AmericanPapist Comments
It’s hard to fathom that despite the preponderance of evidence offered by science and the cautious paradigm shift in the metaphysics of what we understand and are coming to understand as human sexuality and its relationship to being that people are still using words and phrases such as “sexual preference” and “choice” when it comes to sexual orientation. I find it ironic that most conservative Catholics, like yourself, would disdain and even disregard the Church’s teachings on homosexual persons especially in regards to the aims of this bill – basic protection. After reading the text of the bill there is no language to support the claims from the Pharisaic Right about limiting one’s abilities to discriminate because of Religious teachings, nor is there any language that undermines the DMA of ’96 or any of the recent bans on same-sex marriages/partnerships. To continue in regards to most of the posts which are labeled “homosexual lobby” - I understand you find certain aspects of the gay subculture distasteful, shocking, outrageous even, but if you’re not willing to get to know someone within that community and attempt to transform that community through the love that you profess to have in Christ
(cont.) I encourage you to do so. Who knows perhaps it will be an informing and illuminating experience for yourself as well.
First off, AMP never stated his position on this.
However, I agree with you. This looks like the type of protection that a faithful Catholic could support.
It's not so much that AmP has to state anything. He picks and chooses what information to share on his blog and elaborates on how he either agrees or disagrees with it, and the overall sense from reading his material is that in general - he's anti-homosexual. That's his right to be such, but it doesn't appear that Mr. Peters has exposed himself to the full breadth of the issues, he has taken the generally conservative stance on all the gay issues he's posted. Hence the label "Homosexual Lobby."
Without responding to your lengthy comments: I have no problem with legislation that protects human dignity. I do have a problem with legislation that makes it difficult for organizations like the Catholic Church to protect human dignity. This legislation, furthermore, appears to be simply bad law because it contradicts certain enshrined first amendment rights.
Okay, got a chance to read your comments: I'm anti-homosexual acts, which hurt human dignity and human persons. I think, with the Catholic Church, that the best way to help those with homosexual orientations is to teach them the truth of Christ and his instruction on sexuality. Legislation which enables homosexual acts and lifestyles do not benefit the good of homosexual individuals. I oppose them as I would oppose any legislation that tends to act against fundamental human goods.
Thomas,
"I think, with the Catholic Church, that the best way to help those with homosexual orientations is to teach them the truth of Christ and his instruction on sexuality."
I agree with you completely, but I don't see how this law would in any way inhibit us to do this.
"Legislation which enables homosexual acts and lifestyles do not benefit the good of homosexual individuals."
This legislation does not seem (at least to me) to enable homosexual acts and lifestyles, but rather seems to enable same sex attracted persons to secure food and shelter.
"I oppose them as I would oppose any legislation that tends to act against fundamental human goods."
Again, aren't food and shelter human goods?
This is hard though, because in this situation it is difficult to distinguish between SSA people and practicing homosexuals. But I'm not sure that the law has to in order for us to support it. This is a good discussion to have though, as more legislation like this will continue to be enacted. It will force us to be clear on what we can support (food and shelter, other dignity issues) and what we cannot (priveledges such as marriage and adoption).
I don't have a problem with the legislation. I'm not exactly certain where the legislation is in opposition to Church teaching. There's going to come a time when Congress will permit gays to openly serve in the military, and I won't find that to be alarming, either. While the argument could be made that the legislation violates the First Amendment, I think an equally strong, if not stronger, argument could be made that permitting discrimination violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
This bill makes a mockery of the rule of law. It is afforded to groups that suffer no hardship, unless imposed voluntarily upon themselves; groups that are for the most part very comfortable, if not affluent, fairly well-educated, and pampered as if they were starving political refugees fleeing from Darfur, Burma, or Zimbawe. People have all kinds of compulsions, "orientations," attractions, and preferences, but only it seems, if they are decidedly dangerous sexual practices do they get raised to the 'hero of the state' status.
Those ideological and/or pusillanimous legislators who voted for this bill are actually pushing the country towards civil unrest with legislation that flies in the face of 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian moral traditions--the bedrock of our very society.
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employer discrimination based on an "individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." We can agree religion is a preference--we can choose to worship whomever and however we want--yet employers can't discriminate based on our preference. So why is a preference of sexual orientation any different? Again, this would be something to get up in arms about if the bill truly flaunted Church teaching. I'm not seeing how it does.
Capitulating to intellects whose focus dwells between the navel and the knees, this is a major flaw of ENDA:
http://www.illinoisreview.typepad.com/
"ENDA will enshrine homosexuality in federal law, providing activist judges with the legal ammunition to move toward the legalization of gay marriage. ENDA will also prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of 'actual or perceived sexual orientation.'"
Every business or organization with more than 15 employees will be barred by federal law from refusing to hire a person because of the person's sexual orientation. Although the bill exempts "religious organizations," this exemption will likely result in expensive, time-consuming lawsuits to determine if the employer was a "religious organization" since it is not defined in the bill.
Church-related organizations such as child-care centers and other ministries with 15 or more employees could face such lawsuits. Previous attempts to amend ENDA to protect the religious freedom of employers and employees were defeated in the House Committee on Education and Labor."
If the President should sign this atrocious bill, look for lines forming outside of law offices for all the perceived cases of "discrimination" especially that supposedly done by religious groups in their efforts to keep sacred their morality and traditions in the new United Soviet States of America.
"This bill makes a mockery of the rule of law. It is afforded to groups that suffer no hardship, unless imposed voluntarily upon themselves; groups that are for the most part very comfortable, if not affluent, fairly well-educated, and pampered as if they were starving political refugees fleeing from Darfur, Burma, or Zimbawe. People have all kinds of compulsions, "orientations," attractions, and preferences, but only it seems, if they are decidedly dangerous sexual practices do they get raised to the 'hero of the state' status. "
"ENDA will enshrine homosexuality in federal law, providing activist judges with the legal ammunition to move toward the legalization of gay marriage. ENDA will also prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of 'actual or perceived sexual orientation.'"
Poppycock! Pure and simple. And by the way, it was the WHITE HOUSE that pushed for the exclusionary clauses concerning religious businesses such as Christian Bookstores and Church Daycares from being beholden to this law.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
new...RTICLE_ID=58258
I agree with Nathan, there is NOTHING in the language of the bill that impugns on the rights of Religious Institutions. These comments above, this is what’s wrong with the average American, instead of going to the source and reading it yourself, most people will just automatically let someone elses opinion inflame the passions and then run with it. For those of you who are so frightned about this bill – just read it! And if you don’t want to search for it – here’s the text:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/qu...?c110:H.R.2015:
Commenting by HaloScan
