You claim that being forced by others to “stay in the closet” is immoral, but I’m saying homosexuality is immoral. – listens2glenn on January 1, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Well, I guess that I am hopelessly immoral in your eyes. I can not change my sexual orientation any more than you can yours. I can only wonder why God made me homosexual. I did not choose my sexuality. What should I do, commit my life to silence on the issue and live a chaste life? Don’t even you think that would be cruel?

Gotta spell check better.

Being homosexual and having to pretend to be straight is grossly immoral. I thought the our government was formed for the people to be able have the right to pursue their happiness as long as it did not infringe upon the rights of others.

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Contraversial statement/opinion alert:

There’s no diplomatic, tactful way of saying “homosexuality is immoral.” In the closet or out.

But, “in the closet” means “out of public view.” And in my opinion, it’s the lesser of two evils.

“Pursuing happiness” as the founding fathers meant it, did not include “consequence-free immorality.”
You claim that being forced by others to “stay in the closet” is immoral, but I’m saying homosexuality is immoral.

mainstreaming gross immorality is the only way to secure a prosperous and peaceful future for the nation. – tom daschle concerned on January 1, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Being homosexual and having to pretend to be straight is grossly immoral. I thought the our government was formed for the people to be able have the right to pursue their happiness as long as it did not infringe upon the rights of others.

SC.Charlie on January 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM

What are you talking about, Congress itself?

Being homosexual and having to pretend to be straight is grossly immoral. I thought the our government was formed for the people to be able have the right to pursue their happiness as long as it did not infringe upon the rights of others.

Stop confusing sexual behaviors with “rights” involving others. Sexual behaviors are NOT rights.

What people like you DON”T realize is that it may have been a MASSIVE legal liability for the CC of Illinois to allow gays to adopt particularly if say, for example, a gay couple who adopted were found to have abused the very children they pledged to nurture.

Promoting so called “rights” at the expense of the legitimate rights of others is hypocrisy filled and is antithetical to the Founders intentions.

So the state recognizes the rights of heterosexuals to engage in any sexual acts, if they are acts between consenting adults? And, gays don’t have the legal right to engage in sexual acts between consenting adults? Catholics believe that any sex outside of marriage is immoral. I wonder how many Catholics have broken that belief? My guess would be somewhere between 90% to 97.75% Catholics also don’t believe in birth control. How many Catholics sitting in the pews ignore that belief? My guess is the overwhelming majority. Finally, if anyone abuses a child adopted by Catholic Charities the law should certainly intervene. The state most certainly has a duty to protect children from abuse. Is there a special law that makes it more criminal for a gay couple to abuse a child than a straight couple? You have a double standard when it comes to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Stop confusing sexual behaviors with “rights” involving others. Sexual behaviors are NOT rights.

What people like you DON”T realize is that it may have been a MASSIVE legal liability for the CC of Illinois to allow gays to adopt particularly if say, for example, a gay couple who adopted were found to have abused the very children they pledged to nurture.

So the state has a right to prohibit your right to engage in certain sexual practices or heterosexuals? Do only heterosexuals have rights to engage in any sexual behavior? Catholics believe that any sex outside of marriage is immoral. I wonder how many Catholics have broken that belief? Catholics also don’t believe in birth control. How many Catholics sitting in the pews ignore that belief? Finally, if anyone abuses a child adopted by Catholic Charities the law should certainly intervene. The state most certainly has a duty to protect children from abuse. Is there a special law that makes it more criminal for a gay couple to abuse a child than a straight couple? You have a double standard when it comes to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

The state has an interest in promoting equal rights. If a private, religious organization then turns around and decides to cease organization because of that, so be it. That’s not the state’s fault, that’s the organization’s choice. Stop trying to demonize Illinois for instituting an equitable human rights policy re: adoption and foster care.

Vyce on December 30, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Hilarious, Vyce. The State has what interest in promoting equal rights ? Please tell us what that ” interest ” and which rights are being violated ? No one has a right to adopt a child. It is an earned privilege.

The State entered into a private contract with CC of Illinois. If religious bigots are trying to promote the same principle they claim is immoral by disagreeing with the gay lifestyle and it’s relevance to adoption then we may all feel free to call you hypocrites. I suggest you look at the USSC rulings surrounding the issues of contracts entered into by states with religious organizations, willingly and with clear knowledge and utilizing public money.

You seem to think that freedoms are subjective. They are NOT. This WHY there is an Establishment Clause AND an Free Exercise Clause aka association.

Stop confusing sexual behaviors with “rights” involving others. Sexual behaviors are NOT rights.

What people like you DON”T realize is that it may have been a MASSIVE legal liability for the CC of Illinois to allow gays to adopt particularly if say, for example, a gay couple who adopted were found to have abused the very children they pledged to nurture.

Promoting so called “rights” at the expense of the legitimate rights of others is hypocrisy filled and is antithetical to the Founders intentions.

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” said Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

Requirement to consider gay couples for adoption forces Illinois Catholic Charities affiliates to close

A requirement to consider gay couples for adoption is not the same as a requirement to accept gay couples for adoption. That said the State is certainly wrong to place this requirement upon Catholic Charities.

Of course, Catholic Charities is also wrong by having their services contingent upon receiving State money.

Both sides have lost sight of their goal ensuring the children will suffer as a result.

Sad.

Ever heard of the “Lavender Mafia”? The scandal wasn’t in the abuse of minors by bad priests decades prior–that sort of thing happens all the time in public schools, and with higher frequency. The scandal was two-fold: first, the cover-up by the bishops, and second, the fact that the abuse was overwhelmingly homosexual.

spiritof61 on December 30, 2011

Excellent point! How many people even know what that is?
For those who don’t, read The Oxford Press and learn how homosexuals took over the Catholic seminaries 50 years ago.
BTW … Bernard Cardinal Law should be in prison – still.

~(Ä)~

Both will have cookies and coffee in the narthex.

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 11:58 PM

How many times I’ve heard similar lines ending with “narthex”, years ago.

Kind of sad, actually. I wonder what Lutherans think of their adoption agency acting as a procurement authority for gays.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 PM

I have no doubt that some LCMS Lutherans would agree 100% with your sentiments here, while others of them along with most ELCA Lutherans would not. Feel free to commiserate with whichever group you wish. Both will have cookies and coffee in the narthex.

Not true. In the United States, a medical practitioner may exercise a freedom of conscience exemption from participating in, or performing, abortions. That doesn’t stop various organizations, including governments, from demanding that said practitioners participate in abortions at the risk of their jobs. That’s one good reason for a court system — I think the win rate so far is 100%.

An exemption I have no problems supporting because it does involve freedom of conscience and said medical practitioners are not receiving public dollars to perform abortions, then selectively or altogether refusing to perform them. That’s not the same as with CC contracting with the state and collecting taxdollars to perform adoptions, but only as it chooses to.

And, on the other side, we have that abortions do include a right to public funding, according to many states — and Obama would dearly love to have that be a federal mandate as well.

Probably. I disagree strongly with such views, as I do with the whole entitlement mentality. No program/group has a right to public dollars. None. Any program/group that does receive such dollars do so because elected officials and their backers support giving such money to them, and these programs/groups agree to comply with all applicable laws. On a related note, if I had my way there would be zero public dollars going to pay for abortions.

Now, with respect to rendering unto Caesar what he asks, we live in a democracy, and, thankfully, a democracy which allows us freedom of conscience.

Indeed we do. This includes all those who do not agree with you or I as well as those you and I would ourselves would disagree with. Yet with freedom comes responsibility, which in this particular case means complying with state law in order to receive public dollars. No one is forcing CC to draw on taxdollars. They are free to turn away whomever they please but not while being paid by the public for their services.

As for Illinois, good luck with the Boy Toy Adoption Agency. You’ll need it.

Well this explains much. However, I’m not from Illinois.

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Kind of sad, actually. I wonder what Lutherans think of their adoption agency acting as a procurement authority for gays.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 PM

When Jerry Sandusky finally goes to trial, I’m suspecting there will be info divulged, linking Extra Mile with some adoption agencies.
Let me EMPHASIZE, there hasn’t been any such stories YET that I’m aware of.
Just a hunch, on my part.

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Kind of sad, actually. I wonder what Lutherans think of their adoption agency acting as a procurement authority for gays.

I mean, seriously. This is a leader of the gay and lesbian community openly stating before a governmental body that it is not only normal, but common in the gay and lesbian community to go after children seventeen years your junior. And not a soul is contradicting him.

Am I the only one who sees the problem here?

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Apparently, in Canada, there is such an anti-gay bias that the only way a minor child can be introduced to gay sex is by means of an adult.

The statements this man is making are identical to the ones called out in the psychology abstract.

It says to me that places where young boys gather or can be dealt with privately are happy hunting grounds for the adult gay male.

Exercising one’s freedom of conscience does not include a right to public funding for one’s livelihood or endeavors. Take Caesar’s gold and be ready to render unto him what he asks or don’t take it in the first place.

JohnAGJ on December 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Not true. In the United States, a medical practitioner may exercise a freedom of conscience exemption from participating in, or performing, abortions. That doesn’t stop various organizations, including governments, from demanding that said practitioners participate in abortions at the risk of their jobs. That’s one good reason for a court system — I think the win rate so far is 100%.

And, on the other side, we have that abortions do include a right to public funding, according to many states — and Obama would dearly love to have that be a federal mandate as well. So, we do have that conscience issues (including rights) may be funded out of the public till. I’m still waiting for a response from my letter to the Government requesting an 11 color process press and a very large radio station so that I may adequately exercise my Freedoms of the Press and Speech…

Now, with respect to rendering unto Caesar what he asks, we live in a democracy, and, thankfully, a democracy which allows us freedom of conscience. Which is why Catholic Charities is closing all but a few of their adoption agencies in Illinois — for Illinois, no matter what the loss to the State, cannot force them to stay open. Now, nothing stops them from running agencies across the various state borders, and nothing stops them from advocating that parents who need to give their children up for adoption take them across state lines to places more tolerant of Catholicism.

As for Illinois, good luck with the Boy Toy Adoption Agency. You’ll need it.

As Colonel Potter on MASH would say, Horse-hockey.

SC.Charlie on December 30, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Colonel Potter was a heck of a lot smarter and more prepared than you are.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 10:15 PM

And don’t forget what I posted last night.

The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass — no political party has opposed it — but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.

The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.

“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.

I mean, seriously. This is a leader of the gay and lesbian community openly stating before a governmental body that it is not only normal, but common in the gay and lesbian community to go after children seventeen years your junior. And not a soul is contradicting him.

Am I the only one who sees the problem here?

The RCC scandal involved allegedly celibate men who raped children. Gay-married men don’t appear to pose a threat on a comparable scale. Perhaps it is safer to have childcare-givers who have adult sexual relations and know how to keep it away from kids.

OptionsTrader on December 30, 2011 at 3:21 PM

The fact remains: they were gay. And the scale of threat is far greater with a gay couple than with a heterosexual.

Similarly, Lenderking et al. (1997) found that 36% of the gay and bisexual men participating in a health clinic study reported a childhood sexual encounter before age 16 with an older person.

[insert here picture of male toddler dressed in domination gear at a gay pride parade]