Children denied Catholic schooling, lesbian couple speaks out

[manualman]

Anyone who doesn’t see the agenda of these two women is blind as a bat.

They quite clearly have the goal of living their lesbian lives in the face of everyday catholics in an attempt to normalize the homosexual lifestyle in the same way that catholics en masse have accepted sinful contraception. It’s a strategy that quite easily could work too. Most catholics are poorly catechised and don’t really have terribly well formed consciences. By far the dominant conscience principle operative in most catholics is “be nice to those that are nice to you.” Never mind that there is a whole category of evil that can be very ‘nice.’ Most Germans were very ‘nice’ to one another in the 1930s (unless you were a Jew). Most Americans were ‘nice’ to each other in the early 1960’s, unless you were black. Most Americans are ‘nice’ to each other today, but our lifestyle is built on the virtual slave labor of the Chinese and other 3rd world factory countries. Lots of folks at Planned Parenthood are ‘nice’ (unless you are an uborn child). There are plenty of folks who get ‘nice’ divorces (unless you are one of their kids). Many the lawyer who will smile at you ‘nicely’ and hand you an invoice full of padded time… You get the idea. Americans are suckers for nice. But nice is a poor substitute for good.

 

[baylee]

Anyone who doesn’t see the agenda of these two women is blind as a bat.

After reading that article, you still feel they have an agenda? Personally, I think if there was an agenda, they would have used this situation and shouted it from the rooftops on every news channel. Yet, they chose to go to ncr, remain anonymous and do not appear to wish to make this world news. They have also made it clear that they are not part of any gay movement.

It seems to me that others are the ones with an agenda…to make this couple look like they have an agenda. There may be other similar couples who would, but from what I have read here, this couple does not look like they are trying to push an agenda.

 

[Elizabeth502]

After reading that article, you still feel they have an agenda? Personally, I think if there was an agenda, they would have used this situation and shouted it from the rooftops on every news channel. Yet, they chose to go to ncr, remain anonymous and do not appear to wish to make this world news.

I wonder if I’m the only one who sees the very amusing irony in anyone claiming that bringing (another) controversial issue to NCR = not “having an agenda.”

Let’s see, how many agendas does NCR have?

Truthfully, I read everything, including NCR, and do so with an open mind. Sometimes their contributors bring up very important contradictions in the RCC. But there is absolutely no question as to the several recent agendas of their editors. Their readership, judging from their Comments sections on many, many articles, is actually quite radical and has a unique, to say the least, understanding of morality, which runs much more toward populist-secular than toward one with a philosophical center.

And it doesn’t matter if they never agreed to an interview with NCR. What matters, what demonstrates an agenda, is the inherent contradiction in wanting it both ways. They’re engaging in their own form of civil disobedience (showdown, or in-your-face) by the enrollment in the first place. People who come up with knee-jerk, falsely “compassionate” reactions to this incident are so clearly not with any understanding of the fundamental relationship between family unit and school that has repeatedly been mentioned on the several CAF threads on this topic. By enrolling the child, the couple was demonstrating by their actions that they were requiring the school to accept fundamentally what the school could not: dual same-sex “parenthood” and the definition of a “family” as any two people who decide they want to be “family.” The school was actually at fault to enroll the child initially, but having made the error, they were not bound to continue it, but did the only compassionate thing by disenrolling the child before social consciousness became a prominent factor in the child’s school life, and before teachers were put in the embarrassing predicament of teaching the Catholic curriculum which forbids the very “family” that the child is associated with.

 

[kimmielittle]

I wonder if I’m the only one who sees the very amusing irony in anyone claiming that bringing (another) controversial issue to NCR = not “having an agenda.”

Let’s see, how many agendas does NCR have?

Truthfully, I read everything, including NCR, and do so with an open mind. Sometimes their contributors bring up very important contradictions in the RCC. But there is absolutely no question as to the several recent agendas of their editors. Their readership, judging from their Comments sections on many, many articles, is actually quite radical and has a unique, to say the least, understanding of morality, which runs much more toward populist-secular than toward one with a philosophical center.

And it doesn’t matter if they never agreed to an interview with NCR. What matters, what demonstrates an agenda, is the inherent contradiction in wanting it both ways. They’re engaging in their own form of civil disobedience (showdown, or in-your-face) by the enrollment in the first place. People who come up with knee-jerk, falsely “compassionate” reactions to this incident are so clearly not with any understanding of the fundamental relationship between family unit and school that has repeatedly been mentioned on the several CAF threads on this topic. By enrolling the child, the couple was demonstrating by their actions that they were requiring the school to accept fundamentally what the school could not: dual same-sex “parenthood” and the definition of a “family” as any two people who decide they want to be “family.” The school was actually at fault to enroll the child initially, but having made the error, they were not bound to continue it, but did the only compassionate thing by disenrolling the child before social consciousness became a prominent factor in the child’s school life, and before teachers were put in the embarrassing predicament of teaching the Catholic curriculum which forbids the very “family” that the child is associated with.

:clapping::clapping: