Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic School Rejects Children of Lesbian Parents, Sparking Faith Debate
Fox News ^ | Lauren Green

Posted on 03/12/2010 10:20:47 AM PST by Blue Turtle

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: dmz

“What calculus” was respectful?

As for my answer, please cite the others that make it “too common.”

The sad truth is you have abandon critical thought for popular cliche’.


61 posted on 03/12/2010 12:41:07 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Yes, it was respectful.

You have calculated that homosexuality is worse than adultery. Your words were “homosexuality is worse”.

So I asked, in a way that apparently offended you, how you calculated that.

Instead of addressing the issue, you have now twice raised issues having nothing to do with the topic at hand.

If you would prefer not to discuss how you arrive at your conclusion, all you need to do is say so, and I’ll happily go talk to someone else.


62 posted on 03/12/2010 12:44:33 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: dmz
The openness of the sin has some bearing on how bad it is in the eyes of God? Again, please note, I am asking not to ambush later, but to learn.

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe the concept of "remorse" or lack thereof is beyond your understanding?

63 posted on 03/12/2010 12:46:22 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe the concept of “remorse” or lack thereof is beyond your understanding?

<><><><

Not everyone hiding their sin is remorseful, papertyger. Folks hide their sinning for lots of reasons.


64 posted on 03/12/2010 12:49:51 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

You mean the closed minds of the radical gay community?


65 posted on 03/12/2010 12:50:37 PM PST by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Romans 1 tells us that homosexual behavior is God “giving up” on the person who actually delights in sin.


66 posted on 03/12/2010 12:51:34 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Not everyone hiding their sin is remorseful, papertyger. Folks hide their sinning for lots of reasons.

You have it backward. Can anyone be remorseful while flaunting their sin?

67 posted on 03/12/2010 12:55:49 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Both can be true.

Flaunting your sin is clearly not remorseful.
Hiding is your sin can also be without remorse.

I’m wondering, if I suggest that water is wet, will you disagree :-)


68 posted on 03/12/2010 1:10:56 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

It looks like there are a number of FReepers who, again, want to tell the Church what to do, how to run their schools. When the Church declines to agree, they judge the Church.

I wonder if they would judge the Baptist elementary school in town, that won’t admit any children of homosexual parents.

These lesbians are sinners, they are not only sexually disordered, they are attempting to use the Church’s love for children as a battering ram to force the Church to approve of and accept their lifestyle, no matter if they reject the Church’s beliefs or not.

If the lesbians reject Church teaching, why should they expect the Church to tacitly approve by accepting their children into the school, KNOWING the problems it will cause?


69 posted on 03/12/2010 1:15:15 PM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: dmz

The lesbians are flaunting their sin, pretending that they are “married.”

There are other private schools in the town. Why do you think the lesbians are demanding a Catholic education for their so-called children? Why would they demand that a Church they don’t believe in educate their children?

Why should the Church give in to their selfish, disordered demands?


70 posted on 03/12/2010 1:19:25 PM PST by Judith Anne (2012 Sarah Palin/Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: dmz
I'm wondering, if I suggest that water is wet, will you disagree :-)

I'm not the one who entered the discussion as an iconoclast.

I do admit to finding it odd that those with demonstrably less developed moral sensibilities always seem to think it's the other guy that has the problem.

71 posted on 03/12/2010 1:25:14 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

I don’t really have a problem with the school’s decision, that has not been a part of the discussion I’ve been involved with.

I stuck my big stupid face into the discussion when folks started with hierarchies of sin, that sin x is worse than sin y, specifically homosexuality and adultery.


72 posted on 03/12/2010 1:30:11 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Well met.


73 posted on 03/12/2010 1:30:30 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Both can be true.

Flaunting your sin is clearly not remorseful. Hiding is your sin can also be without remorse.

I’m wondering, if I suggest that water is wet, will you disagree :-)

BTW, do you not see any irony in that the person who wrote the last line ALSO wrote the first two?

74 posted on 03/12/2010 1:31:37 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: dmz
I stuck my big stupid face into the discussion when folks started with hierarchies of sin

Now THAT'S "remorse" ;o)

75 posted on 03/12/2010 1:34:53 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
I'm not the one who entered the discussion as an iconoclast.

You seem not to know what the word means, as asking questions is not the act of an iconoclast.

I do admit to finding it odd that those with demonstrably less developed moral sensibilities always seem to think it's the other guy that has the problem.

And how it God's name would you have the slightest idea of what my moral sensibilities are?

76 posted on 03/12/2010 1:38:17 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

No I don’t see that irony.

The first lines were opinions I was expressing.

The last line was an wasted on you attempt at humor.


77 posted on 03/12/2010 1:53:10 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: dmz
...asking questions is not the act of an iconoclast.

You have *got* to be kidding!

And how it God's name would you have the slightest idea of what my moral sensibilities are?

It is axiomatic that the less developed ones moral sensibilities are, the larger their catalog of morally acceptable behaviors.

Smokers get offended at belligerent non-smokers precisely because they can't smell themselves (i.e. they are less sensitive) and think the n-s is being high-handed.

78 posted on 03/12/2010 2:02:54 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: conservonator

I do think society has gotten more open about flaunting various perversions of God’s intended use of sexuality. More and more couples are living together (or shacking up as Dr. Laura would say) without the blessing of marriage. They are bringing children into an unstable, unsanctioned, and improper household.

I guess many people have “secret” sins, things that aren’t advertised and aren’t known by their loved ones. When known publicly, as Jimmy Swaggart and his ilk discover, the price to pay is big. But of course that is just the earthly price. The eternal price will be far bigger.


79 posted on 03/12/2010 2:05:04 PM PST by Burkean (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: dmz
The last line was an wasted on you attempt at humor.

True. However, I find it ironic your attempt at humour was to imply I might be contrarian, while the first two line were you actually *being* contrarian.

80 posted on 03/12/2010 2:12:17 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson