There was an error in this gadget

Thursday, June 10, 2010

New frontiers in pretzel logic of Catholics

So according to the Catholic Church, “the gays” are bad. Really bad. They’ve always been pretty upfront about that, haven’t they?

A big part of that, perhaps, is that “the gays” are waaaaay more into porn than the Adam and Eve-ers. That’s what one bonehead who’s respected enough to have a regular column in the Catholic Pravda thinks is the reason children of “the gays” should not be allowed in Catholic schools. He thinks porny stuffs “go along with the same-sex lifestyle, which — as not being related to procreation — is inherently eroticized and pornographic.’’

Let’s see if that proclamation leads to massive behavior changes among homophobes and deflates the largest business on the intranets: PORN; the subject material of which is most often men having sex with women. If you were a homophobe hetero, wouldn’t you stop watching porn—even straight porn—if someone told you it was “gay”?

But if you don’t have a stake in the interests of “the gays” maybe you know someone who has adopted a child. Nice of folks to do that kind of thing. The believers often encourage adoption as an alternative to allowing women to think and act on their own when it comes to their bodies. Still, they might put those kind folks in a lesser class than, you know, actual parents.

Not so.

Dingbat Barnicle-wannabe sort-of apologized* for his “the gays love porn way more than ‘normal’ people” statements. But according to the Boston Globe, he’s standing by other statements he wrote in the column, including that “gay parents should not be called “parents’’ unless they are biologically related to their children.”

Grab a Latin thesaurus, we need a new word! Maybe “Civil caretakers?”

I guess it’s no surprise that this dumb-dumb doesn’t think the children of civil caretakers who are gay should be allowed into catholic schools. In addition to probably bringing in porn, he thinks it would open the door for paren…sorry, civil caretakers, to “advocate” for their “lifestyle.” He thinks they’re looking for an ‘in’ to recruit!! If you could recruit people into “gaydom” wouldn’t a free sample of gay sex being given by the trusted parish priest be something the church would’ve wanted to avoid?

Ah, but I ramble. The Catholic Church and a good number of their members think “the gays” are bad. Really, really bad. Is this news in ANY way?

----------------------------------
*“I think I probably would not make that point again, and I can see how it would be offensive,” is not an apology. It’s not even close. An apology isn’t even “I’m sorry if anyone felt offended by this,” which the paper said. An apology is “These statements were offensive and I/we apologize for writing/publishing them.”

2 comments:

Anne T-B said...

Children conceived through fertility or who were adopted are WANTED. Their parents became so INTENTIONALLY. If anything, they should proudly wear that name even more so than others. Those who "accidentally" conceived....well, does God think they will make better parents? I don't think so. These "rules" are created by man. Our real God knows the difference.

llq said...

pretty good post. I lawful stumbled upon your blog and wanted to command that I get really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any condition I’ ll be subscribing to your maintain and I hope you despatch again soon christian louboutin platforms.