When Homocritics charge in

"Let me get this straight JD. You want to allow discrimination against a group of people. Some of the reasons you post on your blog are that this group is -

-more likely to suffer from depression
-more likely to abuse substances to hide depression
-more likely to abuse substances
-more likely to contract STD's
-etc

than the group you belong to.

Let's see what other groups you can put into your discrimination model.

African Americans. African Americans are more likely to suffer depression, more likely to abuse substances, more likely to contract STD's than white Americans. Hell, I think they might even be more likely to smoke cigarettes but I couldn't find the data for that.

It's institutional intolerance of gays. If a religious group said that they were withdrawing from providing adoptions because they might have to place children with black families, I hope you'd have no problem roundly condemning that.

You are a foul person, Jd. There's a reason why everyone thinks you are a homophobic bigot. And I want you to know that the word 'bigot' means something. It's not just an insult that you seem to like to carelessly throw around.

Reasonable people do not disagree about gays and lesbians. Reasonable people may differ on whether there is a God or not or several. But reasonable people cannot disagree that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights in society, even if it contravenes their religious beliefs.

I pretty much see it as them saying they have roughly the same respect for equality as the KKK. They are *explicitly* withdrawing to avoid having to accept treating citizens with equal respect. That is done at the cost of the services provided to children who more often than not have no adult guardians at all. Quoted from No Longer Catholic

The above is a prime example of what can occur when a well-meaning, yet completely ill-informed supporter of gay adoption charges in to a conversation without first switching their brain to the 'ON' position and checking emotionalism at the door.


Not only is the above completely filled with errors but almost comically so. Let's desconstruct the comments by NLC and analyze them in the light of reason, shall we?

Let me get this straight JD. You want to allow discrimination against a group of people

More precisely here, the issue here is that Catholic Charities would like to defer to other adoption agencies when it comes to placing children with couples that are co-habitating, whether straight or GBLTQ. They just don't want to get involved with that themselves and apparently it's Gay Adoption uber alles and dissent is apparently not allowed.


Notice how NLC uses the word 'discrimination' as if it is a bad thing in and of itself. Could an agency 'discriminate' if the parents were philanderers? Could they discriminate if there was a history of abuse? Or alcoholism or drug use? Of course they could, and with good reason.

Some of the reasons you post on your blog are that this group is -

-more likely to suffer from depression
-more likely to abuse substances to hide depression
-more likely to abuse substances
-more likely to contract STD's
-etc

than the group you belong to

Observe how NLC conveniently focuses on less serious factors such as STD's and glosses over much more serious issues like.."In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, a recent study by the Canadian government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples". Also, according the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies, "Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples." Link

But such evasion is to be expected when your overall goal is Gay Adoption uber alles. The kids don't matter a wit in these instances.


Let's see what other groups you can put into your discrimination model.

African Americans. African Americans are more likely to suffer depression, more likely to abuse substances, more likely to contract STD's than white Americans

Yet another clumsy attempt to equate gay civil rights with black civil rights. I'll tell you what NLC, simply point me to the support group that assists African Americans cope with the struggles associated with being formely black and have left the black lifestyle behind and I concede the point. Not even Martin Luther King's niece is falling for such nonsense.


"I have met many ex-homosexuals just as I have met many ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-drug addicts and ex-lawyers. Yet I have never met an ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American" Alveda C. King

You are a foul person, Jd. There's a reason why everyone thinks you are a homophobic bigot. And I want you to know that the word 'bigot' means something. It's not just an insult that you seem to like to carelessly throw around"


Yes, it is a bad word that nobody wants associated with their name. Now, since I have been called as such multiple times by more than one person on the thread you are quoted from..,

And since I have asked that "one single, solitary shred of evidence whatsoever" be presented to substantiate the claim that I am a bigot or homophobe,..

And since there has been absolutely none, zippo, zero, nada forthcoming in the way of any evidence whatsoever, then do you feel like calling out the free speech bigots at Justin's blog for the intolerant little hate-filled zealots that they so evidently are? I would be pleased that you show some backbone and actually do so but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Reasonable people do not disagree about gays and lesbians

Demonstrably incorrect. In the matter of causation alone there is a great deal of disagreement, even within the homosexual community itself.

Reasonable people may differ on whether there is a God or not or several

I guess. Whatever.

But reasonable people cannot disagree that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights in society, even if it contravenes their religious beliefs

Are you talking about voting rights, free speech rights, freedom to assemble peacefully rights, freedom of religion rights or freedom of the press rights? I support all of these and I hope youre not trying to conjure up rights out of thin air that were never debated or ratified.

I pretty much see it as them saying they have roughly the same respect for equality as the KKK. They are *explicitly* withdrawing to avoid having to accept treating citizens with equal respect

This is the most unbelievably stupid remark that I have seen in quite some time, and I'm on the internet alot. Just for starters, let us examine the civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama in 1965.



From Racial Justice and the People of God: The Second Vatican Council, the Civil Rights Movement and American Catholics, we read...



"One participant observed that many speakers at the headquarters of the Selma campaign "pointed out with happiness and gratitude that this was the first time that so many Catholic priests, acting with their bishops permission, had joined them on the frontlines of the movement. Ralph Abernathy congratulated one priest on the Catholic turnout, jocularly adding " the only ones they hate more than Negroes down here are Roman Catholics, especially Monsignors."

Newspapers across the country including the New York Times and the Washington Post, carried front-page photos of nuns in full-habit striding down Dallas county roads. One editorial concluded that "For a great many Catholics the pictures of demonstrating clergymen and religious flashed on TV screens or bannered on front pages, spoke more more clearly and directly than any other conciar degree could ever do about the effective presense of the Church in the world today." A nun marching down Selma's Highway 80 made the same point emphatically: "We are the Church", she declared."



Now compare this to the actions of the Ku Klux Klan in Selma of 1965. If one were to ask family members of Viola Liuzzo if the Catholic Church and the KKK deserve to be on equal footing, what do you think their response would be?



Of course, all of this is before we get into other measurable metrics between the two groups such as lynchings since the Reconstruction, number of universities founded, number of orphanages founded, food pantrys for the poor started and other examples then your comprison begins to become apparent as the complete canard that it truly is.



I await your reply NLC, however I'm about 100% positive that you will fade to black and disappear, failing to support the statements that you have made. But who knows? I might wind up being suprised.