Oh Isn't It Wonderful - Elton John And His Husband

[Ice_nine]

In other news . . . Hugh Heffner tied the knot with a woman about 100 years his junior. Ain't it cute?

[4588686]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1293755261' post='2195304']
That is correct, people with certain types of mental illnesses should not attempt to raise children for their own good as well as the good of the child.
[/quote]



Which types? Schizophrenics? Bi-Polar? Anxiety Disorder?

[4588686]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1293735698' post='2195243']
StMichael may be out of line calling the child "a pet" even if he has a valid theological point, only because doing so is inflammatory. There is a legitimate reason that same-sex partners (it is important to identify that Elton John does not have a husband, he is fornicating with another man) should not be permitted to have any children. We are all flawed and need to work towards holiness, but we accept our flaws and the damage they cause our dignity as flaws in our being. Those who practice debased sexual acts on a regular basis, even to the point of incorporating it into the way they live their life and define themselves are not mentally prepared to raise a child. Just because the DSM-IV no longer lists homosexuality as a mental illness, does not mean that it should have been removed. A child deliberately brought up in such an environment will likely have serious lasting problems, and no, will not be taught the truth about God or the way to eternal life. The child's very family life is a false image of the domestic church and heavenly kinship. There is no way the child will not be negatively impacted in such an environment. That is why Catholic orphanages would rather shut down than be complicit in the serious sin of adopting children to people in serious sin who are unrepentant. Not only are there theological difficulties in this child's situation, but children as a whole do not thrive as well in an environment where a mother or a father is lacking. Children need both maternal and paternal influences in their life, and it is best given by their own mother and father. That is not to say that those raised in one parent, adoptive, or other homes cannot thrive - they can, but it is a grave injustice to deliberately place a child in a home with very serious problems. In this situation this child is a victim. Communal living in an ideal orphanage situation would be far healthier for a child.
[/quote]


Many of the elite elements of society: scientists, policy makers, members of the media, are either explicitly atheistic or just generically a-religious. When they decide that the arguments of the more militant elements of their community, that fervent religious belief is a form of mental illness, is a sound judgment (after all, they ask, what else would you call someone who worships a piece of bread and claims they eat a man who has been dead for 2,000 years!!!) your post here will have a certain irony about it.

The more I read things that people like you and Dawkins (in terms of both having fanatical ideological views, I don't mean to compare you to Dawkins as a person, who I think is a twit) write to more firmly convinced I become that the most important role of government is to protect the people from the tyranny of ideology.

God forbid people show humility in determining who is mentally or morally fit to have children.

[4588686]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1293743518' post='2195262']
pet n.
1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.

While the child is not an animal, and I mean this figuratively, this is how I see it. Sorry. There is no other reason why these 2 men, one 63, the other 48 would "need" to have a child.

There is no question or doubt that the ideal scenario for a child is via God's way of procreation where there is a mother and father. Certain circumstances might not allow for this as a parent dies, but creating a child in a tube, implanting it, and then handing it over to be in a home that is God less is certainly not ideal nor to be celebrated nor embraced.[/QUOTE]


Again you try to conflate disagreeing with the situation with your claim that gay couples view their children are pets.

Try typing this:
Sorry, I believe as a matter of my Catholic faith that gay adoption is intrinsically immoral but have no proof hat gay couples view their children as pets.

[quote]
As for children who are cursed growing up in a gay home, God has to work very hard to reach them, if at all possible. To claim they are just as normal as a child growing up in a nuclear family, is simply just a claim and unprovable. Unless you are getting your research from GLADD or some other gay oriented group.

[/quote]

[url="http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids"]http://www.webmd.com...l-adjusted-kids[/url]

[rachael]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1293756419' post='2195312']
Which types? Schizophrenics? Bi-Polar? Anxiety Disorder?
[/quote]
Well, shoot. I have depression and anxiety.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1293756419' post='2195312']
Which types? Schizophrenics? Bi-Polar? Anxiety Disorder?
[/quote]

I am not a competent authority to speak on such specific grounds. That does not make my original statement any less true.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1293756974' post='2195315']
Many of the elite elements of society: scientists, policy makers, members of the media, are either explicitly atheistic or just generically a-religious. When they decide that the arguments of the more militant elements of their community, that fervent religious belief is a form of mental illness, is a sound judgment (after all, they ask, what else would you call someone who worships a piece of bread and claims they eat a man who has been dead for 2,000 years!!!) your post here will have a certain irony about it.
[/quote]

Ironic on only the most shallow of levels by taking it out of context, but sure, I see your point. After all the Romans accused Christians of being cannibals and martyred them. Such an argument is based on stupidity though. Arguing that it is inappropriate to place a child with two men or two women that are openly celebrating their brazenly harmful sexual sin is rational.

[quote]
The more I read things that people like you and Dawkins (in terms of both having fanatical ideological views, I don't mean to compare you to Dawkins as a person, who I think is a twit) write to more firmly convinced I become that the most important role of government is to protect the people from the tyranny of ideology.

God forbid people show humility in determining who is mentally or morally fit to have children.
[/quote]

Fanatical is in the eye of the writer. As you said though Dawkins has intellectually lost it. He showed potential, but after reading his last book, I wonder if he is basically through as a "credible" scholar. He may appeal to a more popular lay base of atheists, but not be taken seriously.

My fanatical views are not original or uncommon. It is a new phenomenon to make up a culture around who or what you have sex with and then celebrate it and throw children into the mix. That has nothing to do with humanity. I wonder just what atheists of 100 years ago would have thought about the modern "gay" cultural movement.

[Brother Adam]

Actually it is interesting that you just called me a fanatic.

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1293755752' post='2195306']
In other news . . . Hugh Heffner tied the knot with a woman about 100 years his junior. Ain't it cute?
[/quote]
EXCUSE ME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GAY PEOPLE RUINING THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1293768172' post='2195356']
I am not a competent authority to speak on such specific grounds. That does not make my original statement any less true.
[/quote]

Just uninformed.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1293612818' post='2194892']
Blaming (a lack of a) problem on contraception is disingenuous, as there are plenty of married, straight, Catholic couples who purposefully try to have a baby at any point using NFP or on the flipside by refraining from intercourse until they are ready to have a child.
[/quote]
and then there's also those who don't use NFP.

umm, i already brought up the fact that what started the downfall of marriage was not teh gayz, but the introduction of contraception and no fault divorce. that's the fault of heterosexuals. teh gayz didn't ruin marriage.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1293770286' post='2195377']
Just uninformed.
[/quote]

If you have no point or nothing to add, why post at all?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1293771204' post='2195380']
If you have no point or nothing to add, why post at all?
[/quote]


He is right you know. you basically said "i dont really know what i am talking about, but that doesnt make it not true."

which technically is true. You could possibly be right, flip of the coin.

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1293771204' post='2195380']
If you have no point or nothing to add, why post at all?
[/quote]

My point is if you are making statements talking out of your rear end, then proceeding to admit you are poorly educated on the topic, you should probably refrain from forming an opinion on the topic.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1293772515' post='2195390']
My point is if you are making statements talking out of your rear end, then proceeding to admit you are poorly educated on the topic, you should probably refrain from forming an opinion on the topic.
[/quote]

Your posts have a certain quality to them that is almost trollish. I am not sure if you are just trying to provoke people, or are simply being obtuse. There is nothing wrong with stating that people with certain types of mental illnesses should not raise children without trying to make a judicial statement on specific cases where no data exists based on your one line post.