28 July 2011

Local News Roundup

Today brings a remarkable collection of stories of interest from our local newspaper of record:

1.  The police officer who wished a local drunk a Happy New Year in this video has been exonerated of any wrongdoing (although the sergeant who told him not to file a required report is retiring).

2.  In a story I won't link, or even explain all that much due to the grotesque content, an owner of an "S&M" club seeks city approval of what would be the first such legal "for-profit" enterprise in Missouri.  If you must read the story, search STLToday for yourself.  I post about it because a supporter "sees [the] effort as a civil rights issue."[He] is definitely pushing the envelope in order to make things more mainstream," she said.

Hmmm, a "civil rights issue" done "in order to make things more mainstream."  Does that sound familiar?  That brings us to two more stories...


3.  Nearly one-fourth of "gay-couple" households in the area are raising kids.  I suspect that DCFS isn't that concerned.


4.  Following the lead of the department of redundancy department's favorite burg (the City of University City), the more pedestrian-named City of Olivette now has passed two so-called "gay-rights" measures, including a domestic partner registry.


And who says there isn't any good news anymore?

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Eternal Rest, grant unto Archbishop Sambi, o Lord, and let perpetual Light shine upon him. May his soul and all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen

StGuyFawkes said...

This particular business could be easily closed using Joseph Scheidler's tactics for closing abortion clinics.

Four steps:

Step 1. Station a regular group of protestors outside the club.

Step 2. Have protestors take pictures of everyone who goes in and out of the club.

Step 3. Send the photos of all the prominent judges, attorneys and politicians who frequent the club to all their family members.

Step 4. Send all photos of anyone who frequents the club to the Veiled Prophet Organization, the St. Alban's Hunting Club, St. Louis Country Club, and The Bogey Club for cross checking against their membership.

Step 5. As an act of charity and love of The Church send any photo of any young man seen entering the club to Kendrick Seminary for cross checking against their candidates. (Not to be slanderous, just saying it's better to be safe than sorry!)

AND FINALLY:

5. Have a tailgate party as the trucks move up to haul away all the racks and chains which will all soon show up on Craigslist.

If anyone wants to set this up I'm your guy.

St. Guy

doughboy said...

Can't wait to see what 'progress' we make in another 10 years.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure I understand your point. Why would you want the government to meddle in the lives of law-abiding citizens that are raising and caring for a child?

Rory said...

Anonymous of July 28 at 21:38 asked:

"Why would you want the government to meddle in the lives of law-abiding citizens that are raising and caring for a child?"

I am wondering if it has been established or conceded that gay parents can be described as "raising and caring for a child"?

If one perceives an individual homosexual act to be a perversion of nature, how could the same person possibly think that two people who continuously live as perverts could be capable of "raising and caring for a child"? Many Christians hold that there is more to the care and raising of a child than abiding by the law of any particular society. What if the law of some society is incompatible with the teaching of Christianity?

Anyway, I think you need to look to how profoundly repulsive homosexuality is to some of us. According to Traditional Catholic thought for instance, the sin, whether legal or not, is one of only four that, "cry to heaven for vengeance"!

You sound like you think there is uniformity of beliefs in accepting homosexuality as moral, merely if it is legal. No way. You can't ignore the fact that many citizens on either side of the debate agree that what is legal may be immoral, and what is illegal may be moral. If you would understand why, if we lived under a regime that honored the teachings of Christianity, some of us would think it desirable that government would prohibit children of heterosexuals to be adopted by homosexuals, you must realize the truth accepted by every thoughtful commentator on both sides: YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE IMMORALITY.

R

Anonymous said...

"I am wondering if it has been established or conceded that gay parents can be described as "raising and caring for a child"?" Why, yes. I think the State of IL has both established and conceded that gays can raise and care for a child...With that said, I'm guessing they probably used slightly different verbiage.

To my knowledge, the expression "If one perceives..." rarely appears in law books, the Constitution, or the Bible.

Rory said...

Anonymous at 11:32 on July 29 responds to my speculation as to "Why would you want the government to meddle in the lives of law-abiding citizens that are raising and caring for a child?"

My speculation included the question as to whether it has been established or conceded that gay couples can adequately raise and care for a child.

Your response is that the state of Illinois has established this fact. But Anonymous of July 29 at 11:32, your question wasn't directed to the state of Illinois. It was directed at someONE who you perceived to be in opposition to Illinois.

You seem to be one of very few people who think that the morality of an act is determined by whether it is legal in any particular United State. (You don't claim any special powers for Illinois over the 49?) Do you think that slavery was moral when and where it was the legal according to the law of certain states? If not, how do you reconcile your appeal to the state of Illinois as the final authority on whether gay parents should be allowed to adopt children? Will you change your position so soon as Illinois changes its position? It seems that you should. That is certainly what follows from your argument.

You made on observation that the expression I used, "If one perceives", rarely appears in law books, the Constitution, or the Bible. The reason is evident. I am not writing law or Scripture. I answering the question you asked about why someONE might want government to prevent gay couples from adopting children. The simple answer for why someONE might oppose the policy of the state of Illinois is to be discovered in that ONE's perceptions as I said. Right or wrong, that is the answer to your question, and 99% of homosexuals and heterosexuals would understand this.

Another area where I agree with with the vast majority of homosexuals and heterosexuals is that I deny that a state by declaring a benign act to be illegal, or an evil act to be legal is by virtue of that fact an established authority on whether that act is moral.

I would suggest that 99% of homosexuals and heterosexuals are in agreement (against you) that the state of Illinois can potentially err in a question such as the one being raised. If you were thinking like most people, you would not have difficulty understanding that what we have here is a common occurrence in a pluralistic society, a clash of opinion about a particular moral question.

It seems impossible that a culture should adopt the position that everything that is legal is also moral and prudent, or that everything that is illegal is immoral or imprudent. Political bodies are inconsistent judges of morality. What is legal today might be illegal tomorrow. It is an ever-changing standard. Believing that we have a duty to question the morality of questionable activities legalized by political bodies, that Nazis were prosecuted, slave trading was opposed and ended, and adoption by homosexual couples is questioned, regardless of whether Illinois approves it or not.

The morality of an act is not determined according to whether it is legal or illegal. Most thoughtful, committed, and public minded persons, both heterosexual and homosexual, will be in agreement about this principle.

Anonymous said...

"You seem to be one of very few people who think that the morality of an act is determined by whether it is legal in any particular United State." Then again, I am in the plurality in that I believe that the Gov't shouldn't be made to enforce laws that aren't on the books, irrespective of what one specific individual believes.

Frankly, I do not believe you can compare gays parents providing for a child to human enslavement.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to say the rosary for those Catholics that use to eat meat on Fridays.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 21:45 - Wow ... I am frankly surprised at your meager response, having had such a thorough response presented before you.
/S

Anonymous said...

I believe that your statement
should be amended to read, "Franky, I am surprised..."

Your alledged "thorough response" was obviously written before my retort, so it was presented 'after,' as opposed to 'before' me.

Anonymous said...

Are you assuming that all homosexuals engage in sexual acts? It is possible that homosexuals may live in the same house but abstain from particular sexual behavior.

There are heterosexuals who live in the same house but do not engage in sexual acts. Because they live together, do we assume they live in sin?

And what about two men or two women who are heterosexual living in the same dwelling to share expenses. We could assume they are homosexual when they are not. Should we declare these people should not care for children?

I would prefer seeing a child being raised in a loving, safe environment with homosexuals than in an abusive environment where a child is beaten or emotionally abused.

Anonymous said...

Amen.

Anonymous said...

No one would prefer to see a child raised in any abusive environment. Most I think would rather see a child raised in a loving, safe environment with Mom and Dad than what most would agree is a fundamentally disordered environment that is abusive on a different order. But then, when you reconstruct the essential definition of 'family' you can make the argument that you do.

Rory said...

Anonymous of 31 July, at 6:38said...

"Are you assuming that all homosexuals engage in sexual acts?"

Answer: Pretty much. I assume there are people who might have this disorder who do not act on it. But the ones who are proclaiming their disorder to the world because they see nothing wrong with it are probably acting on it.

As for the purpose of the question at hand, adoption...There are other qualifications for being good adoptive parents besides whether you perform homosexual acts. Inactive homosexuals shouldn't be adoptive parents. Its bad enough the way married people split up. Do two friends who are inactive homosexuals seem like they are going to be together for life, raising children, enjoying grandchildren? When the romantic sentimentalism of "having children" wears off, married people break vows and split up even when they love the children and knowing it hurts them? And you want two homosexual friends to be able to adopt if it can be demonstrated they are not active? I don't believe in allowing heterosexual friends to share a child together either.

"It is possible that homosexuals may live in the same house but abstain from particular sexual behavior."

Answer: Among other probabilities, that is one possibility. But what difference does it make in regards to adoption?

"There are heterosexuals who live in the same house but do not engage in sexual acts. Because they live together, do we assume they live in sin?"

Answer: I assume they do unless there is some reason to think they don't. Perhaps the sin is only in the appearance. But we are commanded to avoid the occasions and even the appearance of sin.

But for the record, even if I could know that a guy and girl living together for economic reasons are only guilty of the appearance and occasion, there is no way I could think they would make good adoptive parents either.

"And what about two men or two women who are heterosexual living in the same dwelling to share expenses. We could assume they are homosexual when they are not. Should we declare these people should not care for children?"

Answer: There is no reason to assume that any random two guys or gals sharing an apartment are homosexuals. But there are good reasons why they shouldn't be adoptive parents.

Do you think that those who oppose homosexual adoptions are proposing that every two heterosexual individuals that live under the same roof should be allowed to adopt? I speak only for myself, but I am not so "pro-heterosexual" that I think every heterosexual would make a good parent.

"I would prefer seeing a child being raised in a loving, safe environment with homosexuals than in an abusive environment where a child is beaten or emotionally abused."

Answer: Who is suggesting a policy that would lead to children being in abusive environments? How could you think that anyone would advocate child abuse? When did we conclude that children need to be adopted by either nice homosexuals or nasty heterosexuals? We didn't. Some of us would probably advocate that SOME married men and women would make good adoptive parents.

Your preference therefore, is nothing anyone could disagree with, but so what? You only give us two options that are unacceptable. I'd rather fall out of a tall building than be eaten by crocodiles today, but that's just me. And in any case, I am thinking that there are other options.

Anonymous said...

Have at it. Here's the opportunity you have been always been waiting for. You can help society, while putting your money where your mouth is. As long as you are down at the foster home, go ahead and adopt 20 or 30 them. There's plenty more from whence they came.

Anonymous said...

@21:47. Well, THERE's a well thought out response no one dare refute.