Sunday, January 08, 2012

The debate and media bias...



Gingrich nailed it.
Gingrich and Romney both took jabs at liberal media elites during the debate.

“I just want to raise a point about the news media bias,” Gingrich said after a rhetorical skirmish about gay marriage. “You don’t hear the opposite question asked.

“Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?”

“The bigotry question goes both ways,” Gingrich added. “And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.”

Romney seconded Gingrich. “As you can tell, the people in this room feel that Speaker Gingrich is absolutely right and I do too,” Romney said after the former speaker’s comments earned him a loud applause.* - Source

*“As you can tell, the people in this room feel that Speaker Gingrich is absolutely right,” said Romney, “and I do, too. And I was in a state where the supreme court stepped in and said marriage is a relationship required under the constitution for people of the same sex to be able to marry. And John Adams, who wrote the constitution, would be surprised. And it did exactly as Speaker Gingrich indicated. What happened was Catholic Charities, that placed almost half all the adopted children in our state, was forced to step out of being able to provide adoptive services. And the state tried to find other places to help children –We have to recognize that this decision about what we call marriage has consequence which goes far beyond a loving couple wanting to form a long-term relationship –that they can do within the law now. Calling it marriage creates a whole host of problems for families, for the law, for the practice of religion, for education. Let me say this, 3,000 years of human history shouldn’t be discarded so quickly.”

Ah, that Stephanopoulos - he's a cute little shit, ain't he?   Little bigot - and his sister is a nun.

H/T to PML

15 comments:

  1. If an oragnization ran an adoption agency and refused to let babies be adopted by interracial couples because they believed interracial marriage to be sinful (as many Christian groups in this country did right up until the 1960s), should they be allowed to be in the adoption business?

    I think not, and discriminating against LGBT couples is no different than discriminating against interracial couples.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BTW, most American Catholics are not opposed to marriage equality:

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/us-catholic-bishops-declare-war-on-gay-marriage-despite-us-catholic-views/marriage/2011/11/14/30166

    The views of the hierarchy are just plain out of touch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reality Check, can you cite any mainstream Christian organization that believed that, and on moral grounds, not prudential ones? No you can't. And in any event, we're not responsible for tge teachings of every sect of Calvinists who think they know how to read the Bible.

    And interracial and gay are not tge same thing, and tge comparison is moronic. Races are not intrinsic, sex is.

    Public opinion means nothing, anyway.

    But gays in Massachusetts sure proved they care more about getting their way than they do about children. Because that's what it's really about - forcing everyone else to bless gay sex. And you gladly use children as expendable pawns.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In many ways (though not all) the era and influence of the "old white guy" in politics and culture is passing. And that's a good thing. What we're hearing from Gingrich and Romney is angry and fearful reaction to this fact. Such reactionary views are not held by the majority of Americans -- especially the younger generation, nor, as Reality_Check notes, the sensus fidelium.

    Peace,

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mercury, discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is already illegal, along with race, national origin, ethnicity, etc in the state of Massachusetts. Refusing to allow LGTB couples to adopt is treated the same under the law as refusing to allow interracial couples to adopt, or banning transracial adoption.

    Again, it's discrimination and illegal, whatever your private opinions are.

    You are allowed to hold your own private opinions, and so is your organization, and you can discriminate within it, similar to how we even allow the KKK to be racist in private, but when it comes to public policy discrimination will not be allowed.

    Heterosexual/Cisgender and LGTB couples must be treated equally under the law as a matter of civil rights, and they will continue to be. The Church will be left behind on the wrong side of history.

    And it's YOU who don't care about children--you'd rather see children stuck in a foster home than adopted by a loving, married LGTB couple.

    I urge you to watch this video, maybe it will change your mind:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

    ReplyDelete
  7. Public opinion means nothing? It certainly meant a lot during the Arian controversy when the bishops were eventually proved wrong by the people. And what about the very Catholic understanding of God being discernible in the "signs of the times"? This implies we need to, at the very least, acknowledge that God is bring to light "something new" in our understanding of a range of issues, including sexual orientation. I'm sorry if this frightens you and threatens your understanding of church. Personally, I find it reflective of the God of liberation that Jesus embodied and proclaimed.

    Peace,

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  8. BTW, I can provide any number of scientific studies that support the following observations

    1) Human sexuality is not binary but comes in a naturally occurring spectrum from strongly hetero, to bi, to strongly homo.

    2) Human sexuality is not just based on physical plumbing but also includes a huge emotional and mental component.

    3) There are significant numbers in the population who are born with the emotional and mental component not matching their physical plumbing.

    4) The emotional and mental component takes precedent over the physical plumbing.

    We know a lot more about human sexuality than the authors of the Bible did. Why should we reject current scientific knowledge?

    http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-terminology-and-definitions

    ReplyDelete
  9. RC - No more drama?

    Anyway.

    "4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

    Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

    Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)

    As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case. - CDF Document - copy and paste the following into your browser:

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

    That's all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It certainly meant a lot during the Arian controversy when the bishops were eventually proved wrong by the people. And what about the very Catholic understanding of God being discernible in the "signs of the times"? This implies we need to, at the very least, acknowledge that God is bring to light "something new" in our understanding of a range of issues, including sexual orientation. I'm sorry if this frightens you and threatens your understanding of church. Personally, I find it reflective of the God of liberation that Jesus embodied and proclaimed."

    ROFLMAO!

    God will bring to light something new in our understanding indeed: that our sins are as old and more behind the times than Sodom and Gomorrah.

    What deluded spiritual pride.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I too, think it's hilarious.

    They both read like mindless zombies with talking points theyve been brainwashed with.

    The children that have to go to foster homes - unfortunately, the blame here lies squarely and solely on the shoulders of the homosexualists, and they knew this would be the result, but did it anyway because forcing others to believe that gay sex is good is their only goal. Such narcissism. And then they blame it on the Catholic charities who have existed for centuries doing work no one else could or would.

    Let have a scoreboard: in the past 2000 years, what has the Church done for orphan, poor, and abandoned children, how has the church changed society in this regard. Now let's ask what guys who like to bugger other men have done. Where are all the homosexual orphanages?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The act of gay sex is fundamentally violent, and fundamentally hostile to life, and especially hostile to children.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "You are allowed to hold your own private opinions, and so is your organization, and you can discriminate within it, similar to how we even allow the KKK to be racist in private, but when it comes to public policy discrimination will not be allowed."

    The KKK are allowed to be racist in public, with their parades. They're even protected from violence by the police, if I'm not mistaken.

    If a Catholic adoption agency wants to keep policy of only mother/father adopting allowed, what's that to you, you bigot?

    If it's so horrible, then that Catholic adoption agency will dig its own grave and no one will go to them.

    But that's not it. It's people like you who discriminate against such agencies and impose your bigoted beliefs, not only on them, but on countless children as well.

    The only thing that makes such as yourself different from the bigotry of the KKK is that you call it equality and non-discrimination.

    Good for you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Heh. What is "marriage equality" anyway? Oh I know, it's the manipulation of language to force a redefinition of the institution that consists of a union between one man and one woman. The "equality" crowd would have us believe that fairness demands breaking down those traditional parameters to include a union between one man and one woman, one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. But this newer definition of marriage is entirely arbitrary. admit it.

    Why do you "progressives" allow for any parameters at all? Why don't you advocate, as well, for any number of people to be married to each other, or for any people of any relation to be married to each other? Or for any number of any species to be married to each other? In the end I imagine you probably will, as that is what logical consistency demands of you.

    It's all in the name of "what is modern is right". Every stupid idea was modern at one point.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you Merc. Paul, and Kim. God reward you.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.