Why can't liberal gay activists see that we would leave them alone if they would stop attacking the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
atheistgirl said:
How could they possibly give a presentation, then ask a bunch of 11 year olds to sign a petition against homosexual marriage when no 11 year old could possibly know their mind on such issues since they aren’t mature enough :confused:

If that’s not indoctrination and bullying, I don’t know what it :mad:

Although I did like the response of some of the students 😃

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
Before I respond to this post I would like to comment on a statement you made when I posted the public information about a leader and pioneer of the “gay rights movement”;who was arrested.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165190/San-Francisco-gay-rights-icon-Larry-Brinkin-arrested-child-pornography.html

Here is your gem—

"So why you would post such **a salacious article **as if it proved some point or other, I don’t know "(by Aeisthgirl.)

You might have found my link “a salacious article”,I just found the story sad and sickenning!!My point was to show a current example of the type of persons there are within the “militant gay rights”.Notice that this person was in The Human Rights Field of workl!!🤷

Now to your present comments,I disagree that an eleven year old child cannot tell right and wrong behaviour.There is a wise old saying about “out of the lips of children and of babes----”,in other words,I believe that even without a child being taught formal moral conduct;they have it in their hearts through natural moral law.

An eleven year old, if seeing a person being murdered,robbed or bullied would just know that it is a wrongful behaviour (without being taught that it is wrong). All that the Catholic Church does is to build on the natural moral law and to teach that child, that this behaviour is also an offence against God;it the teaches the degree of the offence -be it a mortal(deadly) or a venial sin.( an evil act done with full knowledge & full consent)

The concept of a same sex union or “marriage” falls within this depravity of a moral evil which a child can readily identify.The Catholic educators just teach the pupil why it is so–no different to this forum( hopefully in a repectful and adult manner,pointing out your contradictions)

So I believe that the Catholic leaders in England ,have shown wonderful leadership in encouraging and teaching the pupils within it’s charge ,to participate holistically within the society.It is the duty of religious educators to impart a moral compass to their pupils so that they can be good citizens and not to be cowered by people like yourself and expressing what is best for the commongood.
 
karoleck said:
My point was to show a current example of the type of persons there are within the “militant gay rights”.Notice that this person was in The Human Rights Field of workl!!
Click to expand...
I don’t make comments about abusive priests because I don’t think it’s logical to tar everyone in an organisation with the same brush. Just because you have a few bad apples doesn’t mean that the whole barrel is rotten.

Why doesn’t this dictum equally apply to you?
karoleck said:
An eleven year old, if seeing a person being murdered,robbed or bullied would just know that it is a wrongful behaviour (without being taught that it is wrong). All that the Catholic Church does is to build on the natural moral law and to teach that child, that this behaviour is also an offence against God
Click to expand...
.

I might have to correct you if I may. You said ‘God’ where I believe you should have said ‘my God’. You are stating that the opposition to homosexuality is based on your belief that it is an offense against your God. You are entirely within your rights to hold to that view. But you are not allowed to tell children that that is the only acceptable view.
karoleck said:
The concept of a same sex union or “marriage” falls within this depravity of a moral evil which a child can readily identify.The Catholic educators just teach the pupil why it is so–no different to this forum( hopefully in a repectful and adult manner,pointing out your contradictions)
Click to expand...
I’m sorry Karolek, that is just personal opinion. There is nothing at all to indicate that a child believes, independently, that two people of the same sex living together is morally unacceptable. Do you have anything other than personal opinion to back that up? I have anecdotal evidence that shows you are wrong.
karoleck said:
It is the duty of religious educators to impart a moral compass to their pupils so that they can be good citizens and not to be cowered by people like yourself and expressing what is best for the commongood.
Click to expand...
If they are religious educators in a religious school, then they have some leeway in that regard (both my children went to Catholic schools, so I am quite willing to accept that). If they are not, then they have no right to tell a child what is correct or not from a religious viewpoint. Keep that for the church, thanks.
 
Bradski said:
Good grief, there seems to be a tendency for some people to take a snippet of a post and head off in all sorts of directions without any indication at all that they recognised the original intent of the post or had even read it in context.
Click to expand...
Hi, Mr. Pot. Meet Mrs. Kettle. 😃
 
Bradski said:
Incidentally, talking of indoctrination, someone did say in an earlier post (and it might have been in another thread) that they were of the opinion that children should be told what to believe. Do you agree with that? (I won’t tell you if it was a Catholic or an atheist who posted it, so no clues there).
Click to expand...
If you can show me a post on this thread where someone declares that children being indoctrinated is a good thing, I will retract my statement.

Requirement: indoctrinate must be in the post. (I’ll accept some form of the word: indoctrination, indoctrinated, etc etc). And it must portray this indoctrination as a good thing.

🍿
 
Bradski said:
It’s all good, Deo. It was taken in good humour. Even if the terminology was execrable (‘winding POHM’ should be read as whingeing pom. I mean, fair dinkum, mate).
Click to expand...
Brad,

My Australian Nurse used to tell me I was a bloody Gala, was out behind the black stump and often times I was a bloody drongo…now the POHM stuff I learned while there…🙂

Have you eaten the bugs?
 
Bradski said:
I might have to correct you if I may. You said ‘God’ where I believe you should have said ‘my God’.
Click to expand...
At what point will you begin to understand that this is a Catholic discussion forum, and that Catholics do not consider God to be “mine” or “theirs,” but universally ours, for all people? There is no qualifying personal pronoun to God, because He is the God of all.

Karoleck can continue to say “God,” and so will I.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
At what point will you begin to understand that this is a Catholic discussion forum, and that Catholics do not consider God to be “mine” or “theirs,” but universally ours, for all people? There is no qualifying personal pronoun to God, because He is the God of all.

Karoleck can continue to say “God,” and so will I.
Click to expand...
Elizabeth,

I believe that it would be appropriate and cause little consternation to say “The God you believe in” or “The God you speak of”…it implies no belief on Bradski’s part and is reverent enough so as not to incite the you, yours, mine etc…🙂
 
PRmerger said:
If you can show me a post on this thread where someone declares that children being indoctrinated is a good thing, I will retract my statement.
Click to expand...
OK, I’ll go off and look (although I’m not quite sure why I’m doing this). In the meantime, could you answer the question as to whether you think it’s a good idea to tell a child what to believe.

And eating all that popcorn is not going to do you a lot of good.
PRmerger said:
I find myself absolutely enjoying the dialogue here on the CAFs. Mostly. 🙂
Click to expand...
Me too. Present company occasionally excluded…
CopticChristian said:
Have you eaten the bugs?
Click to expand...
Yeah, delicious on the barbie with a lot of garlic butter. And a cold beer – can’t beat it.
CopticChristian said:
Elizabeth, I believe that it would be appropriate and cause little consternation to say “The God you believe in” or “The God you speak of”…it implies no belief on Bradski’s part and is reverent enough so as not to incite the you, yours, mine etc…🙂
Click to expand...
No, I think that Elizabeth is correct for calling me out on that. In my defence I should say that I was considering other religions when it came to matters such as homosexuality, so I wanted to be specific about Elizabeth’s God as opposed to an Indian’s or a Hindu’s etc.

Naturally, being a guest on a Catholic forum, I appreciate that ‘God’ refers to the Abrahamic God and not some catch-all nomenclature for any given deity. I use the capital ‘G’ when referring to Him (likewise the capital ‘H’) so that everyone knows who I’m talking about. If you see me saying ‘god’ then I’m talking of ‘a god’ as opposed to ‘your God’.

Now you’re probably more confused than before. But in any case, when you say God is ‘universally ours’, Elizabeth, then I’m going to graciously exclude myself. You obviously believe He’s my God as well as yours, but I obviously don’t.
 
karoleck said:
You might have found my link “a salacious article”,I just found the story sad and sickenning!!My point was to show a current example of the type of persons there are within the "militant gay rights".Notice that this person was in The Human Rights Field of workl!!🤷
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

How salacious once again.

This is one person that you know of. If it was two or three, or five so what? It’s a deliberate attempt to equate those fighting for the rights of homosexual equality with abuse.

I could just as easily point to, let’s see, 4000 child abusing clergy, and say *My point is to show a current example of the type of perons there are within the clergy. *

That too would be salacious, but while I’m fully aware of the abuse conducted by some clergy, I recognize for most they are good people trying to do a difficult job and believe honestly they are called by God to do so.

So to me your link is salacious in the context in which it was posted.

Sarah x 🙂
 
Bradski said:
I don’t make comments about abusive priests because I don’t think it’s logical to tar everyone in an organisation with the same brush. Just because you have a few bad apples doesn’t mean that the whole barrel is rotten.

Why doesn’t this dictum equally apply to you?
Click to expand...
Because almost all the abusive priests were also homosexuals, I’m not sure what your point would be in this case. I hope you would not by trying to show that all bad apples are homosexuals.
 
Stephen168 said:
Because almost all the abusive priests were also homosexuals, I’m not sure what your point would be in this case. I hope you would not by trying to show that all bad apples are homosexuals.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting because every statistic on abusers of children and teenagers shows that they are overwhelmingly heterosexual. Most abusers are married, and even have children of their own. Seems odd that this one group of abusers would buck that trend.
 
Stephen168 said:
Because almost all the abusive priests were also homosexuals, I’m not sure what your point would be in this case. I hope you would not by trying to show that all bad apples are homosexuals.
Click to expand...
Nice try. The point I was making was that I don’t comment on priestal abuse of young boys as a way of scoring points against the Catholic church.

And did you see what we both did then?

Without actually saying so, you implied that abuse in the Catholic church (which I said we I wasn’t going to discuss) was a problem caused by homosexuality.

Then, without actually saying so, I implied above, without actually saying so, that it was more a case of pedophilia.

How clever we are!

How about we say what we mean when we discuss these matters so we don’t have to play these trite games. I’m quite willing. What say you join me.
 
Bradski said:
You didn’t answer my question. Is it Ok to tell a child what he or she must believe?
Click to expand...
Yup. They’re children, not adults. They can form their own opinions and the like once they’re grown, but while they’re children, they eat the food the parents provide, obey the rules the parents lay down so they aren’t hurt, and generally are allowed to be children so that they don’t have the worries, anxieties and other woes of being an adult.

At least, that’s how it was for me, in a balanced home with a parent that loved me very much. Being told what to believe has not damaged me, deranged me, made me less able to empathize and help my fellow man, or anything else negative or strange.

I followed the rules, because I was a child. To argue any other point is to acknowledge the insanity and general silliness that relativism has visited upon societies in general.

I am very, very glad that I was treated like I was a child when I was a child, and not an adult when I was a child.
 
Bradski said:
I’m going to graciously exclude myself. You obviously believe He’s my God as well as yours, but I obviously don’t.
Click to expand...
OK, that part I can accept (because you were nice and used the word “graciously.” 😃

I also think Coptic’s statement in post 268 is acceptable.
🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top