Which we didn't watch after all. I forgot I'd netflixed the remake of Halloween, and decided to watch that while there was still a whiff of the season.

Team America soon though. No, Isaac's never seen it.

John Aravosis (AMERICAblog.com) is a friend of mine, but I don't know what I feel about his new campaign.

Source

:confused:

I'm absolutely in favor of the "pause." I'd actively participate ... if only I'd ever given a dime to the Democratic party.


And with "friends" like them, who needs enemies?

Hey, my desktop wallpaper pic is on this Advocate.com story!
:)

And now, in our "Play By My Rules or I Will Leave and Take My Toys With Me" portion of the news:

Source

Source

Jeepers H. Crackers!

So, for the Catholic church, hatred of gays is more inportant than doing good works. How Christian. :rolleyes:

I don't really see a problem with their position.

Yes, I disagree with them on whether putting children in the care of gays is a sin but accepting that they do consider it to be so, then if the state says that they must if they want to facilitate any adoptions then the logical decision is to stop doing them at all. That really is the proper decision in almost any situation where you're told "you can only do the right thing if you'll do the wrong thing too."

I'm not sure how I feel about them being held to the rule, though. I guess it would depend on to what degree they are acting as an agent of the state. But it doesn't seem that far away from saying "if you want to perform state recognized weddings then you can't discriminate against performing gay weddings" which recent campaigns have stressed would not be the end result of gay marriage.

If they're receiving funds from the state to operate their adoption services, as opposed to simply filing paperwork with the state to report their adoption activities, then I think they should be required to play by state non-discrimination rules.

And yes, under those circumstance, what they've chosen is the "logical" decision based on their faulty suppositions. But it's still worth highlighting since it starkly points out the underlying flaw in said suppositions, creating a handy edge case shining a spotlight on how their dogmatic thinking can (and often does) result in detriment to community when they claim to stand for community benefit.

I remember reading a comment somewhere that it's strange to see so much homophobia coming from an orginization full of men in dresses.

Nice!