|
| Homosexuality |
Homosexuality
No description available. |
| Blog |
I Guess I Don't Understand Constitutional Law... |
| Posted by: tony on 11/10/2008 05:48 PM (Read: ) |
...as practiced in California.
SACRAMENTO - As protesters took to the streets for a fifth day, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage.
Maybe I'm just plain stupid, but wasn't Proposition 8 a Constituional amendment? So they passed a law defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The California Supreme Court overturned it on Constituional grounds, so the people enacted a ballot initiative to amend the state Constitution and it passed.
How can the court override a Constitutional amendment? How is the Constitution "unconstitutional"?
Inquiring minds want to know. |
|
Filed in :: Homosexuality :: Politics |
Discuss (1) |
Permalink
|
|
A Model of Diversity and Tolerance |
| Posted by: tony on 08/08/2007 11:17 PM (Read: ) |
I guess there are many more dangers for fire fighters in San Diego than just fire:
San Diego, Aug 7, 2007 / 10:59 am (CNA).- SAN DIEGO — Four San Diego firefighters are filing legal claims against the City of San Diego after their superiors forced them to participate in the July 21 San Diego Gay Pride Parade, in full uniform and on their city fire truck.
Good for them.
In the past, firefighters who attended the parade generally did so on a volunteer basis. When the four firefighters protested, their superiors told them they must ride in the parade or face disciplinary action, reported the California Catholic Daily.
It's ironic that the same right to freedom of association which keeps radical gays out of the New York St. Patrick's Day Parade, will probably be used to defend these 4 men.
A press release from the Thomas More Law Center states that, while on parade, the firefighters were "subjected to vile sexual taunts from homosexuals lining the parade route."
Don't bother reading the whole thing. It's vile and disgusting.
Gus Lloyd from the Sieze the Day satellite program on The Catholic Channel asked what we would do if we were those firemen. Would we go along with it, or would we defy our boss and risk getting fired.
What I would have done was participate in the parade with my rosary in my hands praying it the entire time. Ignoring taunts like my Savior did. After the parade, I'd do exactly like these four firemen did and sue their department, and those who forced them to do it. Not for retribution, per-se, but to draw the line of propriety in the workplace so it would never happen to anyone else ever again.
Good luck gentleman. I hope you find justice.
|
|
Filed in :: Homosexuality |
Discuss (0) |
Permalink
|
|
Why Does Ginny Have Two Mommies? How Can That Be?!?!?! |
| Posted by: tony on 07/20/2006 11:13 PM (Read: ) |
Katherine at The Whispering Rose has the answer:
Some people believe that a family doesn't need a mommy and a daddy but God told us that that is not true. Every child should have a mommy and a daddy and it is not good or right to try to replace a mommy with another daddy or a daddy with another mommy. Some people think doing that is okay but it causes confusion and does not make God happy so we should always pray for such people. However, Ginny did not choose to have two mommies so you should not be mean to her but remember that because she does have two mommies, she might think different things than you do.
Perfect. I can't think of anything to add or subtract.
(H/T to Dom) |
|
Filed in :: Homosexuality |
Discuss (0) |
Permalink
|
|
A Man With Courage |
| Posted by: tony on 07/16/2006 02:24 PM (Read: ) |
I enjoy reading Sed Contra. David Morrison replies to a letter he received regarding the trials of same sex attraction (SSA) of which David is intimately familiar. He writes:
Sorry, but no one, in all the years since, has ever provided me a brief for how gay sex can be best for anyone. A human being can live without physical sex - what we have trouble living without is emotional and intellectual and spiritual intimacy. But these are not at all the same thing. In fact, my partner and I have found that our friendship has only strengthened and deepened after we stopped sleeping together - after, of course, we took the (painful) time to resolve all the stuff (anxieties, misperceptions, assumptions) that sex was papering over in our friendship. Now.....well, now we are family really. I could no more easily lose him than I could lose my senses or a limb - and I believe he feels the same about me.
Beautiful. We are called to love our neighbor, and David exemplifies that love with his friend. He continues with:
Genuine, authenic love is blessed - as well as being something tremendously valuable and scary if you think about it - the thing that would compel or draw a man (or woman) to give up his or her life for the beloved. Sex outside of marriage and outside the two parameters of what sex is supposed to be for (unity and the possibility of procreation) is not really love - though it masqurades as love. It is sin and needs to be understood as such.
Beautiful! This statement applies to everyone, men or women. Thanks, David. |
|
Filed in :: Homosexuality |
Discuss (0) |
Permalink
|
|
Adoption: It Should Be About The Welfare of the Children |
| Posted by: tony on 03/05/2006 02:17 PM (Read: ) |
Bill Cork pointed me to one of my regular reads, Catholic Sensibility. Bill was complaining about something Todd had written. Bill states:
Todd says adoption "needs to be about the children ... not about the parents." That's bull-*bleep*, of course, as Todd must admit because adoption is about the parents. That's why every state agency and every church adoption agency screens parents carefully. As Todd himself says, "One is found fit by one's psychological make-up, maturity, ability to raise children and provide for them, and other particular factors that match a child's needs." Todd just doesn't think that morality should enter into a couple's fitness. The Church disagrees.
So I went to Todd's blog and read the entry. He states:
As a Catholic, I also believe the needs of children must be prioritized. The advocacy of straight couples waiting while thirteen children are placed with gays badly misses the boat. Parenting is not a right. Let me repeat: nobody has a right to be a parent. Parenting is a duty. Children without parents are cared for by various persons and organizations. As children are placed for adoption, the duty is passed from one entity to a permanent one. Those doing the placement have a moral duty to ensure the children have received the best possible placement for their lives.
What a sensible statement. This is one of the few times I sit squarely in Todd's court (you can ask him :)). As an adoptee, I bring an adoptee's perspective to this discussion. It's part of who I am. I don't think about it much, but when I'm looking into adoption, I am looking very carefully into what is the absolute best for the child in question. As he or she is, so I once was. As I am now, so I want him or her to be.
To address Bill's statement, no, it isn't about the parents. Parents are screened carefully to insure that the best parents are found for the child. Many things are taken into consideration, and Todd, according to his missive, has been through this. When it becomes about the parents, instead of God's will, we get situations of lesbians artificially inseminating themselves, couples taking advantage of IVF, and abortion for eugenics purposes (such as picking the sex of the child, or eliminating a perceived handicap lie Down's syndrome, a harelip, hammer-toe or the wrong color hair). When it is about the child, they are all born, all helped, and each and every one of them is attempted to be placed in the very best situation possible.
There are two separate issues with regard to "The Bishops v. Boston Catholic Charities".
Obedience
The first is easy. It is a question of obedience (which I have found to be sorely lacking both in the rad-trad and cafeteria Catholic camps). Very simply put, if Boston Catholic Charities wishes to continue to be able to call themselves "Catholic" they need to behave like Catholics are supposed to and do what the Bishops say. Or they are welcome to form their own charity disassociated from the Catholic Church, get certified, and provide adoption services any way they see fit. Lest I be accused of inconsistency, I held the same view when the Baptist adoption agency refused to adopt to Catholics. The people placed their trust and their child in the hands of the agency, knowing their policy. Likewise if someone places their child in the hands of a Catholic charity, they should be able to be sure that their child will not be adopted out to people who are deemed unsatisfactory by the yardstick of the Catholic Church.
Well being of the child
This I believe is more important than posturing about the moral fibre of prospective adoptive parents. A gay couple is at a disadvantage, because not only are they living in unrepentent sin, they're living in scandal, and such is easily viewed from the outside.
Other parents may be committing much more heinous sins, but theirs are hidden, and need to be attempted to be displayed by the discernment process.
From the outset, let me say that in the comparison of a loving heterosexual couple and a loving homosexual couple, the heterosexual couple will always win. This means that if there is this beautiful, blonde blue-eyed infant waiting for adoption, and there are 10 couples standing in line for him or her and one of those couples is homosexual, odds are very good that the homosexual couple will lose.
If it's one somewhat homely Down's syndrome toddler, with a loving homosexual couple and a single working woman in line for the child, the homosexual couple may very well get the child.
What Bill seems to be proposing is that we refuse all homosexual adoptions, and just let these hard to place children rot in bad foster situations or orphanages, and I can abide this.
It's a question not only of the most good for the child, but the least evil, and in this world, I'm here to tell you, sexual sins are not always the top of the list for evil actions.
So I think Bill needs to re-think this. Anyone who knows me knows I am not pro-homosexual at all (which I think might give my opinion a little more weight). However, I am an adoptee. I'm a real person, not those numbers of children Bill was bantering around.
But even the supporters of gay adoptions acknowledge that there have been very few. It isn't like hundreds of kids are affected.
I'm sorry, Bill. One child who is left in an evil situation when there are loving people (even loving homosexual people) available is one too many. You are looking at a guy who might have been one of those people.
The only problem I have would be homosexual activists within the adoption agencies, trying to make a "point" by adopting our a child to a homosexual couple to the child's detriment. This is as bad as excluding homosexuals from the process specifically because they are homosexual.
|
|
Filed in :: Adoption :: Homosexuality |
Discuss (1) |
Permalink
|
|
Being Homosexual and Catholic - It's All About Jesus |
| Posted by: tony on 01/06/2006 10:59 AM (Read: ) |
David Morrison at Sed Contra has written an excellent analysis in NACDLGM: Still Stones, No Bread. He writes:
At its foundation NADGLAM [National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries - ed.] appears to have cast itself in the role of the Rich Young Man who, having heard Christ tell him that salvation would mean selling all he owned and following Christ has decided to keep what he owned instead. Maybe, like NADGLM, the Young Man hung out around Christ for a while, part of the crowd. Maybe he kept Christ in view, but all the while hanging back, unwilling to give up what he clung to instead of Him. But in the end it comes down to what and who rules our hearts, minds and souls and I can only pray that eventually the folks who run NADGLM make the right choice.
Isn't that true for all of us, gay or straight? Thanks, David.
|
|
Filed in :: Homosexuality |
|
Permalink
|
|
Which Doesn't Belong? |
| Posted by: tony on 01/02/2006 09:25 PM (Read: ) |
 A. Biology
B. Psychology
C. Chemistry
D. Physics
If you picked "B", you are absolutely right!
Todd at Catholic Sensibility have been having a discussion regarding Hard Science .v Soft Science. In an entry called A Bit of Sociology, Todd stated:
Vatican II called for training seminarians in psychology and sociology, but somehow neglected to mention updating the already-ordained in these disciplines.
In a comment I replied:
So they are to be trained in psychology which states that homosexuality is a perfectly normal manifestation of mature sexuality?
These soft sciences like psychology and sociology have been co-opted by the political left, and in my opinion can't be trusted.
Todd, as I've been reading him, followed true to form. He refused to engage me in the comments box, he posted a new blog entry entitled Hard Science v. Soft Science. (I understand that this is Todd's blog, but I find it slightly unfair, that he posts his opinions on the front page, quoting me, and relegates my responses to the "classified ads". But I have a blog and I can play.) I am not a moron, like many of our more "progressive" friends like to paint us. I have been to college, I majored in math and science, and I understand what the scientific method entails. Todd states:
Regarding the "soft" sciences, Tony suggests, "Because the results are not verifiable, and are basically people's opinions without hard data, they are susceptable to be spun any way that people want them to."
Let me clue you in: "hard" scientists do the same. Lots of people cannot verify results to an absolute degree of satisfaction: theoretical physicists, evolutionary biologists, among others. Two scientists can have the same package of data, hard facts, if you will, and arrive at two different conclusions.
Sure, if one or more of the "scientists" are pursuing political agenda driven "research" (note the sneer quotes). Let's take a look at an article on the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality entitled Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders.
Well, no kidding.
Dr. Cummings said he has had a career-long commitment to promoting diversity. Therefore has been dismayed to see activists exploit the stature of the parent body to further their own social aims -- pushing the APA to take positions in areas where they have no conclusive evidence.
When APA does conduct research, Dr. Cummings said, they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible."
Hmmm... Does that sound like science to you? It doesn't to me. You are supposed to take the research wherever the data leads you. If you're not allowed to do certain research because it might "upset the apple cart", that that isn't science. If the research can't stand up to peer review, then it can't. But to dismiss whole branches of research because it's not "politically correct" just... well... boggles.
When writing their newly released book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, Wright and Cummings invited the participation of a number of fellow psychologists who flatly turned them down--fearing loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA."
This is not 21st century science. This is reminiscent of what happened to Gallileo in the middle ages at the hands of the Catholic Church.
Regarding treatment for unwanted homosexuality, the American Psychological Association has come very close to ratifying a statement which would declare therapy to modify sexual orientation "unethical." But "why does free choice go only one way?" Dr. Cummings asks.
So what happens to someone suffering from SSA (same sex attraction) who wants help with his problem? Odds are very good he won't find someone willing to help him, and if he does, the APA wants to shut that door and make sure anyone who tries to help him is hit with an "ethics violation". Helping him would mean that homosexuality was a "problem" and not a "natural manifestation of healthy sexuality" and we can't have that. Fabulous.
And the coup de grace:
"When we speak in the name of psychology we are to speak only from facts and clinical expertise," he explained. If psychology speaks out on every social issue, "very soon the public will see us as a discredited organization--just another opinionated voice shouting and shouting."
Yup. This is what's happened to the "science" of psychology. It's been reduced to a bunch of liberals screeching when their sacred cow is gored.
(H/T to Conde at Custos Fidei for the link to the article.) |
|
Filed in :: Homosexuality |
|
Permalink
|
|
<<
[ 1 ]
>>
1 - 7 of 7
|
|
