If somebody’s parents are dead, or nowhere to be found, etc., it makes sense for another couple to adopt them. The Church’s position is that there are certain things only a mom can do, and certain things only a dad can do.

Odd that you’d think that when I stated point blank in the very same comment that few SSM supporters seriously assert that every single person who opposes SSM is a bigot. On the flip side, though, the fact that there are non-bigots who oppose SSM doesn’t magically immunize all who oppose SSM from legitimate charges of bigotry.

David Nickol- if you don’t agree with the Church’s position that kids do best with their mother and father, so be it.

If the kids would do best with their father and mother then why would you be running them through an adoption agency?

So now everyone who has ever disapproved of SSM is a bigot?

“Errr, I’m sorry, how does proving a humorist in ancient Rome disapproved of SSM demonstrate that people like Brian English or Blake are not mindless?”

You are not even trying anymore.

“Indeed I don’t.”

I am glad we settled that.

Granted, bigotry happens even in non-monotheist humans.

(2) give those who condemn opposition to SSM as being mindless bigotry reason to pause before casting that aspersion (although it obviously fails in that task).

Errr, I’m sorry, how does proving a humorist in ancient Rome disapproved of SSM demonstrate that people like Brian English or Blake are not mindless? Few serious supporters of SSM assert that every single person opposed to SSM is motivated only by mindless bigotry. And perhaps the pot should stop calling the kettle black here…..we have not a word about Blake judging all SSM by a single fictional movie!

It doesn’t. More evidence you don’t understand the issue.

Indeed I don’t. You allege that Mass adopted some law that prohibits adoption agencies from operating unless they consider SS couples seeking to adopt kids. You cannot cite any such law, though, and we see non-Boston based Catholic Charities doing adoptions which means either the law doesn’t say what you allege (in which case Boston CC was not driven out), or non-Boston based CC is simply defying the law (which is odd since you’d think an adoption agency would have an on-staff lawyer who’d be aware of such things) or non-Boston based CC is defying the Vatican (which again you’d think someone would bother to notice).

See my reponse to Ingles.

“Again please show me how where Mass. adoption law has a seperate set of rules for Worcester.”

It doesn’t. More evidence you don’t understand the issue.

I have to see some evidence for this. The mutliculturists and gay rights advocates would get a two-fer if this was accurate.

“But even then, let’s grant arguendo that same-sex marriage is a completely new innovation. Does that alone make it wrong?”

What it does is:

(1) Refute the widespread assertion that condemnation of homosexual acts was something created by those evil monotheists; and

(2) give those who condemn opposition to SSM as being mindless bigotry reason to pause before casting that aspersion (although it obviously fails in that task).

I don’t see how the point still stood; Juvenal’s mocking description …

You seem to want things both ways here. I’m unaware of any SSM advocate who has made a serious case for SSM based on historical precedent. At best they may cite Roman and other ancient societies to disprove the notion that SSM is something totally new under the sun…but few people I know would be brave enough to make a case based on the premise “If the Ancient Egyptians/Romans/Greeks did it, then it must be ok”.

But I don’t think you realize how much you would stand things on their head. If the Egyptians had incest marriage, if various other cultures did other radical things like polygamy, child brides, forced marriages, rape etc. then that hardly seems to make a case against SSM IMO. If some culture where marrying your sister was not only accepted but expected opted not to recognize SSM…that doesn’t speak to me with very much moral authority. In fact, the fact that SSM had nothing to do with a culture that praised incest marriage and believed their leaders were living gods is a point in its favor if anything in my book.

CC OF BOSTON has been driven out of the adoption business. That is clearly true, and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Your obsession with CC of Worcester is just evidence that you don’t understand the issues.

Again please show me how where Mass. adoption law has a seperate set of rules for Worcester.

…can you identify any religion or culture, prior to 20 years ago, where marriages between two men or two women was treated the same way as a marriage between a man and a woman?

Actually, there were plenty of same-sex unions in China with similar legal status, among other cultures. See the Ming dynasty.

But even then, let’s grant arguendo that same-sex marriage is a completely new innovation. Does that alone make it wrong?

Still no proof? That’s what I figured.

“What we do know, though, is that your assertion that CC has been driven from the Mass. adoption business by the state is clearly false.”

CC OF BOSTON has been driven out of the adoption business. That is clearly true, and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Your obsession with CC of Worcester is just evidence that you don’t understand the issues.

“Your perspective here seems to be that it’s better to have incest marriage if you can keep your society solidly against SSM.”

My “perspective” has nothing to do with it. It is simply a matter of historical record that even societies that accepted versions of marriage that we regard as abnormal never went to the extreme of considering homosexual couples to be capable of being married the same way heterosexual couples were.

“Making a bold statement like the relationships celebrated where older men embraced younger teens did not involve any sexual activities is a pretty bold statement.”

And in any event, was not the statement I made.

“References to sexual relationships might have been lost (as has many sources of the ancient world).”

But we do have a great deal of material on sexual relationships — none of them regard homosexual couples as being the equivalent of heterosexual couples.

“Sexual relationships of this sort might have been thought of as a subject that shouldn’t be discussed in writing.”

Which would itself be evidence that such relationships were not approved of.

” Or such such sexual relationships might have been seen as so unexceptional as to be unworthy of talking about.”

Pursuant to this historical analysis approach, we are free to assert the Ancient Greeks had cell phones, since their prevalence in the society made them so unexceptional that they were unworthy of talking about.