Comments on: Washington Catholic Bishops demean gay parents

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:31:00 +0000

Kitty … That’s just me, not regan. It is a particuLar sore spot for me, because heterosexuals frequently reproduCe without thought for the consequences. Gay people pick up the pieces, and we are damned by the likes of the RCC for being responsible and loving.

By: ebohlman

ebohlman — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:33:57 +0000

The bishops seem to have a rather skewed vision of where the responsibility in parenthood lies. Raising children is hard work that requires plenty of sacrifice. It’s something that most adults can do, but I’ve never subscribed to the zero-sum notion that work is only valuable to the extent that you’re one of the few people who can do it. In this case, it takes a lot of effort and the result is, in a broad sense, the creation of value. So it’s praiseworthy work. It’s also something that in no way requires that both of the people doing it be heterosexual.

Conceiving children, OTOH, isn’t hard work that requires sacrifice, especially for the male partner in a heterosexual relationship (and of course the RCC hierarchy is all male). Being a (good) Dad to your kids is a matter of hard work and sacrifice. Being a biofather to your kids is a matter of thrusting until you squirt; plenty of seriously messed-up 14-year-old boys can do it and have done it. If you don’t take the radfem position that female heterosexual desire is purely a matter of false consciousness and that straight sex is traumatic to the female partner (and very few people take that seriously), conceiving (as opposed to raising) a child is mostly a lot of play with very little work (of course, gestating a child involves a fair amount of sacrifice on the part of the eventual mother, but I don’t think that’s what the bishops are talking about, nor do I think they’d have the proper perspective to talk about it). I really smell “no-cost virtue” here, much like the person who gives up smoking for Lent when he’s never smoked in the first place.

By: WMDKitty

WMDKitty — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:37:14 +0000

Ben directly referred to adoptees and fosters as “the castoff, unwanted, products of irresponsible heterosexual procreation”

Are you seriously saying that’s not offensive? Because it IS offensive, and it’s inaccurate. It’s an oddly pervasive myth, really, when the truth is that most adoptees and fosters are very much WANTED AND LOVED. But due to circumstances, the bio-parents were unable to care for them. It’s that simple.

And if he “didn’t mean it that way”, he should have used different words.

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:53:15 +0000

WMDKitty, if you’re reading this. I didn’t refer to any children as unwanted or discarded.
I might be parsing here, but although Ben interpreted his own comment that way, the intention is a matter of communicating a reality, and in no way is an intention of demeaning those without families.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:56:57 +0000

Blake, good guess, actually ;)

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:13:01 +0000

The Catholic Bishops have given us more evidence of the effect which prejudice against LGBT people has on logical reasoning.

& Tim, you’re the Coliseum.

By: WMDKitty

WMDKitty — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:00:25 +0000

@Regan — Yeah, I misread it, though I’d suggest, in the future, you don’t put so much emphasis on the “OTHER PEOPLE’S children” when discussing things like adoption.

Also, please stop referring to adoptees and fosters as “unwanted” and “discarded” — the vast majority of cases are children who were wanted and loved, but the bio-parents could not (for whatever reason) take care of them.

By: PC

PC — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:42:27 +0000

“Were the definition of marriage to change, there would be no special laws to support and recognize the irreplaceable contribution that these married couples make to society and to the common good by bringing to life the next generation.”

Finally, Catholic bishops admit they want special rights for heterosexuals! I say heterosexual couples should be given the same rights as everyone else and not benefit from special laws! Seriously, why should 36 hour marriages receive special rights and privileges, codified in special laws, compared to 30 year relationships?

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:10:44 +0000

For a moment, lets shift our focus from the vile bishops to some really good news:

48 Catholic schools in Philly to close, reorganize

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia plans to shutter about a quarter of its Roman Catholic high schools and close or combine nearly 30 percent of its elementary schools mainly because of rising costs and low enrollment, officials said Friday. . .

The system’s current enrollment of 68,000 students is the same number the archdiocese served in 1911. It also represents a 35 percent drop in the student population since 2001. . .

The archdiocese already had closed 30 schools during the past five years, leaving 178 schools in the city and four surrounding counties. . .

Nationwide, Catholic schools have lost more than 587,000 students since 2000, according to the National Catholic Education Association. At least 1,750 schools have closed.

As the vile bishops become evermore entrenched in their bigotry, the people they rely on to pay the bills seem to be moving on. (I’m not attempting to establish a cause and effect here.)

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:03:47 +0000

And Thanks Blair, you were EXACTLY right about my comment!