YOUR TOWN:  Caroline | Culpeper | Dahlgren | King George | Fredericksburg | Orange | Spotsylvania | Stafford | Westmoreland   TODAY: 11.01.14 | 


The hot seat >> Morality

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | >> (show all)
MF
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 10/24/07
Posts: 14111
Loc: Margaritaville
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Clovis]
      #1643075 - 05/23/11 11:34 AM (71.62.10.160)

Quote:

Quote:

So you and your wife weren't a family before you had a child? What were you between your marriage and birth of your child?




Nope, we were a married couple starting a family.



========================

So...let me get this right...
If one or both of you were unable to reproduce, then Ya'll would never become a family of 2 ?? Does adoption count in ya'll becoming a "Family"??

--------------------
"Don't give up..Don't ever give up". ---Jimmy V.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kimcmitch
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 01/20/05
Posts: 22161
Loc: this side of the mountain
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Clovis]
      #1643084 - 05/23/11 12:45 PM (209.145.88.90)

You were a family of two. Didn't you go through pre-cana?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
True_Bob
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 08/13/08
Posts: 20303
Loc: Fredericksburg
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: kimcmitch]
      #1643092 - 05/23/11 01:50 PM (71.63.79.241)

Quote:

You were a family of two. Didn't you go through pre-cana?




No pre-canal knowledge!



--------------------
Have you the brain worms?!?!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: MF]
      #1643108 - 05/23/11 04:22 PM (98.117.89.40)

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So you and your wife weren't a family before you had a child? What were you between your marriage and birth of your child?




Nope, we were a married couple starting a family.



========================

So...let me get this right...
If one or both of you were unable to reproduce, then Ya'll would never become a family of 2 ??




Nope. We'd be a married couple.

Quote:

Does adoption count in ya'll becoming a "Family"??




I reckon it does.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kimcmitch
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 01/20/05
Posts: 22161
Loc: this side of the mountain
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: True_Bob]
      #1643111 - 05/23/11 04:37 PM (209.145.88.90)

You shouldn't talk about Mrs. Clovis in that way. Some women don't know about Kegels.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pastafari
Super FUG


Reged: 03/15/10
Posts: 3780
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: kimcmitch]
      #1643112 - 05/23/11 04:41 PM (173.72.178.118)

Kegels wouldn't interest him, he only has sex for procreation, no recreation.


Still dodging your hypocrisy Clovis? Why do you think it is okay for some kids to be raised without a father but illegal for others?

--------------------
"If these guys are in control, then they're doing things right." -Rally2xs


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kimcmitch
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 01/20/05
Posts: 22161
Loc: this side of the mountain
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Pastafari]
      #1643115 - 05/23/11 04:50 PM (209.145.88.90)

If something happens to the dad, should the state take the kids away from mom?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: kimcmitch]
      #1643116 - 05/23/11 04:54 PM (98.117.89.40)

Quote:

You were a family of two. Didn't you go through pre-cana?




Do you have any literature to back that up?

Something like this:

Quote:

A term derived from the Latin, famulus, servant, and familia, household servants, or the household (cf. Oscan famel, servant). In the classical Roman period the familia rarely included the parents or the children. Its English derivative was frequently used in former times to describe all the persons of the domestic circle, parents, children, and servants. Present usage, however, excludes servants, and restricts the word family to that fundamental social group formed by the more or less permanent union of one man with one woman, or of one or more men with one or more women, and their children. If the heads of the group comprise only one man and one woman we have the monogamous family, as distinguished from those domestic societies which live in conditions of polygamy, polyandry, or promiscuity.




http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05782a.htm

Or how about this one from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:

2202 A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family.






--------------------
Clovis: "nothing in this world is more valuable than a human being."

BBC's rebuttal: "Defend your empty claim."


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pastafari
Super FUG


Reged: 03/15/10
Posts: 3780
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: kimcmitch]
      #1643119 - 05/23/11 05:01 PM (173.72.178.118)

Quote:

If something happens to the dad, should the state take the kids away from mom?




If Clovis ruled the world and applied his logic uniformly, yes, they would get taken away.

Fortunately, he doesn't rule the world.

Unfortunately, he doesn't apply his logic uniformly.

--------------------
"If these guys are in control, then they're doing things right." -Rally2xs


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kimcmitch
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 01/20/05
Posts: 22161
Loc: this side of the mountain
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Clovis]
      #1643121 - 05/23/11 05:16 PM (209.145.88.90)

Yes Clovis, marriage creates the family for the purpose of children
Then there is this

Edited by kimcmitch (05/23/11 05:18 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kimcmitch
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 01/20/05
Posts: 22161
Loc: this side of the mountain
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Pastafari]
      #1643122 - 05/23/11 05:18 PM (209.145.88.90)

He doesn't even know what he is talking about with this one.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Minx
stranger


Reged: 02/21/07
Posts: 17011
Loc: Stafford
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: kimcmitch]
      #1643124 - 05/23/11 05:22 PM (98.175.167.139)

I just find it extremely sad that Clovis seems to think that the only purpose of marriage is to have children, preferably biological ones. It depresses me beyond belief that there are still people out there who think like this.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kimcmitch
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 01/20/05
Posts: 22161
Loc: this side of the mountain
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Minx]
      #1643130 - 05/23/11 05:37 PM (209.145.88.90)

Marriage is a Sacrament because of the demands that this vocation requires from the couple. The couple is not blessed then receive the Sacrament once they have children. No, they are blessed when they agree to give to each other the love and support that it will take to navigate the calling that is marriage.

Children are not always given to every couple (Catholic thinking here guys) and so there is the burden of not being able to give birth to biological children. The absence of those children do not remove the couple from each other. They are still considered a family even if it is just them.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Minx
stranger


Reged: 02/21/07
Posts: 17011
Loc: Stafford
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: kimcmitch]
      #1643132 - 05/23/11 05:41 PM (98.175.167.139)

That is what I had always been told by my Catholic friends Kim - the sacrament of marriage created a new family unit, which then would hopefully be blessed with children. However, if God decreed that the couple could not conceive a biological child, they were still a family. Whether one had chidren or not did not determine if you were a family.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
True_Bob
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 08/13/08
Posts: 20303
Loc: Fredericksburg
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Pastafari]
      #1643133 - 05/23/11 06:15 PM (71.63.79.241)

Quote:

Quote:

If something happens to the dad, should the state take the kids away from mom?




If Clovis ruled the world and applied his logic uniformly, yes, they would get taken away.

Fortunately, he doesn't rule the world.

Unfortunately, he doesn't apply his logic uniformly.




Or assign Mom a new father figure. Perhaps a nice gay fellow. You just gotta pair 'em up like livestock and let nature take its child-rearing course.

--------------------
Have you the brain worms?!?!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Pastafari]
      #1643144 - 05/23/11 08:39 PM (96.228.33.23)

Quote:

Kegels wouldn't interest him, he only has sex for procreation, no recreation.


Still dodging your hypocrisy Clovis?




Still beating your wife Pasta?

Quote:

Why do you think it is okay for some kids to be raised without a father but illegal for others?




What's hypocritical about allowing biological parents keep their kids? You need to brush up on your reading comprehension.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: kimcmitch]
      #1643147 - 05/23/11 08:48 PM (96.228.33.23)

Quote:

Yes Clovis, marriage creates the family for the purpose of children
Then there is this




I cite the Catechism of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, which clearly states the definition of family. You cite someone's blog and a OpEd from a Catholic news source--which by the way says nothing to support your claim and if it did, it doesn't carry one single thread of authority.

Back to the drawing board with you!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: kimcmitch]
      #1643148 - 05/23/11 08:50 PM (96.228.33.23)

Quote:

He doesn't even know what he is talking about with this one.




Clearly, the Catechism states otherwise--not to mention the common dictionary.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Minx]
      #1643149 - 05/23/11 08:52 PM (96.228.33.23)

Quote:

I just find it extremely sad that Clovis seems to think that the only purpose of marriage is to have children, preferably biological ones. It depresses me beyond belief that there are still people out there who think like this.




Minx show me where I use the term "only" when describing marriage?

If you're an honest lass you'll realize I didn't say that. It depresses me beyond belief that people are still so thoughtless.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: kimcmitch]
      #1643152 - 05/23/11 09:04 PM (96.228.33.23)

Quote:

Marriage is a Sacrament because of the demands that this vocation requires from the couple. The couple is not blessed then receive the Sacrament once they have children. No, they are blessed when they agree to give to each other the love and support that it will take to navigate the calling that is marriage.

Children are not always given to every couple (Catholic thinking here guys) and so there is the burden of not being able to give birth to biological children. The absence of those children do not remove the couple from each other. They are still considered a family even if it is just them.




That's very touching Kim, I have a single tear streaming down my cheek as I type.

All kidding aside, you want to call a married couple a family? Dat's dope, yo. I'm hip with it Beeotch. If dat's how your peeps roll, I'm fly, yo. Sheet if you'z peeps wanna strap on a jimmy and get jiggy wid it, dat's dope 2. It's all good son!

P.S. The only people who refer to pictures of their spouses as pictures of their "family" are tools.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Minx]
      #1643153 - 05/23/11 09:16 PM (96.228.33.23)

Quote:

That is what I had always been told by my Catholic friends Kim - the sacrament of marriage created a new family unit, which then would hopefully be blessed with children. However, if God decreed that the couple could not conceive a biological child, they were still a family. Whether one had chidren or not did not determine if you were a family.




http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/the_early_years/preparing-to-start-a-family.aspx


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Minx]
      #1643154 - 05/23/11 09:18 PM (96.228.33.23)

Hey Look! Fergie wants to start a family with her hubby!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pastafari
Super FUG


Reged: 03/15/10
Posts: 3780
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Clovis]
      #1643156 - 05/23/11 09:33 PM (173.72.178.118)

Quote:

Quote:

Marriage is a Sacrament because of the demands that this vocation requires from the couple. The couple is not blessed then receive the Sacrament once they have children. No, they are blessed when they agree to give to each other the love and support that it will take to navigate the calling that is marriage.

Children are not always given to every couple (Catholic thinking here guys) and so there is the burden of not being able to give birth to biological children. The absence of those children do not remove the couple from each other. They are still considered a family even if it is just them.




That's very touching Kim, I have a single tear streaming down my cheek as I type.

All kidding aside, you want to call a married couple a family? Dat's dope, yo. I'm hip with it Beeotch. If dat's how your peeps roll, I'm fly, yo. Sheet if you'z peeps wanna strap on a jimmy and get jiggy wid it, dat's dope 2. It's all good son!

P.S. The only people who refer to pictures of their spouses as pictures of their "family" are tools.




Have you been drinking?

--------------------
"If these guys are in control, then they're doing things right." -Rally2xs


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pastafari
Super FUG


Reged: 03/15/10
Posts: 3780
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Clovis]
      #1643157 - 05/23/11 09:36 PM (173.72.178.118)

Quote:

Quote:

Kegels wouldn't interest him, he only has sex for procreation, no recreation.


Still dodging your hypocrisy Clovis?




Still beating your wife Pasta?




I'll take that as a "yes".

Quote:

Quote:

Why do you think it is okay for some kids to be raised without a father but illegal for others?




What's hypocritical about allowing biological parents keep their kids? You need to brush up on your reading comprehension.




You need to apply your rules to everyone. You want it to be illegal for two women to raise a child because there would not be a male presence. But you do not want it to be illegal for one woman to raise a child, even though there would not be a male presence.

You are a hypocrite.

--------------------
"If these guys are in control, then they're doing things right." -Rally2xs


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kimcmitch
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 01/20/05
Posts: 22161
Loc: this side of the mountain
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Clovis]
      #1643159 - 05/23/11 09:50 PM (71.171.66.80)

You are the dolt.

Quote:

the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family's own moral and religious convictions




From the CCC, the family is established prior to the bearing of children. It is the establishment of the family that allows for the proper care and raising of the children.

More on family and the couple

On the importance of fidelity within the couple

More from the CCC on fidelity

Do you want me to keep going? Or do you plan to go back and cherry-pick the CCC?
God will enrich the family that is formed in marriage

What did the Holy Father have to say?
Quote:

The Family, a Communion of Persons

15. In matrimony and in the family a complex of interpersonal relationships is set up-married life, fatherhood and motherhood, filiation and fraternity-through which each human person is introduced into the "human family" and into the "family of God," which is the Church.

Christian marriage and the Christian family build up the Church: for in the family the human person is not only brought into being and progressively introduced by means of education into the human community, but by means of the rebirth of baptism and education in the faith the child is also introduced into God's family, which is the Church.

The human family, disunited by sin, is reconstituted in its unity by the redemptive power of the death and Resurrection of Christ.(37) Christian marriage, by participating in the salvific efficacy of this event, constitutes the natural setting in which the human person is introduced into the great family of the Church.

The commandment to grow and multiply, given to man and woman in the beginning, in this way reaches its whole truth and full realization.

The Church thus finds in the family, born from the sacrament, the cradle and the setting in which she can enter the human generations, and where these in their turn can enter the Church




Edited by kimcmitch (05/23/11 10:31 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pastafari
Super FUG


Reged: 03/15/10
Posts: 3780
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Clovis]
      #1643161 - 05/23/11 10:10 PM (173.72.178.118)

If argumentum ad populum is fair game in cloviston, then I guess I can use it, too.

Clovis, you suck at this.

--------------------
"If these guys are in control, then they're doing things right." -Rally2xs


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Pastafari]
      #1643163 - 05/23/11 10:33 PM (96.228.33.23)

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Kegels wouldn't interest him, he only has sex for procreation, no recreation.


Still dodging your hypocrisy Clovis?




Still beating your wife Pasta?




I'll take that as a "yes".




Another point whizzing over your head.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Why do you think it is okay for some kids to be raised without a father but illegal for others?




What's hypocritical about allowing biological parents keep their kids? You need to brush up on your reading comprehension.




You need to apply your rules to everyone. You want it to be illegal for two women to raise a child because there would not be a male presence. But you do not want it to be illegal for one woman to raise a child, even though there would not be a male presence.

You are a hypocrite.




What did I say:

"brush up on your reading comprehension."

In simpler terms that means, you're not understanding what I've said. That means you are not on the same page I am.

D-O

Y-O-U

U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D?

I don't think single women should be allowed to adopt children. I find your wild interpretations funny.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pastafari
Super FUG


Reged: 03/15/10
Posts: 3780
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Clovis]
      #1643165 - 05/23/11 11:23 PM (173.72.178.118)

How is a single woman adopting a child any different than a single woman raising a child? Hint: It's not. What you hold to be the negative aspect in the situation (lack of male presence) is the same in both. If you oppose it in one, you have to oppose it in both. But you don't. If you think a single woman is so incapable of raising a child on her own, then you have to apply that to all women. But you don't.

--------------------
"If these guys are in control, then they're doing things right." -Rally2xs


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: kimcmitch]
      #1643167 - 05/23/11 11:53 PM (96.228.33.23)

Quote:

You are the dolt.




Kimmie, time for a lesson in humility.

Again here is the the citation from the CCC I've used to support my argument:

Quote:

2202 A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family.




Man and woman TOGETHER with their children, FORM a family.

Obviously, a definitive statement. Yet you call it "cherry-picking." (Also, note that it precedes your "citations." The Magisterium defines their terms before expounding on them. You already knew that, right?)

Now let's look at what you've cited:

Quote:

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:

--the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family's own moral and religious convictions




And you give us this sterling exegesis:

Quote:

From the CCC, the family is established prior to the bearing of children. It is the establishment of the family that allows for the proper care and raising of the children.




I think it's important to note you didn't place that quote in context. God forbid it be misunderstood! The key term setting up those bullet points is "political community" aka government.

Now, is there any government that prevents people from freely establishing a traditional family, and having children? Let's just ask our atheist friends Bob and Pasta!

Oh look! China is not to friendly to traditional family values. Forcing women to have abortions and all...

You are aware of India's history regarding marriage and China's regarding children, right Kimmie? Once a Chinese woman reaches the state quota of children they have to pay BIG if they want more.

You knew that right? Of course you did, which is why you quoted it out of the context. You didn't want me pulling back the curtain and exposing your arguments weakness.

Enough gloating, let's move along.

Your next citation:

More on family and the couple

There is noting in this link that supports your argument. Fact is, it kind of hurts your position:

Quote:

2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.




Please note Kimmie that it says the harmony of the COUPLE and not family when referring to husband and wife.

Moving on:

On the importance of fidelity within the couple

Quote:

2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.




Man, talk about cherry-picking. How does this quote help your argument? You have no idea what you're doing do you? In fact, once again you've picked something that actually hurts your point.

Look:

The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage:

1)the good of the spouses themselves (their marriage)

2)transmission of life (their family)

Now if you weren't so hormonal you would've noticed the parallel structure from what was written above with what's below:

These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering ...compromising the goods of marriage(that's with #1 above) and the future of the family (goes with #2).

Moving on....


Quote:

2390 In a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy.

The expression "free union" is fallacious: what can "union" mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in himself, or in the future?

The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments. All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law. The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.




Quote:

More from the CCC on fidelity

Do you want me to keep going? Or do you plan to go back and cherry-pick the CCC?




LOL. The irony! You had no idea what you were saying did you? The above doesn't support your argument.

Note this:

Quote:

All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family;




Once again a parallel with the two meanings of marriage. Shall I continue? Why not, you did.

God will enrich the family that is formed in marriage

Quote:

"By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.




I reckon you probably will refuse to see how this actually hurts your argument. If you were not so biased the "be fruitful and multiply" bit is followed with "hence, true married love and the whole structure of family...shows that the family part comes from the married love bit.

Moving on...

What did the Holy Father have to say?
Quote:

The Family, a Communion of Persons

15. In matrimony and in the family a complex of interpersonal relationships is set up-married life, fatherhood and motherhood, filiation and fraternity-through which each human person is introduced into the "human family" and into the "family of God," which is the Church.

Christian marriage and the Christian family build up the Church: for in the family the human person is not only brought into being and progressively introduced by means of education into the human community, but by means of the rebirth of baptism and education in the faith the child is also introduced into God's family, which is the Church.

The human family, disunited by sin, is reconstituted in its unity by the redemptive power of the death and Resurrection of Christ.(37) Christian marriage, by participating in the salvific efficacy of this event, constitutes the natural setting in which the human person is introduced into the great family of the Church.

The commandment to grow and multiply, given to man and woman in the beginning, in this way reaches its whole truth and full realization.

The Church thus finds in the family, born from the sacrament, the cradle and the setting in which she can enter the human generations, and where these in their turn can enter the Church




Nothing in there either.

I'm sorry my little chimpanzee, your citations do not help you with your misunderstanding of the English language or Catholic teaching.

P.S. Saying I've cherry picked and showing I've "cherry-picked" are two very different things. See I can now say you've "cherry picked" the CCC AND I've shown how.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Pastafari]
      #1643168 - 05/23/11 11:57 PM (96.228.33.23)

Quote:

How is a single woman adopting a child any different than a single woman raising a child? Hint: It's not.






Pasta--Taking dumb to a whole new level.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
True_Bob
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 08/13/08
Posts: 20303
Loc: Fredericksburg
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Clovis]
      #1643170 - 05/24/11 06:14 AM (155.178.6.10)

You need to not only refute Kim's claims, you need to show that your's is the only acceptable definition of family. You aren't there yet, although you do seem three sheets.

--------------------
Have you the brain worms?!?!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pastafari
Super FUG


Reged: 03/15/10
Posts: 3780
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Clovis]
      #1643180 - 05/24/11 07:42 AM (173.72.178.118)

Quote:

Quote:

How is a single woman adopting a child any different than a single woman raising a child? Hint: It's not.






Pasta--Taking dumb to a whole new level.




Then explain the relevant differences to me.

Patty is a 42 year old tax attorney with a 4 year old. She is not married.

Selma is a 42 year old tax attorney with a 4 year old. She is not married.

One of these women is single because she is a widow, the other never married and adopted her child.

Which is which?

Which child is better off?

Which is a "family"?

As far as how your cult defines a family, even if you win against Kim about what your king in the pointy hat what sits on his throne in Rome says about what a family is, that's still just your cult. And even then, if you were capable of taking an unbiased survey without leading questions, I'd bet that most of the people within your cult would also define their childless, brand new marriages as a "family".

Further, catholics don't rule the country (thank FSM), so their definitions of "family" don't amount to a hill of beans in this discussion.

Don't PUI, you'll get a flaming q-tip in your ear.

--------------------
"If these guys are in control, then they're doing things right." -Rally2xs


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: True_Bob]
      #1643187 - 05/24/11 08:07 AM (98.117.89.40)

Quote:

You need to not only refute Kim's claims, you need to show that your's is the only acceptable definition of family.




Done, you're just too stupid or lazy to understand.

Quote:

You aren't there yet, although you do seem three sheets.




Dope. Yo. Three sheets means I gots lots of street cred fo my crib.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Clovis
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 02/06/10
Posts: 5311
Loc: North of the James
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Pastafari]
      #1643189 - 05/24/11 08:11 AM (98.117.89.40)

Quote:

Then explain the relevant differences to me.





A biological child is YOUR flesh and blood.

A child up for adoption is NOT yours.

YOU have NO right to that child. The practice of find a home for a child should make every effort to find an ideal home.

I've never said drunks, poor, abusive couples should be allowed to have children--which you suggested.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pastafari
Super FUG


Reged: 03/15/10
Posts: 3780
Re: Wherein Clovis exposes his hypocrisy [Re: Clovis]
      #1643196 - 05/24/11 08:39 AM (173.72.178.118)

Quote:



Dope. Yo. Three sheets means I gots lots of street cred fo my crib.




Awful.




--------------------
"If these guys are in control, then they're doing things right." -Rally2xs


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  FredTalkMod, john1315 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 54355

Rate this topic

Jump to

E-Mail the FredTalk Admins | Privacy statement (Site Rules and User Agreement) Go to fredericksburg.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5



Fredericksburg.com, 616 Amelia Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401
Copyright 2013, The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co. of Fredericksburg, Va.