Aspin Center Honorees: Push Gay Agenda to Persecute Christian Social Service Agencies
We have blogged before about how Marquette’s Les Aspin Center has a pattern of honoring members of Congress who not merely take positions contrary to Catholic teaching, but extreme positions contrary to Catholic teaching.
Two egregious cases: Congresswoman Gwen Moore and Congressman John Lewis. (Check here for more on Moore.)
Now what have Moore and Lewis done?
They are cosponsoring a bill by California Democratic Pete Stark (H.R.3827) that would “prohibit discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identification, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent.”
In short, it would force Catholic and other Christian adoption agencies to give children to homosexual couples. In Massachusetts, the Catholic Church got out of the adoption business rather than than comply with a demand that fundamentally violated its religious conventions.
This bill, if it is passed, would have the same effect all across the nation, even in conservative states that would never impose the gay agenda on Christian social service agencies.
While the notion of “prohibiting discrimination” might sound nice, the fact is that Christian social service agencies would equally “discriminate” against potential adoptive parents engaged in adulterous relationships, those with a history of drug abuse or domestic abuse, or a whole host of other things that make them less than the best parents for a child.
Even if one thinks there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts, in a tolerant society one should not try to impose that view on people with different views.
And morality aside, there is every reason to believe that every child needs both a male and a female parent, since every child needs both a male and a female role model.
This bill, by the way, would prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status. But heterosexual couples who won’t make the commitment that marriage involves are poor candidates to be parents.
Of course, black people in general aren’t keen on the gay agenda, as the voting on California’s Proposition 8 showed. So Moore and Lewis, who are black, aren’t representing the black community very well. This may be because they are trying to placate gays and liberal yuppies that are part of their electoral coalitions, or it may be that they simply think like white liberals.
Either way, the Aspin Center showed bad judgment honoring either of them. Whether this was a reflection of the liberal views of the leadership of that institution or an attempt to curry favor with Washington politicians is hard to tell. It was probably both. But it wasn’t what any part of a supposedly Catholic university should do.
Two egregious cases: Congresswoman Gwen Moore and Congressman John Lewis. (Check here for more on Moore.)
Now what have Moore and Lewis done?
They are cosponsoring a bill by California Democratic Pete Stark (H.R.3827) that would “prohibit discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identification, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent.”
In short, it would force Catholic and other Christian adoption agencies to give children to homosexual couples. In Massachusetts, the Catholic Church got out of the adoption business rather than than comply with a demand that fundamentally violated its religious conventions.
This bill, if it is passed, would have the same effect all across the nation, even in conservative states that would never impose the gay agenda on Christian social service agencies.
While the notion of “prohibiting discrimination” might sound nice, the fact is that Christian social service agencies would equally “discriminate” against potential adoptive parents engaged in adulterous relationships, those with a history of drug abuse or domestic abuse, or a whole host of other things that make them less than the best parents for a child.
Even if one thinks there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts, in a tolerant society one should not try to impose that view on people with different views.
And morality aside, there is every reason to believe that every child needs both a male and a female parent, since every child needs both a male and a female role model.
This bill, by the way, would prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status. But heterosexual couples who won’t make the commitment that marriage involves are poor candidates to be parents.
Of course, black people in general aren’t keen on the gay agenda, as the voting on California’s Proposition 8 showed. So Moore and Lewis, who are black, aren’t representing the black community very well. This may be because they are trying to placate gays and liberal yuppies that are part of their electoral coalitions, or it may be that they simply think like white liberals.
Either way, the Aspin Center showed bad judgment honoring either of them. Whether this was a reflection of the liberal views of the leadership of that institution or an attempt to curry favor with Washington politicians is hard to tell. It was probably both. But it wasn’t what any part of a supposedly Catholic university should do.
Labels: Adoption, Gay Fascism, Gay Lobby Intolerance, Homosexuality, Liberal Intolerance
posted by John McAdams at 10:51 AM
7 Comments:
"And morality aside, there is every reason to believe that every child needs both a male and a female parent, since every child needs both a male and a female role model."
There is a lot of empirical research that suggests that this is simply false. You're entitled to believe it, but you shouldn't pretend there is much in the way of real evidence for it.
And your point about discrimination is just silly. We all accept discrimination. (I can't go into some bathrooms, for example.) The point is whether there is good reason to accept or prefer discrimination. And in this case the research suggests there is not.
None of this undermines your main point, which is that Catholic organizations should not be forced to give children to same-sex couples. Fair enough.
But let's not pretend that the research suggests that children are in general better off with two parents of different genders, or that your argument about role models is a good one. Not to mention that even if they were slightly better off in a traditional family, what needs to be compared is having parents (gay or straight) and not having parents at all. About 25,000 kids annually age out of the foster and adoptive system before they are adopted. The research shows that they are much more likely than other groups to wind up homeless, incarcerated, suffer with mental illness or be addicted to drugs
There is a lot of empirical research that suggests that this is simply false. You're entitled to believe it, but you shouldn't pretend there is much in the way of real evidence for it.
The problem with "research" in this area is that the people who do it are a self-selected group of people who are strongly supportive of the gay agenda.
what needs to be compared is having parents (gay or straight) and not having parents at all.
Different issue. If the choice is the foster care system or gay parents, let somebody besides Catholic agencies place the kids with the gay parents.
But so long as married heterosexual couples are lined up to adopt, they should get preference, and Catholic agencies should able to place them.
"The problem with "research" in this area is that the people who do it are a self-selected group of people who are strongly supportive of the gay agenda."
Any evidence for that claim? Or just biased assumptions about academics who work in empirical psychology.
You know, it is actually not a virtue of an empirical claim (such as your claim that children are worse off in same sex parented families)that no evidence could possibly count against it. That's the stance conspiracy theorists take.
Any evidence for that claim? Or just biased assumptions about academics who work in empirical psychology.
No, accurate assumptions about academics who work in empirical psychology.
See for example:
Here
And . . .
Here
it is actually not a virtue of an empirical claim . . . that no evidence could possibly count against it.
But solid evidence could count against it.
I simply don't take to seriously the claims of a little politically correct cottage industry among leftist academics.
About 25,000 kids annually age out of the foster and adoptive system before they are adopted. The research shows that they are much more likely than other groups to wind up homeless, incarcerated, suffer with mental illness or be addicted to drugs
But let's not forget that they got some pretty rough treatment before they got into the foster care system.
Nonetheless, I think it's quite sensible that having a stable family (even a same-sex couple) is better than the limbo of the foster care system.
It also sounds like you agree with me that Catholic social service agencies should not be forced to do things that violate their religious convictions. That puts you at odds with the gay lobby.
So let's just be clear. There is no evidence FOR your claim except some unsupported intuitions on your part. And you are willing to throw out ALL of the empirical evidence against your view (and there is a great deal of it) because SOME academics have biases. My guess is that the only evidence that would count as "solid" in your book is evidence that confirms your intuition (again, just like a conspiracy theorist). Probably, something coming from the FRC, which makes no pretense at being unbiased, would satisfy you.
because SOME academics have biases.
Virtually all academics who deal with these issues are a self-selected bunch that support the gay lobby.
And yes, I would be more likely to believe the FRC.
Post a Comment
<< Home