The Lesser of Two [Catholic] Evils
According to CNN:
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Britain's leading cardinal said on Tuesday the Catholic church may be forced to close down its adoption agencies if the government insists they consider placing children with gay couples.I doubt that any number of studies showing that gay parents don't make kids gay would convince these people that it's better for the kids than foster homes. I guess their good intentions count for something, but this is backwards and paranoid.
[Cardinal Douchebag] said it would be "an unnecessary tragedy if legislation forced the closure of these adoption services."Is he referring to papal legislation? Ah, then I couldn't agree more.
post by Andrew at 10:07 a.m.
5 Comments:
I'm often not one to support the decision-making of the Catholic church, but "Cardinal Douchebag?"
That's a little harsh, right? :) I suppose it IS your blog!
I'm also not sure about "paranoia" as a term to label the Cardinal. I am frequently called a homophobic person, because I simply choose not to support the practice of homosexuality. Funny how, when someone believes something different than another person, that person will resort to accusations of fear/insanity. Afterall, how can I be right if I am afflicted with a mental disease?
Perhaps I am a murderphobe because I disagree with murder. Paranoid! I'm paranoid about murder!
:)
8:34 p.m.
Yeah I see what you mean about 'paranoid' and 'homophobe' not always being the right word. I meant it in the specific sense that, despite evidence to the contrary, they're convinced that gay parents can't do a good job even compared to a foster home (!). It's all about the kids. Or are they worried that the kids of gay parents will sympathise with gays when they grow up and vote? Maybe some kind of vague "we can't let them have what they want since it validates their 'choice'" thing (at the expense of kids)? Meh, I obviously don't get it.
10:07 a.m.
Some religious (maybe even non-religious) people do worry about the effect of "gayness" on the upbringing of children, and how relevant this is can be hard to determine. There are so many studies that show homosexuality to be both advantageous and also harmful (yes, I know of quite a few both ways), and it's easy to argue one way or the other.
I would suspect that their objection is more of the objection of any support of homosexuality in general.. for instance, many studies can show that the assassination of "evil" world leaders leads to the improvement of quality-of-life in countries. However, many disagree with assassination; not citing studies as a source of their objection (the studies would support it), but rather resting on the principles of the issue.
I for one consider principles to be enough of an argument to be at least taken seriously, and I'm sure the church isn't fighting homosexual parents based on past evidence, but rather religous morality. That is at least valid to do, since we are all guilty of fighting things based on moral objection alone.
7:44 p.m.
I sortof see what you're saying since I would find it hard to break from some of my principles (if I could call them that) even if studies suggested they were misguided, but at the same time I'm not sure what principles really represent. At some level you have to distinguish 'principles' from arbitrarily justifying things, like racism. People can justify racist 'principles' on eugenics etc or even by interpreting parts of the Bible. It seems too easy take comfort in the idea that we're principled.
2:01 a.m.
And when you say that you would find it difficult to break from your principles, you hit it right on the head. That's not a bad thing either; if you subscribe to the idea that some principles are absolutely essential.
The key difference between religious people and non-religious people IS the principles; you and I both know that an atheistic world view directly implies moral relativism and/or communal morality amongst the human population. In other words, in the absence of religion, principles never really get to the point of being "absolutely essential"; rather, mankind gets to determine what is absolutely essential at his/her own convenience.
This is why atheists have such a difficult time understanding the actions of religious people. I am against abortion, as you probably know or have guessed. While I'm not certain, I would guess that studies have shown abortion to be financially beneficial to young struggling pregnant women. I don't dispute those studies at all. Yet I take a lot of flak for disagreeing with abortion; I don't use studies to prove my point, because I feel that my stance is based on an absolutely essential principle: abortion is wrong according to the Bible.
It is no wonder that atheists attack my reasoning! Since there are no "essential principles" in an atheistic world view (or, at least, these principles can be re-classified as essential/non-essential on-the-fly or by popular demand), then it makes sense for atheists to disagree with me. That's why I don't get too argumentative about it; many people are actually making sense when they advocate abortion; at least they are making logical sense in regard to their ad hoc morality. In other words, I don't disagree with their reasoning-> I disagree with the source of their faith. And of course, this is why religious people and non-religious people will never agree on sensitive moral issues, unfortunately.
2:20 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home