One lifestyle which is demonstrably bad for child-rearing is, ironically enough, that which Catholic Priests profess...
That statement is stupid enough that I almost didn't want to respond to it, there is no genuine statistical evidence to show that being a Catholic priest is more dangerous for kids than living in Mass is (for example). However, you do open the door to an interesting counterpoint. Is the profession the problem or is it their sexual orientation? You ignored the obvious pedophilia issue so if we discount that, the stereotype is Catholic priests (all male) and Altar BOYS and that sounds an awful lot like a homosexual encounter. Gosh, maybe it's a sign of just how perverse homosexuals are that they infiltrate the priesthood and go about corrupting innocent young boys.
Now in case it's not obvious I'm just saying that to illustrate what the "other side" could easily say when faced with that sort of remark. I would have hoped you would have understood this from my earlier comments, but given your post, I think you might have missed it. I think disciminating on the basis of sexual orientation is STUPID, but I also think that in the US, it's going to be hard to really enforce an anti-discimination law that ultimatley conflicts with the religious beliefs or a lot of people. The Supreme Court just sided with a Native American tribe that uses a hallucinogen in their religious ceremonies based on the idea that the government couldn't enforce a zero tolerance drug policy that conflicted with those people's honest sincere beliefs.
That being said, until it's settled I think it's more important to let the largest number of organizations work to get kids adopted than to kick some out for discriminating on that specific issue (which believe it or not a lot of people really do sincerely believe is wrong). That's the main iss that I first commented on and that's ultimatey my point. As much as possible, kids should have parents and punishing an organization like the CC (even if they're being forced into this position by the church) is only going to hurt kids and parents who will have one less group working to get adoptions done.
If anything this issue has left me with some grave misgivings about the whole "freedom of religin" concept as it's currently being interpreted by the Supreme Court. When I first heard about the ruling on the tribe's use of the drug in it's cermonies I was somewhat cheered up by the possibility that maybe we were moving away from our ill advised and idiotic "War on Drugs" but now I'm wondering if the new SC isn't going to make it easier for people to do what they want if they can convincingly claim that it's their "religious belief".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 02:57 am (UTC)That statement is stupid enough that I almost didn't want to respond to it, there is no genuine statistical evidence to show that being a Catholic priest is more dangerous for kids than living in Mass is (for example). However, you do open the door to an interesting counterpoint. Is the profession the problem or is it their sexual orientation? You ignored the obvious pedophilia issue so if we discount that, the stereotype is Catholic priests (all male) and Altar BOYS and that sounds an awful lot like a homosexual encounter. Gosh, maybe it's a sign of just how perverse homosexuals are that they infiltrate the priesthood and go about corrupting innocent young boys.
Now in case it's not obvious I'm just saying that to illustrate what the "other side" could easily say when faced with that sort of remark. I would have hoped you would have understood this from my earlier comments, but given your post, I think you might have missed it. I think disciminating on the basis of sexual orientation is STUPID, but I also think that in the US, it's going to be hard to really enforce an anti-discimination law that ultimatley conflicts with the religious beliefs or a lot of people. The Supreme Court just sided with a Native American tribe that uses a hallucinogen in their religious ceremonies based on the idea that the government couldn't enforce a zero tolerance drug policy that conflicted with those people's honest sincere beliefs.
That being said, until it's settled I think it's more important to let the largest number of organizations work to get kids adopted than to kick some out for discriminating on that specific issue (which believe it or not a lot of people really do sincerely believe is wrong). That's the main iss that I first commented on and that's ultimatey my point. As much as possible, kids should have parents and punishing an organization like the CC (even if they're being forced into this position by the church) is only going to hurt kids and parents who will have one less group working to get adoptions done.
If anything this issue has left me with some grave misgivings about the whole "freedom of religin" concept as it's currently being interpreted by the Supreme Court. When I first heard about the ruling on the tribe's use of the drug in it's cermonies I was somewhat cheered up by the possibility that maybe we were moving away from our ill advised and idiotic "War on Drugs" but now I'm wondering if the new SC isn't going to make it easier for people to do what they want if they can convincingly claim that it's their "religious belief".