hyperdulia again Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 no we shouldn't. we shouldn't pray that anyone's family is ripped apart or that any child is required to believe that the people who love and care for them are going to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foundsheep Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 then what should we pray for? that a government can tell this women she cant practice her religion in order to raise her child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 we should say that regardless of what any adoption papers say this child was raised by two people and those two people both have a say in how the child turns out, what faith she practices what she believes when she dates, where she goes to school, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foundsheep Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 So like the article says ,should she tear out the pages in the bible that are against homosexuality? I understand that the other needs to help raise the child. My point is that this could lead to infringement on or rights to practice our religion. God forbid my wife and I divorce and she decides to become athiest and the court says I cant be a catholic because my ex doesnt want me teaching my kids about jesus. Thats just twisted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foundsheep Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 even though McLeod had no legal relationship to the girl and what about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 one can teach truth, without encouraging the child to fall into a pattern of judgement and hatred. it is not homophobic to think homosexual acts are a sin, but is homophobic and abusive to the child to walk up to the little girl and say, "steffie, your other mommy's going to burn in the fires of hell for the rest of eternity." if the 1st woman was only presnting her perspective on homosexuaal acts to the little girl and not bad-mouthing her other parent, this ruling probably wouldn't have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Re: legal relationship thing; law doesn't make family, love and caring do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foundsheep Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 I get ya! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marielapin Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 one can teach truth, without encouraging the child to fall into a pattern of judgement and hatred. it is not homophobic to think homosexual acts are a sin, but is homophobic and abusive to the child to walk up to the little girl and say, "steffie, your other mommy's going to burn in the fires of hell for the rest of eternity." if the 1st woman was only presnting her perspective on homosexuaal acts to the little girl and not bad-mouthing her other parent, this ruling probably wouldn't have happened. Yes, but remember hyper, in the article it says: "The definition of "homophobic," Staver noted, is "all across the board," from being fearful of homosexuals to disagreeing with their lifestyle." Which would mean that the Mom cannot teach that the act itself is a sin. I agree with what you say, but this is not what this court is definining as homophobia. The court is saying she cannot teach the Christian view of the act, which is completely unlawful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 without getting into one of those lovely orthodox heterodox arguments, there is more than one christian view...only one of them is right, but i'm not going to say that everyone's who is wrong isn't a christian. if you can think the eucharist is a cracker and be a christian, you can certainly think homosexual acts aren't a sin and be a christian. But having said that maybe trhe ruling did go too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marielapin Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 The point is, the court has NO authority to tell the Mom what she can or cannot teach (or even say in this case) to her own child. This is a bit messed up, but there are plenty of cases of divorced couples who tell their children that the other parent is evil. Now even though I disagree with them doing so, the courts cannot jump into this person's home and start regulating everything they say or not say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 the poinnt is that the court has the authority to define what is healthy and helpful for the upbringing of this little girl. i'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marielapin Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 the poinnt is that the court has the authority to define what is healthy and helpful for the upbringing of this little girl. i'm done. You might be mistaking my reasons for posting, hyper, but I what I am concerned with here is the government telling the Mom what she can say and not say to her child. I wouldn't care whether the other parent in question was Muslim, and the Mom was Christian, the goverment has no right to tell the Mom she can't teach her child to be Christian, because the Muslim parent would be offended. To me, this is going past looking for the best interests of the child and becoming more like Big Brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 i still think the court had more information (presented from BOTH sides), than we got in this one little biased articlette, I'm sure there were good reasons that had the best interests of this child in mind that led to this decision, I'm not done because of you lauren. I'm done because if I don't start cooking we'll be eating take-out tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marielapin Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 i still think the court had more information (presented from BOTH sides), than we got in this one little biased articlette, I'm sure there were good reasons that had the best interests of this child in mind that led to this decision, I'm not done because of you lauren. I'm done because if I don't start cooking we'll be eating take-out tonight. Good. Just making sure. I can agree to the fact that the article could be biased. I am just really concerned with the growing power that the courts are given, to make major decisions (aka Terri Schiavo) that affect people's lives, and their propensity to screw up. All I have to say is I pray that I will never be in such a position! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now