… I meant, of course, 1030 am est. I am not very good at time zones.

15 Comments on “Oops…”

  1. Mark from PA says:

    Mary and Steve. I am not a big fan of Mrs. Clinton but her speech was excellent. “Being LGBT does not make you less human and that why gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.” “It is a violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation. We are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.” Human rights belong to everybody. In my mind it can be sinful to discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation. The CCC itself speaks of gay people being treated with respect and compassion and not being discriminated against.

  2. Mark from PA says:

    Sadly some people still don’t get it. One woman’s comments hit me. She stated that homosexual needed to be rehabilitated towards leaving that “lifestyle” and returning them to recognizing that they are not homosexual and that what they have to deal with is a “disorder.” “We need to reach out to protestant sects to fight against evil forces such as gay activism.” So it seems that some Catholics are actually influenced by Fred Phelps and other fundamentalist types that sin the homosexual orientation as a sin. Kind of scary to me.

  3. Mark from PA says:

    Oops, I meant to say, that see the homosexual orientation as a sin. It is sobering because as a young person I was never exposed to these hateful views. I was taught that Catholics were all brothers and sisters in Christ.

  4. Victor says:

    I can see what you mean, Mark, and you are right.
    Sadly, I can also see what Mrs Clinton means – when she says “gay rights are human rights”, she doesn’t just mean that gays must not be imprisoned, but also that gay couples can get “married” and adopt children (just as “womens’ rights” suddenly came to mean you have a right to abort your child). She might not say it expressly – yet, I fear.

  5. Mary says:

    Victor – I thought she tread a very delicate line between the two and was intentionally ambiguous, but I believe she should be applauded!

  6. Mark from PA says:

    Victor, just to let you know, I am an adoptive parent. I think qualified people who are gay should be allowed to adopt. They need to go through a home study like everyone else. If they are judged to be fit and adequate parents they should be allowed to adopt. If they live a wild lifestyle and would not be good parents then they should not be allowed to adopt, gay or straight. There should be no discrimination based on just a person’s orientation.

  7. Victor says:

    Mary – I am willing to concede that Mrs Clinton did right to denounce discrimination of homosexuals. But why exactly should she be applauded for something every politician who wants to be taken serious would say? It wasn’t very innovative, because this has been the United States’ policy for a long time, and it wasn’t very courageous either. Where are the special merits of Mrs Clinton then?
    (I should add I am German – perhaps what she did is still a big thing in the US – in Germany, it wouldn’t)
    Mark – I was arguing from the Catholic point of view. I suppose you agree with me that there is a fundamental difference between a man and a woman – one that goes beyond physical attributes. Don’t you think that a child needs both kinds of parents?
    I know that in single-parent households the complementary parent (father or mother) is missing too, but there is a difference between death or a divorce taking one parent away and putting the child in this situation deliberately.
    I completely agree with you – a homosexual person should not be denied adoption simply because he/she is homosexual. But I very much think that single people should not be allowed to adopt – regardless of their sexual preference (I know the law says they are, but it wouldn’t be the first unjust law).
    Finally, let me stress that though I don’t really know you and therefore cannot say if you are a good parent, I am sure you try your best to be!

  8. Mary says:

    Victor, I’m Canadian, so it wasn’t a big thing up here either.

  9. Mary says:

    PS – I think there are a lot of ways that single parent families can be successful. Would you tell the wife (or husband) of a deployed soldier that her (or his) marriage is not doing enough to support the kids, given that the other spouse is far away? Or what about all the parents who only see their kids on weekends, because they work such long days? I’m sure single parents work hard to provide a community of support for their children.

  10. Victor says:

    Mary, I would never tell a single parent she or he is doing a bad job, simply because every parent (except the really crappy ones) is doing much more of a job than I (a single man with SSA and without kids) will ever do. But as I stated earlier, there is a huge difference between a child loosing a parent for whatever reasons and putting a child deliberately into an incomplete family. Wouldn’t you agree?

    1. Victor has a good point. Just because single parents struggle heroically and make do doesn’t mean having a mother and father both isn’t preferable.

  11. Mary says:

    Steve & Victor – I agree that it is preferable, but I know lots of fine women who haven’t been able to find a good partner who respects and loves them, and it would be a shame for those women not have children because they are so obviously excellent mothers to all the little children around them. If there is a child in need of care, and a parent who wants desperately to love that child, I don’t see how we have the authority to keep them apart – that’s all.

  12. Victor says:

    The German equivalent for “parents”, “Eltern” exists in the plural only. I think this is very telling – you have one father and one mother, but normally you don’t have just one parent. I stick with it – a child should have both father and mother, i.e. parentS, and – beg your pardon – a sentimental “he/she would make such a good father/mother” is NOT a good argument. (“She would make such a good priest” – sound familiar?)
    Now foster parenting is something completely different – though I doubt that a single man/woman finds the time besides his/her work to take care of a child, he/she should indeed be applauded. But please let’s not call it something it is not!

  13. Victor says:

    Sorry, the last paragraph should be as follows:

    Now foster parenting is something completely different – though I doubt that a single man/woman finds the time besides his/her work to take care of a child, IF he/she makes a good job, he/she should indeed be applauded. But please let’s not call it something it is not!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *