Exclusive: Mexican archbishop defends school that refused admission to child with ‘two fathers’

  • Thread starter Thread starter saintjohnxxiii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Usige said:
So, if I pass a law stating that light in the 475 m wavelength will no longer be called blue, but will instead be called red, then you will obey and say that the sky is deep red?

Law does not define truth regardless of how you try to redefine words.
Click to expand...
I really dislike this argument against same sex marriage.

If you did that, blue will be called red. The properties will still exist regardless of what we call them. Call a cow a tree and you’ll still get milk. The relationship exists and so does the promise both parties made to each other. He is not single, he has a partner. Just because you don’t agree with him doesn’t change anything.
 
J_Peterson said:
I really dislike this argument against same sex marriage.

If you did that, blue will be called red. The properties will still exist regardless of what we call them. Call a cow a tree and you’ll still get milk. The relationship exists and so does the promise both parties made to each other. He is not single, he has a partner. Just because you don’t agree with him doesn’t change anything.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Marraige exist betwen a man and a woman regardless of what law states. If you want to say that two gay person love each other fine but it is, never has been or never will be marriage.

Calling light at 475 nm red just means I have expanded the definition of red to be broader than 590 nm. I mean they are both part of the EM spectrum so they are the same thing jand my definition is more inclusive. That is exactly what people that accept the definition of marriage to be expanded to include homosexual unions do. It doesn’t matter if the vast majority of people know in their guts that there is a difference between red and blue as long as I can sell it as being the same thing.

Think of it this way. If my car reflect blue light, but I register it as red have I lied? What if the law is fine with that lie? Call it what you will but they aren’t remotely close to the same thing.
 
coachkfan1 said:
Maybe this child would have been taking up a spot that could have been used by a child whose parents ARE faithful Catholics who ARE obedient to Church teachings.
Click to expand...
Right, because God loves the kid of the Gay parents less. PLEASE. :mad:
 
TEPO said:
Because kids with gay parents shouldn’t be denied an education universally. That’s not the catholic way.
Click to expand...
First off its daycare not school and secondly this private school isn’t the only one in all of Mexico.

I find it disgusting that you presume to know more about Catholicism than a Bishop knows more than you.
 
Whether or not it’s a Catholic or a religious preschool, the school does have a right to set its own rules. Other parents may not like the idea of a playmate telling their child that he has “two dad’s,” and then leaving it for the parents to try to explain an unnatural situation to their children.

To take it to an even more extreme, suppose that polygamous and polyandrous marriages were legal, then a child might wish to enroll who had one dad and four moms, or two dads and five moms.

Sometimes parents might want a daycare experience for their child in which they won’t have to be explaining various sexual abnormalities, and they are entitled to that.

And if a teacher should explain to the child that it’s not really possible for a child to have two dads, would the ‘dads’ then sue the school? If they explain that his ‘parents’ are acting immorally, will they be sued?
 
saintjohnxxiii said:
First off its daycare not school and secondly this private school isn’t the only one in all of Mexico.

I find it disgusting that you presume to know more about Catholicism than a Bishop knows more than you.
Click to expand...
So you believe that the Bishop stated that all children with gay “parents” should be banned from public and private preschools nationwide?

If not then you have no excuse for sharpening your tone. Clearly you’re not understanding. Possibly others too.

If you do however believe that the Bishop has stated that then you are clearly wrong.
 
TEPO said:
Because kids with gay parents shouldn’t be denied an education universally. That’s not the catholic way.
Click to expand...
Well, as has been pointed out, the kid is 2. It’s daycare, not an “education”. It is very likely that this child will be the victim of injustice. But it’s not the school inflicting it, it is the parent. The school could possibly do more to try to mitigate that injustice but there are limits to how much a school can do.

As has been pointed out, this wasn’t a Catholic school but if it was (since you referenced the “Catholic way”), the school could accept a child with a parent partnered with someone of the same sex. The school could try to give the child legitimate role models of natural families and expose the child to examples in literature and school assignments. It would eventually teach the child the sinfulness of homosexual acts.

And all the while the “parents” would be working to undo what the school is teaching.

Schools, Catholic or not, have every right to expect that parents will partner (no pun intended) in education not work against the school and the teachers.
 
Corki said:
Well, as has been pointed out, the kid is 2. It’s daycare, not an “education”. It is very likely that this child will be the victim of injustice. But it’s not the school inflicting it, it is the parent. The school could possibly do more to try to mitigate that injustice but there are limits to how much a school can do.

As has been pointed out, this wasn’t a Catholic school but if it was (since you referenced the “Catholic way”), the school could accept a child with a parent partnered with someone of the same sex. The school could try to give the child legitimate role models of natural families and expose the child to examples in literature and school assignments. It would eventually teach the child the sinfulness of homosexual acts.

And all the while the “parents” would be working to undo what the school is teaching.

Schools, Catholic or not, have every right to expect that parents will partner (no pun intended) in education not work against the school and the teachers.
Click to expand...
Well that’s depressing. I didn’t know that Catholic schools allowed kids with gay “parents”. They shouldn’t -in just the same way they shouldn’t (and don’t) baptize children with gay “parents”.

…but I don’t think all kids who fall into this type of position should be banned universally (globally) from attending school (whether they be Catholic or not as the Bishop stated) as a Catholic teaching. I simply don’t understand why you and others believe that its a good thing. Its just not the Catholic way. :confused:

…you must believe that all kids that fall under this category should be home schooled then as law…? Or would that still be an unacceptable solution in your opinion?
 
J_Peterson said:
I really dislike this argument against same sex marriage.

If you did that, blue will be called red. The properties will still exist regardless of what we call them. Call a cow a tree and you’ll still get milk. The relationship exists and so does the promise both parties made to each other. He is not single, he has a partner. Just because you don’t agree with him doesn’t change anything.
Click to expand...
But he does not have a spouse.
 
TEPO said:
Well that’s depressing. I didn’t know that Catholic schools allowed kids with gay “parents”. They shouldn’t -in just the same way they shouldn’t (and don’t) baptize children with gay “parents”.

…but I don’t think all kids should be banned universally (globally) from attending school (whether they be Catholic or not as the Bishop stated) as a Catholic teaching. I simply don’t understand why you and others believe that its a good thing. Its just not the Catholic way. :confused:

…you must believe that all kids that fall under this category should be home schooled then as law…? Or would that still be an unacceptable solution in your opinion?
Click to expand...
:confused: No, I think they should go to public school or to a private school run by individuals who share the parents beliefs. Other schools, private or Catholic, shouldn’t have to bend over backwards to try to do the impossible.
 
LiberalPrincess said:
I find your statement extremely disturbing. So according to your belief, it is acceptable for a racist to deny service to African-Americans at a family owned restaurant? Let the free market work, I guess? :rolleyes:

Also, I reject your snarky assumption that you must be a Republican in order to be Catholic.
Click to expand...
While I do not want to be judgemental . I do have to suggest (IMHO)that you have neither charm nor class. The saddest part is that you education is rather lacking. You seem to be full of the secular opinions without any serious foundation in theology or a clear understanding of The Catholic Church’s teachings. You may want to consult the CCC.
 
TEPO said:
Jim, I agree with you here… But how does the Bishop fit into this equation? If it’s not a Catholic school within his diocese, then why voice his opinion? 🤷

…I don’t get it.
Click to expand...
TEPO, for someone who lists them self as a Catholic you do not seem to have a clue.The Archbishop has a responsibility to teach and show everyone the truth. If you do not agree say so and back up your reasons with church teachings. Jesus said to love everyone… he did not say to allow everyone to do as they wanted.
 
1believer1 said:
While I do not want to be judgemental . I do have to suggest (IMHO)that you have neither charm nor class. The saddest part is that you education is rather lacking. You seem to be full of the secular opinions without any serious foundation in theology or a clear understanding of The Catholic Church’s teachings. You may want to consult the CCC.
Click to expand...
So you agree that it is acceptable for a private business to refuse service to an individual for ANY reason, including their race, gender, who they happen to love, etc.?

Also, I’m reasonably well educated. Would you like to know the schools I have attended? :rolleyes:
 
LiberalPrincess said:
So you agree that it is acceptable for a private business to refuse service to an individual for ANY reason, including their race, gender, who they happen to love, etc.?

Also, I’m reasonably well educated. Would you like to know the schools I have attended? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
IS "whom you happen to love "a reference to homosexuality? Do you agree with the Church’s teachings on homosexuality?

BTW Love is never expressed through sin.
 
This is clearly discrimination of a child by Church authority.
 
Robert_Sock said:
This is clearly discrimination of a child by Church authority.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. The child s not being discriminated against, the child’s parent(s?) are, and they are by their own choice. Who are you to accuse this Bishop?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top