NONE OF THIS IS NORMAL
This thoughtful Slate article co-written by one of my former law school professors put me in the mind of this video. I guess Scalia was right for a change!
Professor Eskridge is a chief contributor to the nonsense of same-sex marriage. His false histories on the treatment of homosexuality are used by those who want to undo the traditional approach to this particular deviancy. Much as I love him he is a far left radical on these issues and any feint he makes in the direction of sanity is merely boiling the frog. Scalia has so far been proved right in every particular. Of course, homosexuals can marry in every state in the nation. It is the alteration of what marriage is that they desire. I am reminded of Lincoln's comment that if you called a dog's tail a leg how many legs would it have. The answer is four, it doesn't matter what you call it remains a four legged animal.If toleration is so great why don't liberals practice it? I'll believe this is about tolerance when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts can run an adoption agency that doesn't have to hand kids over to households of two men.
The Archdiocese of Boston voluntarily chose to leave the adoption business in 2006. No one told them that they could not do so, and keep their principles intact (of course, one wonders what the principles of that particular diocese really are, particularly as they relate to child molestation by priests -- maybe we should go to Rome and ask Cardinal Law).It is simply not discrimination nor intolerant to say "you can play in our game, but if you play, you must abide by our rules." If I want to play baseball, I can't say "I'm going to run the bases backwards," and when the umpire doesn't let me, cry that the umpire is intolerant and refuse to play. In fact, if I was a child and engaged in such behavior, I presume that my parents would tell me to quit throwing a tantrum and get in the game.Similarly, adoption in Massachusetts is run pursuant to state contracts. With state contracts come certain rules, like that one cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Catholic Charities would not play by those rules, and so they just refused to play. That isn't lack of toleration on the part of liberals -- it is simply adherance to the rules. Any time that the Archdiocese wants to agree to play by those rules and get back in the game, I'm sure that it would be welcomed with open arms.
The rules at issue are unjust. The liberals have made the rules so that there is on opt out. If in order to join the practice of law the state said you had to kill a man you might opt out. The rules are the same for everyone but a certain type will be kept from the profession. Most of Americans even today believe it is evil to put a young child in the custody of homosexuals when normal couples are available. The state is forcing the "new morality" upon an unwilling populace, participate in evil or you may not do charitable work that you have done longer and better than anyone.You make my point for me. If liberalism was tolerant of differing views there would be adoption agencies that send little boys off to the pee wee hermans of the world and those that didn't and people could determine where to place there kids. We all know what the result would be so the left gets rid of the sane option by laws violative of tradition and nature. This is the final insult. Liberalism has developed in such a way that its most fevered adherents have far, far, fewer children than those who detest it. It therefore uses its cultural power whereever it can to direct the upbringing on other people's children. I am reminded of the old Soviet Union which took 50,000 children from their homes in Afghanistan to be raised as Communists. Such is the Left everywhere and always.
What defines a "normal" couple? My supposedly "normal" parents were granted an annullment after 20+ years and 2 kids. Once their marraige was deemed to have never existed, what should have happened to my sister (I had already reached the age of majority)? Are single parents "normal", if not, where should my 17 year old nephew have been raised? Normal is too vague a word for the argument you're making. I don't see how you could prevent children from being placed in homes that might not be nurturing, healthy and happy. I think unless you're willing to take that risk, you might as well round up all the kids not being raised in environments you support and put them in state run orphanages. Then after a vetting process that would take years the children could be released.
The important issue for adoption is whether the child would be healthy, happy and contribute to the larger society. I am personally friends with gay couples raising children in exactly that way. I have met enough straight couples NOT meeting that standard to strongly believe that the standard has nothing to do with the sexual preference of the parents.JCC
JCC writes: This is the final insult. Liberalism has developed in such a way that its most fevered adherents have far, far, fewer children than those who detest it. It therefore uses its cultural power whereever it can to direct the upbringing on other people's children. I am reminded of the old Soviet Union which took 50,000 children from their homes in Afghanistan to be raised as Communists. Such is the Left everywhere and always.Wow, I almost missed this gem from JJV. It's appalling on so many levels that it's truly unique. From seemingly linking virtue to family size to a sweeping conviction that "the left" (ah, yes, that monolith) is trying to use "cultural power" in a way that no other group in society is doing. Smearing those who disagree with his view on same-sex adoption with Communists should create a new precept of Godwin's Law; we can call it JJV's Corollary!JCC
*sigh* The last comment, obviously, should have begun with JJV writes. It's late, I'm going to sleep LOL
Post a Comment