[Buckeye McFrog]

This is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

There, I just criticized the senior leadership of my Church again. Any of you wanna start hurling invectives and calling me a Protestant again, bring it on.

[wideawake]

BM, if you don't bother to read with comprehension and react without knowledge, you are going to get criticized.

Do you not understand, at your age, that media articles consist mostly of spin?

And that what someone actually says, as opposed to what the media is trying to make them say, is more important?

And that the media deliberately quotes people selectively to twist their words?

And that the media conveniently leaves out important details that would sabotage their entire spin if they were mentioned?

Why is it that self-described conservatives take news stories at face value, when they should know better?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Buckeye, I'm respectfully assuming I can reason with you. Please look at the parts that are in quotes
as opposed to the parts that are not.

Despite the slap-you-cheeks headline, this Fr. Paglia said nothing about sodomy, boy-boy or boy-girl sexual cohabitation in particular, etc. etc. He was talking about the availability of laws other than marriage laws to deal with parties sharing a domicile.

That could be a mother and adult son, that could be two chaste maiden ladies, that could be a couple of guys with no known sharing of anything else except the refrigerator, it could be a pair of twin sisters, that could be a disabled homecare patient with a resident caregiver who's also his aunt.

He did not specify sexual preconditions or recognition.

He said that individual laws and property laws could address issues involving this class of people: people who share a home but are not covered by marriage law.

What he said was so unremarkable, that Agency France-Presse had to add 12 more paragraphs to make it seem that he said something salesworthy at the newsstands.

They even managed to mangle a reference to the Catechism. The Catechism does not say that there can be "no" "discrimination" against gays. It says there can be no >"unjust" discrimination, meaning something that has nothing to do with the person's sexuality per se, such as: a hospital can't refuse to treat a gay boy who was injured in a train wreck.

Yeah, if you stare at the screen enough, you can see I'm folding my hands and praying for patience. In between rolling my eyes.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Buckeye, I'm respectfully assuming I can reason with you. Please look at the parts that are in quotes
as opposed to the parts that are not.

Despite the slap-you-cheeks headline, this Fr. Paglia said nothing about sodomy, boy-boy or boy-girl sexual cohabitation in particular, etc. etc. He was talking about the availability of laws other than marriage laws to deal with parties sharing a domicile.

That could be a mother and adult son, that could be two chaste maiden ladies, that could be a couple of guys with no known sharing of anything else except the refrigerator, it could be a pair of twin sisters, that could be a disabled homecare patient with a resident caregiver who's also his aunt.

He did not specify sexual preconditions or recognition.

He said that individual laws and property laws could address issues involving this class of people: people who share a home but are not covered by marriage law.

What he said was so unremarkable, that Agency France-Presse had to add 12 more paragraphs to make it seem that he said something salesworthy at the newsstands.

They even managed to mangle a reference to the Catechism. The Catechism does not say that there can be "no" "discrimination" against gays. It says there can be no >"unjust" discrimination, meaning something that has nothing to do with the person's sexuality per se, such as: a hospital can't refuse to treat a gay boy who was injured in a train wreck.

Yeah, if you stare at the screen enough, you can see I'm folding my hands and praying for patience. In between rolling my eyes.