tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post5810587436103147407..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Sins of the MotherDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-41854826558706151612010-03-11T18:49:23.654-08:002010-03-11T18:49:23.654-08:00Such a fascinating story. I agree with @chingona. ...Such a fascinating story. I agree with @chingona. BTW - I'm a newbie to your blog but I've enjoyed myself so far. Kudos!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-49295332330473442402010-03-10T19:10:19.599-08:002010-03-10T19:10:19.599-08:00That's one way of looking at it, but I find ma...That's one way of looking at it, but I find many people have "firm principles" they are nonetheless willing to compromise.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-45786084657072816522010-03-10T11:10:23.000-08:002010-03-10T11:10:23.000-08:00@ joe
Well, obviously. If 90 percent of the paren...@ joe<br /><br />Well, obviously. If 90 percent of the parents were gay, they'd somehow find a way to get over themselves.<br /><br />So sure, it's more pragmatic, but it makes the argument that they MUST stand on principle pretty unpersuasive for anyone who thinks about it for very long.chingonanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-49467351799331074202010-03-10T10:59:18.860-08:002010-03-10T10:59:18.860-08:00chingona, one pragmatic reason (from the Church...chingona, one pragmatic reason (from the Church's pov, that is; obviously not pragmatic in the sense it's an irrational bias in the first place) is that most of those other categories account for a wider swathe of the population than same-sex parents, so they're not turning as many people away for standing on principle.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-51103154248230844352010-03-09T20:44:02.666-08:002010-03-09T20:44:02.666-08:00Ack! Beginning of the second graf should be "...Ack! Beginning of the second graf should be "why they haven't declined to enroll ..."chingonanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-42913347713475530282010-03-09T20:41:34.794-08:002010-03-09T20:41:34.794-08:00The argument from the Church is that it is not tha...The argument from the Church is that it is not that the child is corrupted or sinful somehow, but that the parents - by virtue of their "lifestyle" - are living in a manner not in accord with church teaching. And that when parents enroll their children in Catholic school, they are entering into a partnership to raise their children in accordance with church teaching. Too much cognitive dissonance, they say.<br /><br />What they haven't accounted for is why they have declined to allow the enrollment of children with divorced parents, parents who used assisted reproductive technology to conceive and bear them (though, in the consistency camp, I should note that apparently a Catholic school teacher was fired for using IVF), or all the parents who use contraception. For that matter, they enroll children whose parents aren't even Catholic!<br /><br />So the justification, unsatisfying though it is to those of us on the other side of this, is not a blood taint kind of argument. <br /><br />What it does do, though, is elevate homosexual behavior above other sins in excluding this family from the community, and I've known more than one Christian who argued that was a theologically suspect approach - that is, there is not much justification for considering homosexuality a worse sin than, say, pride or lying.chingonanoreply@blogger.com