Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

That's exactly what it is. Anyone who has ever dealt with children knows the American Academy of Pediatrics is the broadest and most recognized authority.

So then ...

When the American Academy of Pediatrics passed its policy statement supporting second-parent adoptions by lesbian and gay parents in 2002, a fringe group of approximately 60 of the AAP’s more than 60,000 members formed the “American College of Pediatricians.”1 This group has been described by one of its charter members as a “Judeo-Christian, traditional-values organization,” that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions “who hold to [the ACP’s] core beliefs,” which are that “life begins at conception, and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.”2 This group issued a position statement in January 2004 supporting the “age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation.”3

In re: Gill - About the American College of Pediatricians | American Civil Liberties Union

You're really showing your ass this week. You should step away.

 

Well done Tony, well done.

That's was a hell of a gotcha moment.

 

Some other positions of the ACP ...

Link between abortion and breast cancer: Know Your ABCs: The Abortion Breast Cancer Link | American College of Pediatricians

The American College of Pediatricians urges women to “Know your ABCs” since abortion appears to be linked to breast cancer.

You can un-catch Teh Gay. Facts About Youth – What You Should Know as a School Official

Homosexual attraction is determined by a combination of familial, environmental, social and biological influences. Inheritance of predisposing personality traits may play a role for some. Consequently, homosexual attraction is changeable.

And these ever-popular and realistic sex-ed ideas. Abstinence Education | American College of Pediatricians

The American College of Pediatricians strongly endorses abstinence-until-marriage sex education and recommends adoption by all school systems in lieu of “comprehensive sex education”.

 

Granted, when I had been semi-gotcha-ed, I had quoted an article from the late 1980s, but at least it was the Harvard Business Review, not some fringe group pretending to be reputable.

 

Rand Paul's National Board of Ophthalmology laughs at the American College of Pediatricians:

How Rand Paul tried to lead an eye doctors’ rebellion - The Washington Post

 

I would put more stock in this if the exact argument wasn't used as a reason to not allow interracial marriage in 1967.

 

Wasn't ignoring your question ... left the house right before you asked it and am only just now getting back to workable access.

Perhaps I wasn't as precise with my language as I could have been. Clearly all the privileges (at least all that I can think of) are of a legal/financial nature.

I was mainly getting at the idea that private actors/institutions could find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand is their religious (or otherwise) beliefs, and on the other is a state that's obliged to enforce uniformity with regard to marriage-related privileges (even if said privileges aren't actually provided by the state). If recent history's any indication, lots of rather run-of-the-mill setups -- the Catholic parish or diocese that owns/runs its own school, or the evangelical business-owner who provides for dependent health insurance (or, maybe more to the point, retirement plans with spousal coverage) -- could wind up in the crosshairs.

One could believe that the people behind those setups are in the wrong (as I do) and yet still believe that they should be free to be wrong. Factoring those into your position on same-sex marriage could lead you to say no to it without your having ANY animus toward homosexuals.

 

The first thing that comes to mind is "...not very good at minding my own business."

The second is, "...probably putting too much thought into it."

Legally, there's not a lot of nuance to the issue. Religiously, there is, but again, religions can still do whatever they want in regards to it.

One's position alone doesn't make one bigoted. One's detailed explanation of that position does, way more often than not.

 

I'll gladly stand behind an organization of learned professionals who have dedicated their lives to children over whiners who call "bigot" every time they're challenged or shown to be wrong. And "whiners who call 'bigot' every time they're challenged or shown to be wrong" includes the AAP.

The sad part about all of this is that when all the cards are played and we're all where our final destiny takes us, I won't be able to be posting here saying "told you so."

 

...and he throws out the "I'll be in Heaven, heathens" card.

 

I'm going to have to respectfully agree to disagree on that last point. To deny gay marriage is to deny the homosexuals the same rights and privileges available to heterosexuals. I don't see how you can support denying people such things and say you don't have a problem with them. I get your argument. I just don't think it holds up.

 

Probably not. I imagine the wifi down there has gotta suck.