Catholic bishop supports benefits for gay couples

Ch 6 ^

[narses]

Boston-AP) -- The Catholic Church in Massachusetts may be open to extending some benefits to gay couples.

That was the message of Worcester Bishop Daniel Reilly at today's Statehouse hearing on legalizing gay marriage.

Reilly said the church is firmly against gay marriage and civil unions, but believes that the state should provide gay couples with certain economic and social benefits, including bereavement and hospital visitation rights.

Gay rights advocates welcomed the Catholic Church to the debate, but said that denial of marriage would be a violation of same-sex couples' civil rights.

The Judiciary Committee today hosted the first-ever legislative hearing on the legalization of gay marriage or civil union.

The panel also heard testimony on an abortion bill that would require women to wait 24 hours before consenting to the procedure.

[Qwinn]

Oh, and another reason why I resist all attempts at "normalizing" the gay sexual preference?

Excerpt from the Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963



24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."


If anyone has not seen this before and would like me to reprint the full text of the Congressional Record, just ask and I will do so.

And, by the way, before anyone accuses me of religious zealotry - I am agnostic.

Qwinn

[Romulus]

Baaa-aaa-aaa-aaa

Grex locutus est.

[Qwinn]

"Sodomy is medically risky"

It is beyond merely "risky". It is downright, gravely dangerous. From the standpoint of hygiene it's about the thing a person could do. The only thing I can think of that would be more dangerous would probably violate posting guideliens if I were to post it.

"my chosen journey"

This sounds waaaaay to much like the "fellow traveller" BS of foreign sympathizers in our history. I'm sorry, but the road travelled isn't validated simply because someone chose to do it. Your entire point hinges on the fact that the activity in question is not illegal. The point was made repeatedly in the months prior to making it a "Constitutional Right" in Lawrence vs. Texas that it would be used to legitimize it on moral grounds, just another equally valid lifestyle. People making that argument were denounced as right-wing, homophobic crazies. You are now proving them right, by using the legality as moral approval.

Qwinn

[Torie]

Fair enough. I think private adult consenual activity should be legal, and if there is any right to privacy in the Constitution, it would cover this area first and foremost. Whether I approve or not is irrelevant, and should be irrelevant. I simply cannot and will not agree to anything which inhibits adults from seeking emotional atachments with other consenting adults, platonic or otherwise. Our journey on this planet is lonely enough as it is.

[Qwinn]

"If I were gay, and my parents thought my lover were a murderer, for what I did of my own free will knowing the risks, it would break my heart to know my parents were abandoning me in that way."

There are -several- things wrong with this sentence.

Would you also consider a parent that strongly disapproved of their son's alcoholism to be "abandoning" their child?

To everyone else:

There are some people here who believe that sex has been elevated to the stature of a sacrament. I disagree, although I see why they say that. People who are all out for the sex culture don't defend it the way a priest would defend celibacy - no, they defend it the way a junkie defends his drug of choice. Sex is an addiction. But whereas only some people are hard-wired for addiction to alcohol in their genes, due to natural selection or God or whatever other reason you want to claim, almost everyone is hard-wired for addiction to sex. That's about the only difference.

The thing is, people who are atheist are more likely to support "gay rights" (ugh, I still can't stand referring to it as an identity) than religious people. Atheists are also more likely to believe in Darwinism. If that is the case, why isn't the Darwinism itself a reason to reject homosexuality? It is the worst possible anti-survival trait. The genes of the true homosexual will NOT be passed down. It is total suicide on the evolutationary level.

You know how I view the effort to extend marriage rights to gays? The next step will be that because gays are "disabled" in their inability to recreate through normal means, it will be up to health agencies and the government to provide them with the means to artificial insemination so that they don't die out (which, unsurprisingly, they are - the homosexual population as a percentage of the population is dropping). Taxpayers who disapprove will of course be forced to fund it.

There's a difference between tolerance and celebration. Between acceptance and recruitment. We are so far into the "celebration" and "recruitment" phases in every aspect of our culture that there is going to be a serious backlash (I believe it's a large part of why people are leaving network TV in droves), and the gay lobbies better slow down and stop demanding that they be APPROVED of before it starts getting really ugly. No one has the "right" to be approved of. No one.

Qwinn

[Torie]

Just to get the record straight, I am neither seeking nor desire your approval of either my views, or of gays, or what gays do, or of sodomy. It is a matter of individual conscience.

[Qwinn]

"I simply cannot and will not agree to anything which inhibits adults from seeking emotional atachments with other consenting adults, platonic or otherwise."

What about hard-core S&M, the kind that gets people crippled or killed? Polygamy? Sex with children? Sex with animals? Yes, I know, you said "adults", but guess what? NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, is already pushing for recognition as a "legitimate" organization. There is no stopping the slide down this slope. The arguments you are making will lead to the breakdown of every other ethical barrier. NAMBLA will say that the age shouldn't matter, that it is in fact "age discrimination". Those favoring sex with animals will say that it is "species discrimination".

The strongest support for keeping the status quo is to elevate the marriage between a single man and a single woman as the best possible situation, inarguably better than any other arrangement. Start breaking that down, and everything else will collapse. It is inevitable.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

"Just to get the record straight, I am neither seeking nor desire your approval of either my views, or of gays, or what gays do, or of sodomy. It is a matter of individual conscience."

Never said you were. This is a discussion board. We're discussing it. BTW, if it came across wrong, I shouldn't have said "To everyone else:", I should have said "To everyone:", including you, because there was nothing about the following part aimed at you specifically in any way. I noticed that as soon as I hit the post button. Sorry bout that.

Qwinn

[saradippity]

And are you aware of the increasing,sky rocketing insurance costs since all of these Fortune 500 companies and government entitiies have started carrying insurance for "domestic partners"? In many cases there is no "conditional" coverage,if your partner has AIDS,no matter,he is insured.

The callous,uncomprehending,assinine support of these measures by persons who,like you,claim no agenda,but Christian kindness,is absolutely shameful and probably sinful. But then again you and they may be invincibly ignorant based on an intellectual deficit that prevents processing information and coming to reasonable,correct conclusions.

The consequences of the "feel good" inclusion of these very expensive partners,who have a complex of sexually related diseases and other physical problems that include but are not limited to diseases and injuries from domestic violence,mental health problems,attempted suicides,automobile accidents,STD's,AIDS,acute hepatitis,rectal/colon cancers and drug addiction. All of the aforementioned costly health problems are found in much higher frequency in the gay community.These problems call for highter usage than normal of emergency rooms,prescription drugs and mental health counselling.When you throw a group of high utilizers with their high risk behaviors in a pool of insured,the rates for everyone goes up. Just take a look,it makes health care for the ordinary family prohibitive.

If you are the least bit concerned about loving your neighbor,you need to go to a quiet room and pray to God,who should be your first love and beg for discernment.When you get it,you will know what you need to pray for and after you do that,I believe we will be seeing a new and imporoved Sinkspur on these threads.

[Torie]

Yawn. When the proposition comes up that 40 year old men should have legal sex with 16 year old boys, much less 12 year old boys, let me know, and I will oppose it vigorously. Sexual exploitation is execrable in any context, and drawing the line at 18 is a convenient and necessary one. You and your ilk can work the slippery slope argument all you want. In the end it is doomed to fail. Let me know when beastiality legalization becomes a vigorous movement, so that I can get a good laugh. I also oppose polygamy legalization, because it also is all about exploitation. I just read a book on it, that sealed the case for me on that one, Under the Banner of Heaven.

[Torie]

No problem.

[Torie]

No one has the "right" to be approved of

The above bit was what I was reacting to. And indeed, ironically enough, I agree with you.

[sinkspur]

If you are the least bit concerned about loving your neighbor,you need to go to a quiet room and pray to God,who should be your first love and beg for discernment.When you get it,you will know what you need to pray for and after you do that,I believe we will be seeing a new and imporoved Sinkspur on these threads.

If it means conforming to your callous view of the gay community, forget it. I've already prayed over it, and I just don't recognize your view of compassion.

But then again you and they may be invincibly ignorant based on an intellectual deficit that prevents processing information and coming to reasonable,correct conclusions.

Moral superiority is not your strong suit, sara. Preach to somebody else.

[Qwinn]

"I also oppose polygamy legalization, because it also is all about exploitation."

You don't think people-who-like-gay-sex are being exploited right now for political purposes?

Wow. Just - wow.

"When the proposition comes up that 40 year old men should have legal sex with 16 year old boys, much less 12 year old boys, let me know, and I will oppose it vigorously."

Well, a book that recommended dropping the age of consent to 12 years old recently got a Best Book award from the LA Times. And NAMBLA is indeed actively lobbying. Does that count? Or do we have to wait until the polls show 45% of the country in favor of it before we consider it a problem?

At that point it's too late.

Qwinn

[saradippity]

I hope that what the statement Christopher Coyne made on behalf of Bishop O'Malley was taken out of context and I believe it was.There is a difference between insurance for minor children and the "significant other". The children should be "by exception" and subject to individual review. And employees and people who carry their own insurance should start screaming big time.I have pointed out in another post to you that the sharp upturn in insurance costs is probably correlated to the addition of "partners" in so many government entities as well as big corporations.It is destroying families and a crime and a sin.

Where are all those persons who have fought to tax cigarette smokers to the point they are carrying half the special programs many states offer? They call it a sin tax and go merrily along,but paying in anyway for the devastation wreaked by homosexual behavior by the people who partake of the risky behaviors,oh,that's a different story.

[sinkspur]

``I think what's actually being said is that the benefits that are necessary for the protection of children and families don't necessarily involve any kind of a redefinition of relationship or marital status,'' Coyne said.

What possible context could there be, but that children in gay families should receive the same benefits as children in straight families?

You're going to have to adjust to the compassion of the Church, sara. Caring for children or the sick is just that.

[saradippity]

I wrote the policy for one of the three largest hospitals in arizona 14 years ago. I looked at policies from the largest hospitals in the country. The only problems involved ICU visitors and with a few exceptions "significant others" were on the list of appropriate,acceptable visitors throughout the states.

This is one of those arguments that are contrived to get people in a kerfuffle and it doesn't matter how many rules and regs and/or how tight or loose the rules are,in this day and age in this country somebody is gonna sue.This is a stupid and deceitful non issue/issue.You should truly be ashamed of yourself.

[Qwinn]

Torie:

Since you seem to think that the push for open pedophilia is just some "slippery slope angle" I am dreaming up, let me give you details on what I was talking about in terms of the LA Book Award.

The name of the book is "Harmful to Minors?" by Judith Levine. It actively argues for the lowering of the age of consent to 12 years old. She repeatedly cites sources such as NAMBLA and articles that were written by psychologists who have themselves been arrested for pedophilia, labelling them simply as "psychologists".

Here's an excerpt from a WorldNetDaily article about it:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32365

"Lest Times editors aver that this is an overstatement, consider that "Harmful to Minors," published by the University of Minnesota Press, calls for lowering the age of sexual consent to 12, and teaching children about sex with other children and with adults, in all varieties. Levine praises a child-care center where "children of all ages may engage in masturbation without shame and consensual child-with-child sexual touching without adult interference" (p. 183)."

You think the fact that LA Times endorsed this is just an abberation? Tell that to Alternet.org.

http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=12960

"In the explosive realm of adult-youth sex, many teens say that such relationships can be consensual and positive. And more than a few of us remember having such positive sexual relationships with adults when we ourselves were teens."

"Teens often seek out sex with older people, and they do so for understandable reasons: an older person makes them feel sexy and grown up, protected and special," writes Levine. "Often the sex is better than it would be with a peer who has as little skill as they do. For some teens, a romance with an older person can feel more like salvation than victimization."

Or how about Salon.com?

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/04/19/levine_talks/

"Since the publication of her book, which is subtitled "The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex," Levine has been set upon by a mob of furious critics, many of them of the opinion that the author, in at least one chapter of the book, has endorsed pedophilia. It is a predictable response, coming in the midst of general panic about child molestation by the clergy, and a Supreme Court ruling last week that reverses a ban on virtual kiddie porn. But it is also a groundless and inflammatory claim that Levine, a self-described expert in "the sexual politics of fear," does not find surprising."

Here's some "liberated Christians" to tell us about why adult-child sex isn't always so bad. This one is so awful I won't even quote from it.

http://www.libchrist.com/new2002/harmfultominors.html


Believe me. The push is on. The debate we're having about gays today is the debate we'll be having about pedophiles in 20 years, max.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

"What possible context could there be, but that children in gay families should receive the same benefits as children in straight families?"

IMHO, if that's really the argument, all it does is reinforce that it was wrong to allow gays to adopt children in the first place, because now it's being used as the wedge to endorse everything else.

Qwinn

[First Amendment]

>>>What "economic benefit" does allowing a gay person's partner involve? It's just allowing somebody to come into the hospital.<<

Reilly said the church is firmly against gay marriage and civil unions, but believes that the state should provide gay couples with certain economic and social benefits...

Did you conveniently overlook the word "economic" is the article? Doesn't "economic" mean financial, i.e. nickels?

I think it's really weird that you always pop up and side with homosexuals.