In a sad piece of news from a couple of weeks ago, the US bishops are against the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) adopting a proposed regulation that would add sexual orientation to a list of categories for which one receiving HUD funds cannot discriminate. They believe that this would cause many faith-based initiatives to not participate in HUD, especially when it comes to "shared" housing projects. I guess that they are scared that a couple's gayness may rub off on some of the nearby children. Later on in the statement, they also state that they are against unmarried straight couples living together in shared housing. This seems to be an addendum of sorts to try and prove that they are not homophobic, because the proposed regulation has absolutely nothing to do with unmarried straight couples. Basically, the bishops are stating that if this passes, they may take their ball and go home. It is actually quite disgusting that the bishops are putting out a document that essentially states, "We are not against gay couples having housing, but they should not be near anybody else." This is simply another embarrassing move for US bishops regarding their thoughts on pelvic issues. Sadly, this could affect where some people could live.
A Faithful Catholic
3 comments:
Oh, honey...do you read anything thoroughly? In case you were feeling a little open-minded this morning, I'll say this: the bishops aren't telling people they can't fornicate (or commit other sexual acts, in the case of sodomy) if for whatever reason they prefer to sin. They don't even mention it. What they're saying is that the gov't shouldn't force people who don't want to enable a certain behavior to do so. That would be like the gov't saying that all drug-recovery orgs must provide bongs to addicts who seek them. "But drug-recovery orgs don't believe in that kind of behavior!" they would say. Oh, sorry, your beliefs don't matter, because there are enough potheads to pass this legislation. Think about it.
I see Kat you are apparently infallible in determining what is a sin.
But consider: Since the church considers the use of contraceptives a sin, do I have a right to own a restaurant but ask those who come to eat if they use contraception, and if they answer in the affirmative, bar them from my restaurant.
I could give many examples ot things some personally believe are sinful, but still cannot allow those who do "sin" to be discriminated against.
I bet your hero is Savanarola)sp?)
I'm serious. Your argument is so off-key, I must not understand it.
LOL. Oh, Mark. I suggest you learn more about logic and avoid ad hominem attacks, straw men arguments, and the fallacy of guilt by association.
It's not a matter of "discrimination" against those with homosexual tendencies. The church through its charities will gladly find housing for a person regardless of their sexual inclinations. The point is that they won't do so for unmarried couples, which is what the gov't effectively has mandated. The Church doesn't approve of the behavior, and certainly wouldn't wish to enable it. This is why you need to actually read the article and my argument, and perhaps you may understand.
Post a Comment