Posted on 05/29/2007 4:25:23 PM PDT by wagglebee
“It’s frustrating to me that the Catholic Church is violating its own moral teachings by doing this. I’m sick of CINOs getting ahold of the Church. It appears a couple California diocese, including this and Los Angeles are under the grasps of CINOs.”
Ah, but is the church put in this position by Cali state law? It sounds like they have a draconian law that says all adoption agencies must allow homosexual adoption. Now *marketing* the concept is further down the slippery slope, but there you go.
“Any more cases other than this highly publicized one?”
And we all know why these are highly publicized,
as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of adopted children in caring mom-and-dad homes - the relentless pursuit of the gay agenda, putting the Brave New World in front of our faces in order to change the d8mn culture that isnt ‘tolerant’ enough to handle the end of the family, marriage and traditional values as we know it.
Yes. In California, Massachusetts, and also Britain, the Church has been put in this position. In Massachusetts, the Church pulled out of the adoption business altogether. In Britain, they are vowing to stay open and refuse adoption to homosexuals, even if they are supposed to allow homosexuals to adopt children. The agencies affected in California should have done either what Massachusetts or Britain did, though. Partnering with a group that blatantly contradicts the teachings of the Church and places children in a situation with homosexual couples is wrong.
>>> did you think that up all by yourself <<<<
Yup sure did even before gedeon3 reply. It was only up to 6 when I came on the thread.
At least you could have come up with a different come back.
>>> So you still don’t answer the question I pose , which is very realistic, in my post #9.
<<<<
I totally agree with the statement in post # 9 Which is:
“Sounds like somebody needs more recovering to do.”
Too much pot? LOL Look closer you want #5
I think I answered that. But if you need spelled out. Sodomites should never be allowed near kids. Why make a bad situation worst.
>>> whole slew of sites that have nothing to do with gay parenting <<<<
LOL ROTF still tokeing up.
>>>> makes me ashamed to call myself Christian <<<<
LOL I don’t think your that or a hippie. Ex or otherwise. Compassionate! Keeping kids away from pervs is compassionate.
>>>anger about “homos <<<
Is well founded
Young boy escapes from kidnappers who tried to rape him
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1090641/posts
The Death of Jesse Dirkhising
http://www.covenantnews.com/dirkhising.htm
Homosexuals more likely to molest kids, study reports
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b15c50b1950.htm
Sex before 8 or it’s too late
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/646809/posts
Gay School Teacher Initially Booked with Almost 400 Counts of Molestation
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38bac0d36506.htm
Girl Scout’s mother says she’s disgusted by alleged assault
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b1b360a1cfd.htm
Homosexuals help syphilis comeback (WND title)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/579808/posts
Have 100 or more links. And that’s not even leaving FR
Here's a news flash for you: GAYS WANT TROPHY CHILDREN TOO. You are setting up a straw man by claiming that there is a huge population of adoptive "special needs" children that heterosexual Christians do not want.
Last night you asked me for statistics about natural parents not signing off on adoption, which I provided from my son's detskii dom in Moscow.
Now I am asking you for some statistics (other than one highly publicized case) that show gays are more eager to take "special needs" children and that Christians are more likely to reject such children.
Most gays DO NOT WANT CHILDREN OF ANY KIND. The minority that do want children (I have to assume primarily Lesbians) want non-disabled babies just as any natural parents would.
Stop waving that STRAW MAN you pulled out of your nether regions.
.
It all started when the Catholic Church accepted evolution (not that most Catholics will ever admit that). But once you start saying, “hey, we know more now than they did back then” it’s kinda hard to stop saying it.
And I'm appalled that anyone would prefer the "sermon on the mount" to the Book of Joshua.
There is a Biblical alternative to chr*stianity, you know (in fact, a couple of them).
Good point! V’s wife.
LOL -so now your defending "homosexuals" from my "hatred".
I suggest you stick with facts RATHER than attempting to read my mind and divine my motives.
Simply put -I do not know the minds of "homosexuals" their minds do not define "them" --ONLY one thing defines them -SEX --ALL I know is thier actions -actions they CHOOSE to engage in that are intrinsically abnormal, self destructive, bizzare AND not something children should be subject to...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.