kdewolf2 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. Honestly, I think you're being a little shortsighted here. Just because the mother teaches her child that homosexuality is immoral doesn't mean that she is telling her daughter that the other woman is going to hell. Christianity tells us never to despair of the salvation of anyone, and God can change the woman's heart and bring about her conversion. The only sin anyone is ever really damned for is final impenitence. I think the mother would be fulfilling the judge's order and doing the right thing if she told her daughter that homosexuality is wrong, that it could lead to eternal damnation, that she left the other woman because as a Christian could no longer participate in a sinful relation. She should also teach the child to pray for the other woman's salvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Just Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 THE Crusade is coming closer and closer. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdewolf2 Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 There is a huge difference between believing that homosexuality is wrong and actually hating and/or fearing homosexuals. "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 From my weblog, The Tower: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech... - The Constitution of the United States Make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic. - A ruling by Denver County Circuit Judge John W. Coughlin - - - - - - - - - - For starters, the above two statements -- one of them from the Constitution, another from a judge who thinks he's God -- are polar opposites. One of them says that the government can't tell people what religious beliefs to hold or prohibit their freedom of speech, and another says that this parent should not allow the child to have a religious upbringing that teaches anything "homophobic." That flies in the face of religious freedom and freedom of speech. It flies in the face of the Constitution itself. It is another example of judges making laws rather than interpreting existing laws, which is their true function. Lest someone think I am "homophobic," let me clear that up right away. In actuality, as a quick reading of my conversion story will show, I am a homosexual who has chosen to live a chaste life in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. In other words, I have chosen to be celibate rather than acting on my impulses. Therefore, it would be idiocy to say that I am afraid of or that I hate homosexuals, since I am a homosexual. I'm just a different kind of homosexual, the kind society doesn't want you to see. But I am not, by any means, homophobic -- if by homophobic you mean that I am afraid of and/or that I hate homosexuals. And therein lies the problem. What is the actual definition of homophobia? In its strictest sense, homophobia should be defined as fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. If it were defined in its strictest sense, I wouldn't think you would find too many homophobes in the world. There are not many who are actually afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality; rather, they dislike homosexuality. And yes, some do dislike homosexuals. I think it's fine to say that a parent should not be allowed to teach a child to do violence -- physical or mental -- to homosexuals. If that's the definition of homophobia we're going with today, then that's okay with me. I think it's wrong for any parent or any religion to teach violence against homosexuals. The slogan "love the sinner, hate the sin" should apply in this situation and in all others. But I think it's quite another thing to say that a child should not be exposed to "homophobic" teaching, because the word "homophobic" has no standard definition. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that living a homosexual lifestyle is wrong. The Catholic Church also teaches that homosexuals have the same human dignity as everyone else, and that violence should not be done to them. Nevertheless, many have interpreted the Catholic Church's teaching against homosexual sex as "homophobic." If this is the definition of homophobic, we're all in trouble. Because the courts have finally begun their invasion into our religious freedom, and secularism is prevailing. Unfortunately, the standard definition of homophobia used by the secularists is anything that goes against the full expression of the homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, many Protestant denominations, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, the Baha'i World Faith, Tibetan Buddhism, Scientology, Zoroastrianism, and even some Neo-pagan and Wiccan groups could be seen as "homophobic" and thus not allowed to be taught to our children if the secularists have their way. It's easy to see, then, that this is not simply a conservative vs. liberal, Christian vs. World issue. This is an issue that could affect the religious beliefs of millions and millions of non-Christian people -- from the Baha'i to the Zoroastrians. Therefore, those of all like-minded religions who wish to preserve their religious teachings regarding homosexuality should stand up in solidarity with the Catholic Church in America and declare that they will not allow the secularist judges in this country to eliminate their religious freedoms. It is crucially important that we do so. SEND this to Envoy magazine!! why because mom says so! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Another troubling aspect of this case, he said, is the award of visitation and joint parenting responsibilities to a third-party who has no legal relationship to the daughter or the mother. I think this alarms me most of all..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 obviously this woman was co-parenting the child and involved in her life for a long time b4 the decision was handed down, it could not possibly be a good thing to separate two people who have a parent child relationship, anyone who was more concerned with this little girl than their politics could see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 obviously this woman was co-parenting the child and involved in her life for a long time b4 the decision was handed down, it could not possibly be a good thing to separate two people who have a parent child relationship, anyone who was more concerned with this little girl than their politics could see that. So technically, a babysitter can sue for custody since he/she helped parent the child when the parent was away at work? What about some crack dealer who shacks up with a single mother who says, "Gee, I changed a diaper, that means I was technically involved in the child's life, I want joint custody". We wouldn't have these problems if everyone behaved themselves and the traditional family structure was preserved to the fullest extent possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 we were talkin' parents and children not babysitters and crackheads. we weren't talkin gee i changed a diaper, we were talking gee i've been this child's parent for "x" amount of time and just because i don't have a little piece of paper from a judge doesn't mean i should be cut out of his/her life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 we were talkin' parents and children not babysitters and crackheads. we weren't talkin gee i changed a diaper, we were talking gee i've been this child's parent for "x" amount of time and just because i don't have a little piece of paper from a judge doesn't mean i should be cut out of his/her life. What business did the unrelated person have masquerading as a parent??? We wouldn't have these problems if everyone behaved themselves and the traditional family structure was preserved to the fullest extent possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 MASQUERADING AS A PARENT? what the Hell do you think makes someone a parent, adoption? giving birth? or loving? 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