What are you talking about? I never said I prefer “unexamined opinions.” Stop inventing silly games.You have not defined evidence other than to state a preference for unexamined opinions. Any evidence provided you simply fall back on the propaganda canard. Several links have been provided, several studies have shown that the lifestyle is statistically destructive. I do not want to gamble with Children to suit adults’ selfish desires. That you do should give you pause to aslso reasses your values while I do the same
I have seen as much evidence for Santa Claus as I have for the God of the Bible.You told us in the Santa Claus thread that god was a myth.
How many people died during the Inquistion? Did people prefer to be held and tried by the courts of the Inquisition or be tried by Civil Authorities?Church used, and worked in concert with, local governments to carry out the torture and murders. The governmental actors were all Church members. The Church dominated all facets of life back then. Any governmentals actors brave enough to defy the Church would be deemed heretics and tortured. It was McCarthyism to a violent and ubiquitious extreme. The torturing would not have happened but for the “crime” of heresy. Feel better about the torture now and the Church’s involvement?
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.
From the document entitled: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONSNonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)
Can you cite evidence that anyone’s sexual behavior has an impact on a child?Can you ctell us what the problems with the studies they cited were? Or are they flawed merely becuase you disagree with the results?
Can you cite evididence that the sexual behavior of a childs parents has no impact on them?
I already did as have several others. You dimised them all bercuase they didnt agree with you OPINION.Can you cite evidence that anyone’s sexual behavior has an impact on a child?
Are nuns unqualified to raise children because they don’t have heterosexual (or any) sex?
The Law Center’s lawsuit claimed that the City’s anti-Catholic resolution violated the First Amendment, which "forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general." The Law Center argued that the “anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message to Plaintiffs and others who are faithful adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community and an accompanying message that those who oppose Catholic religious beliefs, particularly with regard to homosexual unions and adoptions by homosexual partners, are insiders, favored members of the political community.”
The argument on the part of the judge is laughable, at best. How can the Church invite entanglement by making a doctrinal statement? This is ridiculous.In her decision upholding the resolution against the Law Center’s constitutional challenge, the federal judge defended the City by essentially claiming that the Church invited the attack by publicly expressing its teaching on moral issues. In her written opinion, the judge stated, "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement, by its [doctrinal] statement. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of this provocation."
What are you talking about? I never said I prefer “unexamined opinions.” Stop inventing silly games.
I have not seen any double-blind scientifically administered studies cited. All I have seen is a link to an article in far right wing publication that makes some blanket statements.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InquisitionChurch used, and worked in concert with, local governments to carry out the torture and murders. The governmental actors were all Church members. The Church dominated all facets of life back then. Any governmentals actors brave enough to defy the Church would be deemed heretics and tortured. It was McCarthyism to a violent and ubiquitious extreme. The torturing would not have happened but for the “crime” of heresy. Feel better about the torture now and the Church’s involvement?
Many were executed or died of torture. Many more were tortured and “confessed.” What is your point?How many people died during the Inquistion? Did people prefer to be held and tried by the courts of the Inquisition or be tried by Civil Authorities?
So torture and murder are insignificant if higher number of people are murdered somewhere else for a different reason? Inquisition was the kangaroo court trial of people for “heresy.” There’s nothing very intellectual about that. People were killed and tortured during Medievel times for heresy. Call it what you want, it’s not a myth.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
Give it a read. Realize also that its violence is DWARFED by the religous purges in England and France. Realize also that the inquisition as an intellectual term went through many different incarnations none of them match your description though. Modern secularism that seeks to demonize Christianity and falsify the good she does portrays and exaggerates her foibles. Her enemies never tire of repeating the same old myths.
Honest scholarship is the cure here.
Really? Do those background checks determine if one loves their neighbor? Or if one skips church?The answer is yes. the Church will not place a child with someone who is living a sinful life. That is why extensive background checks are done on anyone who wants to adopt. They will not, BTW, place a child with a man and a woman who are living togehter and not married
I am seriously denying that. From what I have read, there is no evidence to support the belief that a child raised by two same sexed parents has any greater gender identification issues than anyone else.You have no interst in reasoned debate here? Handedness has nothing to do with parenting, but sexual identity and the relationship expressed by the parents is visible to the child. Gender identification is well recognized to have an impact on the child’s development. Are you seriously denying that?
Good link. I just posted a piece of it before I saw this.
If it did, I would be gay. I am not.I am seriously denying that. From what I have read, there is no evidence to support the belief that a child raised by two same sexed parents has any greater gender identification issues than anyone else.
The “doctrinal statement” reflects discriminatory attitudes.Can we get back to the real issue? The Constitutional issue is separate from the question of Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality and whether active homosexuals are suitable parents.
The argument on the part of the judge is laughable, at best. How can the Church invite entanglement by making a doctrinal statement? This is ridiculous.
I think the only proper actions the city can take is to cut off any public funding Catholic Charities that is in their control. This, I believe would be acceptable. To condemn a religion by passing this resolution is indeed a violation of the First Amendment.
There are other places to adopt a child, so there is no reason to condemn Catholics for following their faith in the adoption process.
Within your line of reasoning though, placing children with nuns would do violence to the children because the nuns don’t have heterosexual sex.I already did as have several others. You dimised them all bercuase they didnt agree with you OPINION.
Are your parents Catholic?If it did, I would be gay. I am not.
It doesn’t matter if the “doctrinal statement” reflects what the city thinks is discriminatory. Are they also going to condemn the Church for not allowing women priests, and then tell the Archbishop he should ignore the Vatican on that as well?The “doctrinal statement” reflects discriminatory attitudes.
I agree with the notion of public funding. I think the Church should have to pay income tax as well.