Plan would bar GOP adoption

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 1 2006, 08:51 PM']False dichotomy here!

Who would murder their child because homosexuals could not legally adopt????  Think about it.

There are plenty of "straight" married couples who could adopt.

You're being absurd here.
[right][snapback]901140[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Mind answering my question?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 28 2006, 05:34 PM']Do you have a point to debate here, or do you actually find this [mod]donkey's[/mod]antics amusing?
[right][snapback]900259[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, it looks like some mod's getting over-zealous with the censorship here.

"Jackass" is not a dirty word. It means simply a male donkey.
Ass is a perfectly acceptable word for a donkey which has been around for ages. (Read any old Bible translation - "The ox and the ass . . .")

A jackass is a male donkey (much as a tomcat is a male cat.) A female ass is called a jennie.
By extension, "jackass" refers to a stupid or asinine person. (I used it with the double-meaning here of the person also being a Democrat - the jackass being their party symbol.)

This censorship here is not "holy" but shows only ignorance of the English language.

[Azriel]

I would highly suggest, especially since I'm the one who mod'ed your post, to take this to PM if you have a problem with it.

I'm not ignorant of the English language, and will not defend my education to you. The term you used is considered in many circles to be profanity, and you were not using it to mean a male donkey, so please do not insult my intelligence.

If I were truly being overzealous, I would have warned you, which I did not.

No one here has been censored - and as I stated, if you have a problem - take it up privately.

[track2004]

In the same vein, but about marriage rather than adoption, I always liked this argument:

In light of the recent passing of Issue 1 in Michigan (and Ohio, etc.), we wish to propose a new amendment: Fat people cannot get married nor enter into civil unions. Reasoning: The Bible says that gluttony is a sin, so it is wrong. The thought of fat people having sex is revolting. If fat people have kids, the kids will be fat and grow up and spread the fat agenda. Fat people are more likely to suffer from asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, and numerous other "fat diseases" which can make health insurance more expensive. They chose to be fat, it is a choice and a sinful one. Join us now in banning fat people from having the right to be married.

[dustthouart]

[quote name='track2004' date='Mar 2 2006, 02:56 AM']In the same vein, but about marriage rather than adoption, I always liked this argument:

In light of the recent passing of Issue 1 in Michigan (and Ohio, etc.), we wish to propose a new amendment: Fat people cannot get married nor enter into civil unions. Reasoning: The Bible says that gluttony is a sin, so it is wrong. The thought of fat people having sex is revolting. If fat people have kids, the kids will be fat and grow up and spread the fat agenda. Fat people are more likely to suffer from asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, and numerous other "fat diseases" which can make health insurance more expensive. They chose to be fat, it is a choice and a sinful one. Join us now in banning fat people from having the right to be married.
[right][snapback]901346[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Except that obesity does not always result from gluttony. I doubt that it even mostly results from gluttony.
Whereas the clear and consistant teaching of the Church, from Jesus through the apostolic succession to Benedict, has always taught and will always teach that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and destructive. It's certainly not a good example for children and should never be encouraged.
We ought to try as much as we can to make this world like heaven, in our laws even. Obviously our laws are already and have always been short of this goal. But that doesn't mean "well, since non-Christians can adopt, and single people can adopt, and heterosexual adulterers can adopt, therefore we shouldn't do anything to keep homosexual couples from adopting."
Unfortunately, this seems difficult to enforce... there's no gay test you can give someone.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 1 2006, 05:27 PM']The facts back me up. When the number of adoptions goes up, the number of abortions go down.
[right][snapback]901068[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The facts don't back you up. The waiting lists are long for parents who want to adopt children. There are plenty of adoptive parents. And yes, I've seen your question. A child would be better off in an orphanage than with a homosexual couple.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 1 2006, 09:56 PM']A female ass is called a jennie.
[right][snapback]901143[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 1 2006, 07:55 PM']Mind answering my question?
[right][snapback]901142[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Obviously, the murder of a child would be the worse evil.

But your question poses the fallacy of a false dillemna. It presents two evils and pits them against one another, when in fact neither is necessary. In essence:
"Either homosexuals must be allowed to adopt, or babies must be aborted."

This is nonsense. The life of a baby does not depend on homosexual adoption, and homosexuals not being allowed to adopt does not necessitate that babies be aborted.
There are plenty of "straight" married couples willing to adopt.
If you want more adoption, encourage it among married couples.

And again, why would any woman choose to abort her baby because of adoption being limited to "straight" couples? Who (except a fanatical "gay-rights" activist) would let her baby live only on the condition that homosexuals be allowed to adopt? That is an absurd premise!

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 2 2006, 09:11 PM']Obviously, the murder of a child would be the worse evil.

But your question poses the fallacy of a false dillemna.  It presents two evils and pits them against one another, when in fact neither is necessary.  In essence:
"Either homosexuals must be allowed to adopt, or babies must be aborted."

This is nonsense.  The life of a baby does not depend on homosexual adoption, and homosexuals not being allowed to adopt does not necessitate that babies be aborted.
There are plenty of "straight" married couples willing to adopt.
If you want more adoption, encourage it among married couples.

And again, why would any woman choose to abort her baby because of adoption being limited to "straight" couples?  Who (except a fanatical "gay-rights" activist) would let her baby live only on the condition that homosexuals be allowed to adopt?  That is an absurd premise!
[right][snapback]901959[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It's very hypocritial on your part to say "abortion is wrong." When you also say "Adoption is better then abortion, but only the majorty can adopt."

Catholics aren't the majority in this nation, want your right adopt taken away?

Edited March 3, 2006 by catholicinsd

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' date='Mar 2 2006, 12:56 AM']In the same vein, but about marriage rather than adoption, I always liked this argument:

In light of the recent passing of Issue 1 in Michigan (and Ohio, etc.), we wish to propose a new amendment: Fat people cannot get married nor enter into civil unions. Reasoning: The Bible says that gluttony is a sin, so it is wrong. The thought of fat people having sex is revolting. If fat people have kids, the kids will be fat and grow up and spread the fat agenda. Fat people are more likely to suffer from asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, and numerous other "fat diseases" which can make health insurance more expensive. They chose to be fat, it is a choice and a sinful one. Join us now in banning fat people from having the right to be married.
[right][snapback]901346[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This lame and un-funny "parody" fails on all levels.

If you really think that not recognizing "gay marriage" is as absurd as barring fat people from marrying, it shows your knowledge of Catholic moral teaching is woefully lacking.

This "joke" works on the premise that barring "gay marriage" is merely disallowing marriage for a group of people (in this case, fat people).

The fact is that a "gay marriage" is no marriage at all and never can be a marriage. A marriage is the procreative union between a man and a woman. Two people of the same sex sodomizing one another is something else entirely. It can not bring forth life and family. It is simply not the same thing, and cannot be called a marriage.

This fact is not based simply on aesthetic considerations. ("The thought of fat people having sex is revolting") nor merely on health concerns.
The analogy about having fat kids doesn't even work, since homosexual sodomy can produce no children, "gay" or otherwise!

And even assuming that fat people are all gluttonous (many are not), this is a non-sequitor. Their gluttony would have nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of the marital act.
However, two "gay" people of the same sex, would in fact be incapable of the procreative marital act, and their "union" would be based on the intrinsically evil act of same-sex sodomy.
Thus, what they do by its very defintion would not constitute a marriage.
The parody acts as if not recognizing "gay marriage" was simply withholding privileges from someone on account of their sinfullness - such as denying "gays" drivers licenses.

If you find that parody humorous or clever, it shows you understand neither the nature of marriage nor of morality.

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 2 2006, 08:18 PM']It's very hypocritial on your part to say "abortion is wrong." When you also say "Adoption is better then abortion,  but only the majorty can adopt."

Catholics aren't the majority in this nation, want your right adopt taken away?
[right][snapback]901965[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am not being hypocritical.
Your statement is totally illogical and doesn't make one ounce of sense.

This isn't about who's in the majority and minority - it's about right and wrong. Children being raised in homosexual households is wrong. Children should be raised by a mother and a father.
A man, woman, and children form a family. Two people of the same sex sodomizing each other do not.

As myself and others have pointed out, there are plenty of other options for "unwanted" children besides being raised by homosexuals.
Abortion will in no way be ended by supporting the evil of homosexual "unions."
As Christians we must not attempt to fight evil with evil.
We must support that which is good.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 3 2006, 07:07 PM']I am not being hypocritical.
Your statement is totally illogical and doesn't make one ounce of sense.

This isn't about who's in the majority and minority - it's about right and wrong.  Children being raised in homosexual households is wrong.  Children should be raised by a mother and a father.
A man, woman, and children form a family.  Two people of the same sex sodomizing each other do not.

As myself and others have pointed out, there are plenty of other options for "unwanted" children besides being raised by homosexuals.
Abortion will in no way be ended by supporting the evil of homosexual "unions."
As Christians we must not attempt to fight evil with evil.
[right][snapback]902599[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Meanwhile the anti-abortion activists are so quick to praise single parents, who raise their children with an opposite sex spouse. I see no difference here.

[Socrates]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Mar 3 2006, 06:16 PM']Meanwhile the anti-abortion activists are so quick to praise single parents, who raise their children with an opposite sex spouse. I see no difference here.
[right][snapback]902603[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There is a HUGE difference.

These women are being praised because they chose to keep their children, and they got married to a man who can be a foster-father for her children.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing, blessed by God.

Homosexual activity is a perverted sin, and is condemned by God and His Church.
Sodomy does not produce children, and there is no reason for sodomites to adopt other's children. That is wrong.

If you cannot see the difference, you need to get educated in Catholic moral teaching. Talk to a good priest or one of the Church Scholars here about this.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 3 2006, 07:25 PM']There is a HUGE difference.

These women are being praised because they chose to keep their children, and they got married to a man who can be a foster-father for her children.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing, blessed by God.

Homosexual activity is a perverted sin, and is condemned by God and his Church.
Sodomy does not produce children, and there is no reason for sodomites to adopt other's children.  That is wrong.

If you cannot see the difference, you need to get educated in Catholic moral teaching.  Talk to a good priest or one of the Church Scholars here about this.
[right][snapback]902606[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Barring someone from adopting a child, (and in so doing helping end abortion) just because they happen to be tempted, which isn't a sin, is a sin.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 3 2006, 07:25 PM']
These women are being praised because they chose to keep their children, and [b]they got married to a man who can be a foster-father for her children.[/b][right][snapback]902606[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This rarely happens.