E
- Status
S
SpeakInSilence
Guest
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
Ahh Brainwashing, Do we want to play that card?
Then what does Catholic School/CAtechism do?
Remember the Alaskan kids and their Parents:
/we have a lot of arguments against gay marriage, I cant see us playing the “brainwashing” card and being seen as persuasive in any court of opinion.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
How uplifting: an atittude by a Catholic that a Catholic education and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are merely brainwashing. Really warms one’s heart about the level of identity, faith, and an understanding of the concept of Truth and Divine Revelation. Yeah.
A
altarboi20
Guest
Wow you all are a bunch of idiotic, homophobic *******s. 
W
Whadyamean
Guest
I’m sorry, but how do you know the smart gene came only from the father? Are you saying the boy is a half wit? or do you have no comprehension of genetics???Read what I wrote again. The dad should get some credit because he provided this young man with smart genes
W
Whadyamean
Guest
Wow–OK, I’m thinking now of the large percentage of dysfunctional kids I went to school, high school and college with, all of whom had some dillies of parents. Yes, all of these kids are walkin talkin proof of how wonderfully “straight” parents can do the parenting job. Get real, folks. This has to do with character, education, and training, and maybe with genes, not with gender orientation.
W
Whadyamean
Guest
“…But as Edward Feser argues in The Last Superstition, in fact there is not, and never has been, any war between science and religion at all. There has instead been a conflict between two entirely philosophical conceptions of the natural order: on the one hand, the classical “teleological” vision of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, on which purpose or goal-directedness is as inherent a feature of the physical world as mass or electric charge; and the modern “mechanical” vision of Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, according to which the physical world is comprised of nothing more than purposeless, meaningless particles in motion. As it happens, on the classical teleological picture, the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the natural-law conception of morality are rationally unavoidable…” (from a review from the St. Augustine Press)
Actually, both of these views are lacking in other than some self referential logical substance. A good place o start withan inquiry into this matter might be Franklin Merrell-Wolff’s The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
Catholicism(both in the Catechism and in Catholic Schools) is beautiful, however, I would be remiss if I were to ignore the fact that clergy/teachers have used the Catechism to serve their own personal sinful interests.
while we point the finger at this eagle scout defending gay marriage crying out “Brainwashing” Let us remember the that kids were improperly influenced by Abusive Priests who used the authority they ascertained from the Catechism.When you get down to it, the lesbian brainwashing produced a kid who is now an advocate for gay rights, the brainwashing of the kids in Alaska produced children far more damaged.
It is not outlandish to notice these sad stories in the RCC yet still love Holy Mother Church.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
The Church admits clergy abuse is a very sad spot on her record. But as wrong as sexual abuse by clergy or by anyone is, the Church teaches and we believe as faithful Catholics that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong (claims to rights to same sex ‘marriage’ and parenting are also wrong).
Two evils don’t make a good. The abuse may have weakened the Church’s voice; nevertheless, she has to continue to proclaim the truth.
Why wear a Catholic label in a Catholic forum and bring up clergy abuse as an argument for gay ‘marriage’ and parenting?
,
J
John21652
Guest
In the post below the one I’m responding to, you give us a description of how it is certain philosophers view the world. In light of that, I’d like you to mull over what one of them, David Hume, had to say about a certain point of view and apply it to what you wrote here -
In other words, shouldn’t you be careful about generalising from your own “agitation of the brain” on this matter?
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
I agree with you. Please see the end of my post (# 95) and you will see that I am not advocating for Gay marriage but merely expressing my opinion on how the “brainwashing” argument may not be the most persuasive for Catholic Opponents to Gay marriage to wield. That being said, there are many more valid arguments out there.
K
karoleck
Guest
It is not outlandish to notice these sad stories in the RCC yet still love Holy Mother Church.by Birdpreacher
Forgive me for not re-quoting all of your clever thoughts again, playing the devils’advocate!.
Now in reply to your last line Jesus gives Catholics a clear mandate on what contitutes identifying oneself as a Catholic.“If you love Me,Keep my Commandments”.
Now back to the subject of this thread.The moral issue here is very clear.The concluding message that the lesbian lobby wants society to swallow is this.
“Look,we raised this young man up and now look at the result.What we did was a good thing because here is the man.Therefore children should be given to homosexual couples ;whether it be by means of adoption or through a test tube conceived IVF baby.”
This is just a smoke screen type of “logic” .Here is an example of this silly thought process—I could work hard and earn $500,another person might knock down a frail elderly person,pick the purse and pull out a $500 note.This person could say–“look at my nice shining new $500dollar bill”.Now both persons can present the same notes—what is the difference ?
One is gotten the **RIGHT WAY **and one is **THE WRONG WAY,**not only in a natural moral sense that is in the heart of each person placed by God; but also because it breaks The Ten Commandments.
What the Lesbians have done is not only against the natural moral law; but also God’s Law—regardless of any apparent “success”.Sure a child can be raised up to be a model citizen ,but this only shows that God can bring good out of evil.What of the other 99kids who are fallen by the wayside, if raised in an unnatural manner?
Forgive me for not re-quoting all of your clever thoughts again, playing the devils’advocate!.
Now in reply to your last line Jesus gives Catholics a clear mandate on what contitutes identifying oneself as a Catholic.“If you love Me,Keep my Commandments”.
Now back to the subject of this thread.The moral issue here is very clear.The concluding message that the lesbian lobby wants society to swallow is this.
“Look,we raised this young man up and now look at the result.What we did was a good thing because here is the man.Therefore children should be given to homosexual couples ;whether it be by means of adoption or through a test tube conceived IVF baby.”
This is just a smoke screen type of “logic” .Here is an example of this silly thought process—I could work hard and earn $500,another person might knock down a frail elderly person,pick the purse and pull out a $500 note.This person could say–“look at my nice shining new $500dollar bill”.Now both persons can present the same notes—what is the difference ?
One is gotten the **RIGHT WAY **and one is **THE WRONG WAY,**not only in a natural moral sense that is in the heart of each person placed by God; but also because it breaks The Ten Commandments.
What the Lesbians have done is not only against the natural moral law; but also God’s Law—regardless of any apparent “success”.Sure a child can be raised up to be a model citizen ,but this only shows that God can bring good out of evil.What of the other 99kids who are fallen by the wayside, if raised in an unnatural manner?
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
I agree with you completely and your comparison was spot on. Might I suggest one minor tweak? Rather than comparing a thief to a hard worker why not compare a hard working janitor to a hard working pornographer (maybe like Hugh Hefner). One makes money honestly while the other makes money legally but is still morally bankrupt.
I hear you on the natural law argument. However, I find that the natural law/moral law/In my Holy Book God Says this!- argument is not as persuasive outside our Christian Community (let alone our Catholic Community)
I thought that your 99kids who fall on the wayside was a much more persuasive statement, as social statistics like this are key to winning the non-catholics over. Do you have a link or any more info on these 99 kids?
K
Kolbe300
Guest
When you say “what the lesbians have done,” are you referring to their bedroom behavior or the act of raising a child?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I think it is you who have entirely missed the point. It is homosexual couples who trot out their designer babies (conceived from sperm donors or egg donors), products which already lack the live mother or father in the home, to pass along to a gullible public “testimony” that since they’re not axe murderers, Two Mommies or Two Daddies is an equally fine household arrangement as an actual mother and an actual father. Why do these products of utilitarian engineering think that?
(1) They have no comparative personal data on which to measure just how “all right” they are.
(2) They have been brainwashed by their Two Mommies or their Two Daddies that they never missed anything, because who the heck needs the other sex?
Not to mention, we don’t how “fine” he’ll be when it comes to his decision to marry & procreate. Maybe he’ll win the prize as Absent Dad of the Year, because after all who the heck needs real fathers? (He never had one, and according to even some posters on this thread, after all he’s a great guy. That must be “proof” that fathers are not necessary.)
Those of you who look for data? Check out the many homes in this country in which the wash-and-rinse cycle is stuck on repeat and repeat and repeat. They consist of generations of Absent Father syndrome where the children have no idea what it means to have a male role model living in the home.
T
toe
Guest
How is this an acceptable argument against gay marriage? You are taking a “guilty until proven innocent” stance for the children who were raised in an environment unfamiliar to you. So what if it it is natural law that two people of the same sex should not lay together; can you explain how this is direct evidence that the children they raise are screwed up?
K
Kolbe300
Guest
Do you have any empathy for these people at all? “…trot out their designer babies,” “since they’re not axe murderers,” “products of utilitarian engineering.” Seriously?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No. I have tremendous empathy for the son used as their tool. I have zero empathy for what they did. I do have empathy for how misguided, bereft, and impoverished they are in their view of the other sex, in their view of what constitutes parenthood and a balanced household. They have also been brainwashed, just like their son.
They did not adopt an orphan, or a foster child who was in desperate, unhappy straits, and turned such a boy around to be an upstanding citizen. No. That is romanticizing, which is the other aspect of “gay parenting”: the romanticizing of it all.
It is not I who have previously (often on and off this discussion forum) introduced the concept that because a child raised by a homosexual couple did not turn out to be a criminal or a psychotic, that therefore the nuclear family has no superior value to any other arrangement. Rather, it is a common argument (“What’s the harm?”) The harm is in the data.
We seriously need more households in America without fathers. And especially households which include sons.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Read the rest of the thread instead of being lazy and looking at my last post. I didn’t say that all children raised in homosexual households are “screwed up.” I said, and I’ll say it again: it is an injustice to the child to create a human being with the express purpose of eliminating the other sex from his or her parenting.
Then maybe, since you’ve only had 3 posts, you can do some research on other threads on this discussion forum, one of which laid out some results of same-sex “parenting.”
- Status