Homosexual people have been the most privileged group in western moral liberalism’s discourse

[beam me up scottie]

Homosexual Interests Trump the Poor’s
September 25, 2014 by David Mills

“The Catholic Church does incalculable good, providing immeasurable comfort — material as well as spiritual — to so many,” explains Frank Bruni in his New York Times column on same-sex marriage.

But it contradicts and undercuts that mission when it fails to recognize what more and more parishioners do: that gay people deserve the same dignity as everyone else, certainly not what happened to the Montana couple. If Francis and his successors don’t get this right, all his other bits of progress and pretty words will be for naught.

There you have it: the interests of some homosexuals who want to be married — a minority of a small percentage of the population — trumps the needs of the poor for whom Francis speaks so constantly and insistently. That homosexual people have been the most privileged group in western moral liberalism’s discourse has been clear for some time, but rarely said so directly.

For years, critics of the Church’s teaching on marriage have noted that Jesus said a lot more about poverty than he did about sex, and that was a fair point. Much conservative thinking was unbalanced. But the same criticism could be made in return. And when following Francis Catholics and other Christians begin to redress the balance, moral liberalism remains unbalanced.

Yes, how dare people who want equal rights for that teeny tiny privileged minority ignore the plight of the poor.

Gawd knows the Catholic Church does everything in its power to help them.

[w4rma]

1. Gay folks band together better to lobby than poor folks do.

Also, gay rights doesn't affect the bank accounts of the super-wealthy so super-wealthy neo-liberals support gay rights, but often attack worker rights.

[The Magistrate]

2. I Love The Past Tense, Ma'am, The 'Much Conservative Thinking WAS Unbalanced'

As if it is any better balanced today. Conservative thinking is always unbalanced, and will remain so, and that tied to religious dogmas is the most unbalanced, and most certain to remain so.

And while I am pleased to see the new Pope saying some sensible things, 'beginning to redress the balance' is nothing.

When Bishops who prattle on about homosexuals and abortion are pulled from their posts, when Catholic magnates are threatened with denial of sacraments and excommunication for paying cut-throat wages and engaging in usurious speculations and tax evasions, and Catholic politicians face the same threats for votes in favor of these practices, then, perhaps, after a century or so, one could begin to speak of 'the balance being redressed'....

[beam me up scottie]

3. Good to see you, sir.

The right to choose is on the ballot again this year, especially in Tennessee where religious conservative legislators will be able to restrict abortions at will.

Amendment 1 it's called.

I have no doubt it will pass.

I'm tired of people telling me that religion doesn't adversely affect me in any REAL way in this country.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. Religion will always stand in the way of progress.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Well there you have it, obviously we must choose between treating everyone as equals

and feeding the poor. There is only so much the RCC can do, hide pederasts in the Vatican, maintain enormous chunks of prime real estate and shield those holdings from the victims of pederasty, and either comfort the poor or treat them gays like people, but not both. So really it is up to the critics to decide: shut the fuck up about homophobia and misogyny, or the poor get screwed.

[rug]

6. You wouldn't be trying to create a hierarchy of oppression here, now would you?

Because I don't know what else you would call trotting out the former executive editor of First Things, a very conservative Catholic publication, to rebut Bruni's very thoughtful and accurate analysis.

Not to douse your flamebait, but here's Bruni's column http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/opinion/i-do-means-youre-done.html?_r=0 and an even more pertinent one from "Andrew Sullivan, who is both a leading gay marriage advocate and a practicing Catholic". http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/22/can-the-church-survive-in-america/

You might even want a discussion, as opposed to baiting, in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12215284

[beam me up scottie]

7. What are you talking about?

I read Bruni's article and I agree with your assessment of it.

I read Mills' response and was disgusted by it, hence the op.

Thanks for the invite and good read but I won't impose upon your group.

And when it comes to "baiting" in this one, never fear, rug, you're still the champ.