tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post114805348151503233..comments2023-10-18T03:53:59.377-04:00Comments on The Last Debate: Maggie Gallagher's Slippery SlopeAndyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1148247174396938812006-05-21T17:32:00.000-04:002006-05-21T17:32:00.000-04:00But see, then you still have to maintain the blog ...But see, then you still have to maintain the blog ...<BR/><BR/>I wasn't saying they should get a legal exemption (I recognize that is a slippery slope that our legal system is increasingly avoiding--ironic that they are developing an absolute secular morality ;) ), I was just saying you, personally, are unfairly assigning Catholic Charities a viscious opinion when they are trying to be honest and caring, and to make the most moral choice. You don't agree with their moral assumptions, but that doesn't mean they are acting immorally. Since God doesn't directly miraculously change people's minds and thinking, the most moral choice a person can make with the evidence they have is probably not going to the The Right(-est) Choice Possible.<BR/><BR/>Which is, dear sir, why even though I at this time still think homosexual actions are what LC so insistently calls Objective Sin, I don't think that choosing those actions is necessarily always So Sinful as I admit mainstream condemners seem to believe. I expect there is always a better choice to be made--just as you think there is a better choice Catholic Charities could have made.<BR/><BR/>PS I will call your cell again in case the message this morning failed--my whole family is really sick, so you'll see just about everyone except us tonight :(.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1148152690274500532006-05-20T15:18:00.000-04:002006-05-20T15:18:00.000-04:00I have nothing really to add to these posts, as us...I have nothing really to add to these posts, as usual with your gay oriented commentary.<BR/><BR/>I am neither gay nor Catholic, both being as foreign to me as as a rational thought to a feminazi at a "Kill all men" rally. If the Church is such a pain in your ass then why don't you switch to a denomination that is more gay friendly like the ones Jarred spoke of?<BR/><BR/>My wife is Catholic, although she uses the term "non-practicing" like the Catholic Church doesn't mind if you don't come to church for years at a time or only attend on significant holidays- once a Catholic, always a Catholic? She has her own views on the Church and their rules, the Pope, etc. and they way she explains it I can see why she is non-practicing and why she wants to join me at a Southern Baptist church.<BR/><BR/>Hope you had a good vacation. As a sea-locked denizen of this island, beach is all around and the parts that aren't tainted with raw sewage from a dilapdated, outdated, and poorly maintained infrastructure are actually really relaxing.Trickish Knavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01696133416274723867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1148140866729249172006-05-20T12:01:00.000-04:002006-05-20T12:01:00.000-04:00KR, I've actually been writing this post for a wee...KR, I've actually been writing this post for a week and finally finished it yesterday morning during a momentary lull at work before I left for the airport. <BR/><BR/>I didn't want to go off without writing a controversial post, for fear that Little Cicero would have nothing to do.<BR/><BR/>As for the meat of your comment, I do understand, because at first my reaction to this article was, hey, wait, this is wrong, of what value is the right to "free exercise" if in fact the government can restrain you from acting in accordance with your beliefs? To me, it's very much like when conservatives say gay people DO have the right to marry, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. "Our" response is, of what value is the right to marry (and, for the record, the Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to marry) if that precludes the partner of your choice?<BR/><BR/>So I do completely understand your objection. But it's a little bit like, which came first, the bigot or the Catholic? It's the Catholics (and others) who are trying to argue that same-sex parents are by definition inferior to heterosexual ones. The courts can't accept moral prejudice as basis for law (see <I>Lawrence v. Texas</I>), and since people on the conservative side of this issue have nothing else to offer, they have no legal standing.<BR/><BR/>And this doesn't address the very valid slippery slope argument. If the government can recognize a Catholic's "alternative moral assessment" of gay people and offer exemptions on that basis, what other discrimination statutes might fall because of "alternative moral assessments"?Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1148109011407984022006-05-20T03:10:00.000-04:002006-05-20T03:10:00.000-04:00PS You should have taken a real vacation, and not ...PS You should have taken a real vacation, and not blogged, you goofball.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1148108203733537532006-05-20T02:56:00.000-04:002006-05-20T02:56:00.000-04:00I was pretty mad back when the ruling came down ag...I was pretty mad back when the ruling came down against the Indians on the controlled substances question--not even realizing that my Church had a countervailing favorable ruling in precedent. Now it's even stupider.<BR/><BR/>"as in the case of Catholic Charities, they value their First Amendment right to discriminatory beliefs more than the needs of children." I love you, but this is bigotted. From strict Catholic understanding, giving children to gay couples encourages those couples to consider themselves morally OK (which the Church considers them not to be--oh please anyone who wasn't here 3/9 go read that string instead of jumping on me now) and would also put the children into a situation where they would learn that an "objectively immoral" set of assumptions and activities is "just fine." It would not, from Catholic Charities' point of view, serve "the needs of children" to place them in such households, and while their current situations (foster care etc.) might also not "serve their needs," at least they are subject to change--after an adoption, not so much. Being directly responsible for encouraging others to something one considers a sin? Not morally justifiable ... surely even though we disagree on the particular crux of this action you can see that they are trying to make the most moral choice they see.<BR/><BR/>They perceive the needs of the children very differently than you (and, yes, a great many others), and in their eyes they are serving them the best they know how.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1148072029378604822006-05-19T16:53:00.000-04:002006-05-19T16:53:00.000-04:00Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Obviously, I need to ...Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Obviously, I need to work on staying better informed. ;)Jarredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04793668797961461325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1148071869297626622006-05-19T16:51:00.000-04:002006-05-19T16:51:00.000-04:00Her article is not as rabidly written as it might ...Her article is not as rabidly written as it might have been coming from some other conservatives. That's what threw me at first, thinking maybe this was a fairly objective piece. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized how shallow her argument is.<BR/><BR/>Though she is President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, it's not really gay marriage that she fears in this article, as evidenced by this sentence: <I>Once sexual orientation is conceptualized as a protected legal status on par with race, traditional religions that condemn homosexual conduct will face increasing legal pressure regardless of what courts do about marriage itself.</I><BR/><BR/>She wants a carte blanche religious exemption for sexual orientation discrimination.<BR/><BR/>Her article was not really focused on adoption so much as saying, "Here's one unforeseen consequence of legal protection for gay people." Unforeseen? That organizations will have to comply with the law or face consequences? She frames it as if it's this major impending First Amendment crisis, that among other things adoption agencies will start going out of business. If they do, it will only be because, as in the case of Catholic Charities, they value their First Amendment right to discriminatory beliefs more than the needs of children.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1148071068316188892006-05-19T16:37:00.000-04:002006-05-19T16:37:00.000-04:00Does Gallagher make this about homosexuality or th...Does Gallagher make this about homosexuality or the definition of marriage?<BR/><BR/>Is she against civil unions?<BR/><BR/>Also, does she actually stress bans on gay adoption or just heterosexual priority based on the simple concept that every child has a right to a mother and a father?<BR/><BR/>I'm going to try and make my arguments as relevant and original as possible upon reading your answers. Wish me luck!tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01197709180292694356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1148069263887647272006-05-19T16:07:00.000-04:002006-05-19T16:07:00.000-04:00Yes, and in fact that argument has already been ad...Yes, and in fact that argument has already been advanced. A coalition of clergy and organizations from various faiths in New Jersey wrote an <A HREF="http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-data/LAMBDA_PDF/pdf/559.pdf" REL="nofollow">amicus brief</A> to the state Supreme Court in support of legalization of same marriage making exactly that point: legalization doesn't inhibit free exercise, it enhances it.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1148068673065193952006-05-19T15:57:00.000-04:002006-05-19T15:57:00.000-04:00Well said, Andy.Of course, it also amazes me how m...Well said, Andy.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it also amazes me how many people stop to consider that the "religious discrimination" argument is a double-edged sword when it comes to gay marriages. After all, there are several religious instutitions (the MCC, UUA, and COG come to mind most readily) who believe in same-sex marriages and wish to perform such legally binding ceremonies for same-sex couples. Could not one as easily argue that trying to prevent them from doing so is a form "religious discrimination" as well?Jarredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04793668797961461325noreply@blogger.com