how easy it is to counter your points, and how you have to contort yourself into topologically unexplored knots just to appear to be reacting to people and participating into a dialogue without having to acknowledge and treat fairly or decently anything anybody else here says? I mean, that's not what Jesus would do.
But still, doesn't it make you feel in the least bad to see how easy it is to counter your points, and how you have to contort yourself into topologically unexplored knots just to appear to be reacting to people and participating into a dialogue without having to acknowledge and treat fairly or decently anything anybody else here says? I mean, that's not what Jesus would do.
45
Oh, by the way -- a happy new 2012 to everybody! :-) (Fireworks are starting here, so we're going out to watch them. By-bye!)
46
What a ridiculous hypothetical.
As if a sane society would let the Catholic Church have anything to do with children.
As if a sane society would let the Catholic Church have anything to do with children.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (46) RSS