You’re comparing apples and oranges. One is a morality clause. The other is related to the needs of a child in the classroom.
He may very well not even be Catholic so that’s really not an issue. I went to school with several non Catholics who attended mass but did not or take of the sacraments or really participate in mass. Their attendance is mandatory. Participation is not. All are welcome to attend mass.
I guess it also comes down to whether a school is willing to force other parents to have conversations with their grade school children about matters which they had not planned to discuss until some years later.
My son had no accommodations. So they were making a moral judgement on him…that he would be a behavioral hazard to the school. Did the even interview him to ask him about his moral fiber? Um, no. Disability=rejection. No questions asked.
Interesting is the only thing I can say on here publicly about the prior comment. It seems to me that whenever these discussions occur on CAF and elsewhere, it’s those who pander to gay rights and go out of their way to support anything and everything GLBTQ-related (whether it’s good for them or not) are the ones who take the greatest offense.
This may be true, but frankly I would say “too bad”. That’s what you get for letting your kid outside of the front door. It’s the job of a parent to be willing to explain things to their child regardless if the parent is ready.
The hysterical part is that I in no way pander to anything. I was heavily involved in my church community calling and writing our representatives to not allow SSM in our state!
Okay, but I’m guessing you might not get invited to 6th grade careers day.
:extrahappy: Just kidding.
No no. A child can only have one father. Two men cannot be married, despite the legal maneuverings of the courts.
Would you say then that a child who is adopted should not name his new guardians mother and father? After all, he can only have one mother and father.
Thank you. Catholic school bashing on CAF gets old.
What you bring up is quality of action, not of being. A table is a table, a chair is a chair. We may use a chair as a table (remember those college days?) but it is still a chair.
But the quality of action and quality of being both lead to the gaining of the title father; one can be a father by being a participant in sex, but one can also gain the title of father by demonstrating paternal care to another younger human.What you bring up is quality of action, not of being. A table is a table, a chair is a chair. We may use a chair as a table (remember those college days?) but it is still a chair.
A father is a father. A mother is a mother. Other people may take upon those duties and actions, and we often call them “father” or “mother.” We can debate quality of action. The father of the child we almost adopted Is a poor example of a father as he sits in jail for child pornography convictions. But again, that goes to quality of the action. Not to the being. We would have loved to have the child join our family and take upon those parenting roles as if he was biologically one of our own…but it would not have negated the existence of the man and woman who joined together to help create the baby boy.
Perhaps our language is antiquated as it doesn’t seem to be able to keep up with the societal morphing of living arrangements.
Well, it is possible to have two men in your life who have the place of a father, such as a dad and a step-dad. You can say, “Some people lose their mother so early in life that they don’t remember her, but we assume that it is painful to lose your mother. We don’t ask nosy questions about something that someone might feel it is painful to talk about, so we are going to have to mind our business about where his mother is until he talks about her. The law allows two men to adopt a child, so in our time when people talk about two dads they merely mean that among the people who act as your parent, two of them are men. It does not mean that both men are his blood relatives. You always have one man and one woman as your nearest blood relatives, even if you lose one or both of them before you are old enough to remember them.” (“How do you lose your parent, Mom?” “It isn’t like losing socks, dear. Don’t worry, I am not going anywhere. That is not a pain I am going to allow you to go through. Leave Isaac alone about it, though.”)
There is no place in this world to hide from the misconception that men can marry other men. It is a tightrope brought on by others, but acting as if it is not there is not an option. We’re going to have to muddle through as best as we can. The concept of “polite people give other people their privacy and learn when it isn’t their place to make a comment” is a useful one. It doesn’t solve everything, but it can help.
That’s very good, but it’s also very problematic your stance on the issue at was not apparent.
Sent PM.
First of all, criticism (note that this is different from “bashing”) of Catholic schools on here is quite justified since many Catholic schools are really Catholic in name only.
Sent PM
I was thinking about this. I know it’s OT, but what the heck.
I imagine that young people, unless they are almost sequestered, know all about same gender marriage these days. It’s in the media, it’s on social networks, it’s in the neighborhood. DG, you are quite right in that the law of the land says that there is indeed marriage equality. The Roman Catholic Church and now the Mormons may define this as not possible and an ‘apostasy’, but it is still legal and part of what American families look like.