His analogy fails. The school children didn't agree with something for good reason - but they had no choice but to attend a captive meeting within an organization they are obliged to attend. They took exception at being instructed in a mandatory meeting, that their classmates, who, being nothing more than adopted, are sociologically unstable, and that other fellow students apparently should be considered as animals. So it's ok to produce more hateful intolerent discimination in society, to repel other law abiding members, so long as it's catholic and done Privately. Well apparently the catholic way , teaching bigotry with biology doesn't work as well as expected, and the catholic church turns off children, even if some adults don't see the problems. You want children turned out as religious hate mongering drones? Is that a catholic thing?
his analogy didn't fail. it doesn't matter if you consider their reasoning good, they attend an private institution which has been very open about their positions, if they don't agree thats fine, but to think that the church shouldn't be allowed to call a mandatory meeting because you, or the students, or a political party doesn't agree with their positions is ludicrous. Again they set their own agenda as they own and operate the private institution. this is not my opinion, it is fact. The scary thing is that a seemingly increasing number of Americans who believe themselves socially liberal, are in fact, just as if not more authoritarian than social conservatives. You don't get to set the policies at a private institution no matter how much you disagree. I have nothing else to say about it. p.s. i'm not catholic or religious at all, and no I don't want the children to turn out as hate mongering drones. but you and people like you don't understand or don't like the concept of freedom, to ban such a practice by the church at an institution that they own is a dangerous way of thinking. much more dangerous than what they did.
the logic does hold up, the human race wouldn't exist right now if we were all born homosexual. sure you can call everything natural and say that nature had no intentions, which i agree with but it is splitting hairs. However I bet you believe in evolution.. so lets call it an evolutionary defect instead of an unnatural one. point still stands. And where did I say that i don't have a problem with child abuse in general? children born naturally are basically the property of their parents until they mature, physical abuse is a crime, and i believe justifiably so, but it is not society's or govts job to tell people how to raise their children. In the case of adoption, unfortunately the parents are bust-outs and the kids need a home. they are under the care of the state and it is the govts and society's responsiblity to ensure that the kids are adopted by capable, compatible people. I don't think a homosexual couple is compatible with a straight child.
A product of the liberal agenda? Wtf does that mean? If supporting basical human rights makes me a liberal then so be it. Saying "you can't be serious" doesn't counter my arguments and that video definitely doesn't help. Come back when you've thought of something
Not until you support a childs right to be born... can you say you are strong on basic human rights. If you are pro abortion you are at best strong on specific homicide rights. Seriously... where the hell do liberals get off on thinking they have the high rode on human rights. its delusional newspeak.
First of all, there's no such thing as "evolutionary defect". no such thing. What does that mean? Evolution doesn't always happen for the "right" reasons. According to your argument, humans as a whole are a "evolutionary defect" of some sort because we are weaker compared to a plethora of other animals. A newborn cow has more chances of survival if left in the wild than a newborn human. Second, what you think doesn't have any basis unless it's scientifically rooted. Scientific research suggests (and I said this in my previous argument too) no problems when kids are brought up in a homosexual parent household. Millions of homosexual couples all over Europe and millions more in the US and you sitting in America know all about the nature of kids brought up in homosexual households? Well, since none of you are WILLING to look up any scientific research because you're in denial, here's some quick ones I found so you can read it [I doubt any of you will but here it is anyway] [1] The American Psychological Association: Briefing a court http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf [2] Canadian Psychological Association http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles...ex Couples Position Statement - October 2006 (1).pdf [3] Australian version: http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't work. And no, you can't vote against it [like they did in California- disgustingly]. Till the 60s the US (especially the South) was overwhelmingly racist. Imagine the outcome if racial segregation was voted upon. A true democracy dictates (and look it up in your constitution- it's there) that The rights of the minorities can never be voted upon
How are basic human rights equated with one's choice to be gay.? Liberal Agenda, you don't understand that ....really? Try, California schools required to include gay history in class? The Liberal Left are the ones promoting gay-whatever... If you want to be gay, that's your choice, but if you want the world to believe that homosexuality is natural and normal, I don't have to counter your argument, it's indefensible. Jem's correct, if you want to support basic human rights, start with the right to life of a baby...... but I guess in your world it's not a problem as it's impossible and unnatural for two men or two women to propagate.
You're pro life? Well I don't see you rallying to adopt kids who were born because the mothers couldn't get an abortion and now have to be adopted away? So long as someone else takes care of them you're fine, correct? Or is that something Jesus would do? And what about the mothers? The economic hardships she has to go through after she does have a baby is far worse on the kid AND the mother collectively. Who will you take care of them once they're born? You? I bet you wouldn't spend a dime of your tax dollars on social programs because you're so against a big government that wants to feed those women. You and your illiterate crowd is only pro life till the kid is born, and once they're born you're unknown- nowhere to be find, except in front of Fox news jerking off to Bill O. These same pro-life conservative nuts would be more than willing to go into someone else's country, attack them and kill children there. Get a grip pal. Go read a book.