My Monumental Moral Failure, Part 2

Aerik Knapp-Loomis (whoever the hell he is) has written a follow up in response to my post about his rather incoherent screed about me. It's far worse than the first one. All you really need to see is this one ridiculous statement:

He says I'm barely coherent. Well then, I suppose his assumptions about the morality of the Catholic Charities of Boston's decision are so engrained he can't even see them as assumptions and thinks there's some universal agreement with them.

Even after being told in no uncertain terms that I am an enthusiastic supporter of adoption by gay couples and individuals, that I've written volumes of essays strongly supporting such adoptions and condemning those states that have laws prohibiting them and the Supreme Court for denying cert on a case that could have overturned such laws, this guy continues to insist that I agree with the morality of the decision of the Catholic Charities.

I have made it exceedingly clear that I think it is immoral to deny gays the right to adopt and to deny children the opportunity to be adopted by any caring adult regardless of their sexual orientation (or any other irrelevant characteristic). I not only didn't say that I support their decision morally (or intellectually, as I think it is completely unjustified on any rational basis), I said quite bluntly that I think it's immoral, not once but several times.

All I said was that I have some measure of respect, grudging to be sure, that they are willing to give up government funding for the sake of consistency. This is hardly a shocking statement. There are lots of situations in which we would disagree with someone's position but at least respect the fact that they really do believe what they say they believe and are willing to give up something valuable in order to remain consistent with it.

That is but one aspect of my reaction to their decision; there are many others, including my strong conviction that their position itself, as opposed to their consistency in applying it, is highly immoral. Another part of my reaction to their decision is to think that it takes some serious chutzpah for an organization responsible for covering up so many instances of priestly pedophilia to ever say anything about how gay adoptions are dangerous to children.

It is possible, even reasonable, to have all of these thoughts in reaction to the situation all at once. It is not reasonable, however, to ignore my plainly stated position to pretend that I am against gay adoptions. It's quite irrational and highly offensive. He says I've "lost him as a fan". I can live with that. Anyone who focuses so obsessively on distorting my words is hardly going to be missed. He can join dlamming in the dishonest troll category.