Good morning. Well, I forgot to post mileage from my trip earlier this week. 280 miles … 64mpg (3.7 l/100km).
- Pray for the health of Fr John (of First Things).
- 9/11 already forgotten?
- A claim “nobody does it like …”, do you agree?
- That should clear that up.
- Or … we need local government.
- Hard advice for the blogger to take.
- Keynes and Benedict on value.
- Rank dishonesty in reporting … yet again.
- Some history of the Church in Russia.
- Arrests in Pakistan.
- Source selection noted.
- Considering the nativity.
- Whores and Priests.
- Justificatory liberalism.
- Of beasties.
- Kindergartners would work for less pay.
- Gay day counterproductive.
- Defending Obama’s Chicago origins … which presume (falsely perhaps) that Obama has done any amount of reforming.
Justificatory liberalism.
That may be the most ridiculous false equivalence I’ve ever seen. First, nobody is coercing anybody to embrace anything. You are free to oppose gay marriage until the end of time, even if it becomes legal. Second, this argument could be used about literally any civil rights issue. Actually for the other civil rights issues, there was much more coercion. Slave masters were coerced into giving up their “right” to “own” human beings. Segregationists were “coerced” into desegregation. By contrast, literally nobody would be “coerced” into doing anything for gay marriage. Churches wouldn’t have to perform them, homophobes wouldn’t have to attend them, nobody would even have to say nice things about them.
JA,
And Catholic run adoption agencies would not be coerced into accepting gay adopters?
And Catholic run adoption agencies would not be coerced into accepting gay adopters?
Sounds like a separate issue. We can have gay marriage without forcing Catholic-run adoption agencies to place children in need of homes into homes.
And Catholic run adoption agencies would not be coerced into accepting gay adopters?
1. No.
2. If this is/was the issue then why prop 8? Simply because gay marriage is no longer legal creates no law requiring gay couple be prohibited from adopting nor would it require the state to allow adoption agencies to discriminate against gays. Likewise the existence of a legal marriage is not a requirement that adoption agencies give the couple a child. There are plenty of legally married couples who would not qualify for adoption.
I find it amusing that the article equates protesting with intolerance. Is this what right-wing victimology has come too? If you want to play in the political sphere then you have to take your licks as well as give them.