tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post650371146252385822..comments2024-03-09T00:51:33.602-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: My blogging crisisLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-82240104520359568142012-01-09T17:10:39.361-07:002012-01-09T17:10:39.361-07:00I totally understand! Sometimes the words don'...I totally understand! Sometimes the words don't come. Sometimes Satan is a nasty little jerk and just attacks our ability or our willingness or our readiness to write. Tell him where to go! Take time to recover your own heart, to rest it in the hands of the Lord and go from there. I'm praying for you!worthy of Agapehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13180771608311961505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-2709147730704661702012-01-08T20:57:24.284-07:002012-01-08T20:57:24.284-07:00I just read your post but none of the 111 comments...I just read your post but none of the 111 comments (wow!). I have often wondered how you and some other bloggers were able to do what you do. I can't read all the comments that people have to blogs because they can be quite upsetting! And it amazes me how you and other bloggers seem to read all the comments and add additional comments. God bless you! It must definitely take a special kind of person. I am not that special kind of person but I can appreciate someone who is!Michellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02695028006158879231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45179242140523455092012-01-08T19:57:43.332-07:002012-01-08T19:57:43.332-07:00Thank you, Maggie. What you're saying makes se...Thank you, Maggie. What you're saying makes sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-76031563903925769912012-01-08T19:12:21.936-07:002012-01-08T19:12:21.936-07:00Just to add a little bit Sarah, you make a good po...Just to add a little bit Sarah, you make a good point about trying to talk to teens about abstinence. It's very difficult (I'm a youth minister- I know from the front lines!) However, I will say that the teaching of *chastity,* which is SO MUCH more than "just say no" is far more beautiful and comprehensive and understandable. In my program we approach chastity from the angle of the innate dignity of the person, and that all persons are called to be chaste (because chastity is not the same as celibacy, and all are called to be chaste for their state in life). It is far more meaningful to teach teens about why their inherent dignity as children of God matters, rather than just "don't do it because nice Christian girls shouldn't have sex" (which was basically what I was taught growing up).Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09398904417243102605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-19958970652765998642012-01-08T16:09:22.802-07:002012-01-08T16:09:22.802-07:00I didn't mean to imply that you would say rape...I didn't mean to imply that you would say rape was normal--but the act of intercourse is normal. My point is that defining particular acts as harmful or not does not make as much sense to me as avoiding harm, whatever acts you participate in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-68106084814501263882012-01-08T16:06:39.921-07:002012-01-08T16:06:39.921-07:00I worked at PP for many years and there was never ...I worked at PP for many years and there was never a philosophy that casual sex was "fine." What we believed was that we could not stop the world from engaging in whatever kind of sex they were going to engage in (though we tried. Good luck trying to talk a teenager, bent on having sex, into abstinence--never worked for me) but in the meantime we hoped to prevent as many as possible from getting STDs and getting pregnant when that wasnt' what they wanted. Having a nonjudgmental attitude ensured that young people would feel safe coming there and using PPs services, thereby getting themselves into less trouble than they would otherwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-25616712179159219782012-01-08T15:14:19.552-07:002012-01-08T15:14:19.552-07:00Even sexual acts that you deem normal--such as het...<i>Even sexual acts that you deem normal--such as heterosexual intercourse, can be extremely harmful if it is forced on someone.</i><br /><br />And no, neither I nor the Church would deem forceable heterosexual sex (i.e., rape!) "normal". We would say it's gravely sinful.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-84201649621117085662012-01-08T15:11:45.242-07:002012-01-08T15:11:45.242-07:00I appreciate your honest answers, Sarah, I really ...I appreciate your honest answers, Sarah, I really do. <br /><br />I am just surprised that you worked for and support Planned Parenthood, as they are totally fine with casual sex. And the stuff on child sex, I should clarify, is from International Planned Parenthood. However, the domestic PP also has much on the record about casual sex (even for school kids) and that it is very good, as long as people "consent". <br /><br />I also want someone, some day, to define "harm" for me the way it's used by the left.<br /><br />I understand about not having the energy. I hear ya.<br /><br />Blessings!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-23640577072596976262012-01-08T14:58:42.219-07:002012-01-08T14:58:42.219-07:00Leila
I think promiscuity almost always results i...Leila<br /><br />I think promiscuity almost always results in harm. And as far as sodomy goes, it depends on the circumstances. Buddhism (that I am familiar with) doesn't specify ACTS, it talks about HARM. Even sexual acts that you deem normal--such as heterosexual intercourse, can be extremely harmful if it is forced on someone.<br /><br />I am not familiar with the discussion of sexual rights of children and right now don't have the energy to read about it.<br /><br />Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-86253397355614091152012-01-08T14:35:25.326-07:002012-01-08T14:35:25.326-07:00Sarah, thanks! So, are promiscuity and sodomy seen...Sarah, thanks! So, are promiscuity and sodomy seen as good ways to use sex organs according to the tenets of Buddhism? <br /><br />Also, Planned Parenthood has said a lot about sexual rights of children:<br /><br />http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/09/normalizing-pedophilia-next-stop-on.html<br /><br />(Specifically point #2 in the post)<br /><br />What does Buddhism say about such things? I thought orthodox Buddhism was much more traditional than what you are describing, but I'm no expert on it. <br /><br />It was Barbara at intimate geography (a former avowed leftist academic) who used that analogy about the grape juice. Of course you wouldn't agree with the analogy because you don't think that homosexuality is harmful at all. <br /><br />Blessings!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-88074259380500814052012-01-08T14:30:28.808-07:002012-01-08T14:30:28.808-07:00Thank you, Frank! Happy New Year to you, too! And ...Thank you, Frank! Happy New Year to you, too! And remember: You identify as a Christian. If you are a Christian, then you know that ours is a revealed religion, so you don't need to struggle to "figure out what is right" on these issues. No need to reinvent the wheel. The Church has been teaching the same truth since Christ founded His Church, and will never change a jot of the moral law. So, the truth is already known, you simply have to submit to it and live it, as a Christian. Blessings!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-90637447659275022312012-01-08T14:27:32.681-07:002012-01-08T14:27:32.681-07:00college student, here is what you said:
"Sin...college student, here is what you said:<br /><br />"Single women with little resources are still encouraged to keep their babies if they WANT them, even if it would be better for the child to go to an adoptive couple."<br /><br />To clarify my response: Adoption to stable, married parents is always seen as a good option for a baby born out of wedlock. Any woman who is considering such a selfless option for her child would certainly receive encouragement from Catholics who help with crisis pregnancies. <br /><br />Does that seem less "sick"? <br /><br />"Sick" to me is probably more along the lines of the 64% of abortions that are coerced on women in this nation, who then live with the memory of their dead baby. Now, that is truly sick.<br /><br />All laws are based on someone's morality. But mostly when I speak with you, I am talking about morality specifically, even over and above what the law might say. My understanding is that laws should be based on what is just. Justice, not some leftist sense of "equality". For example, if you all really wanted marriage "equality" (for real, not just as a slogan), you would not discriminate against polygamists, siblings or children getting married. But in reality, you don't want marriage equality for all, you just want gays to be able to marry, since that is the newest victim class, and victim status advances the left's agenda. If that weren't the case, you would be open to everyone and anyone getting "married". That's what "equality" means.<br /><br />But justice, that's another thing. The justice in the case of adoption is for the child, first and foremost. And deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father is unjust from the get go.<br /><br />Blessings!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-40841447079471473542012-01-08T13:22:28.495-07:002012-01-08T13:22:28.495-07:00Aww... you think I'm thoughtful? I think you...Aww... you think I'm thoughtful? I think you're thoughtful, too!<br /><br />I'm the "dark-sider" that said that gay couples can parent just well as straight ones. And while I'm tempted to jump back into that debate, I'd rather help you rejuvenate and refresh. Because I don't want to take away anyone's peace or joy. <br /><br />So, think about good stuff, Leila, and try to remember that all of us on here are trying to do good and figure out what's right, even when we disagree with you.<br /><br />Hope your new year is going well!<br /><br />FrankFrankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08177378357148360987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-6987541853799605652012-01-08T13:02:02.082-07:002012-01-08T13:02:02.082-07:00Hi Leila, etc. I'm sorry, I can't remember...Hi Leila, etc. I'm sorry, I can't remember the names of various people who made comments I want to respond to. <br /><br />But I object to the comparison of gay parents to "grape soda." Grape soda is actually BAD for children--they would be very unhealthy if they only drank grape soda and no water. Having gay parents is definitely not unhealthy for children, even if you believe having straight parents would be better.<br /><br />And to you question Leila, as to how the policies of gay adoption are helping children--I'd say that they help children because they make more loving homes available to adopt children.<br /><br />And to your question, can sexual organs be misused? Definitely they can, anytime they are used in harmful ways--such as rape, coercion, or infidelity. In Buddhism one of the five "precepts" we take is not to engage in "sexual misconduct"--which means not using our sexuality in ways that will cause harm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-14342483445704940112012-01-08T10:41:22.417-07:002012-01-08T10:41:22.417-07:00Leila,
I hope I read this wrong. You don't a...Leila, <br /><br />I hope I read this wrong. You don't actually encourage young single mothers who want to parent to give their babies up for adoption do you?<br /><br />Sorry but thats sick. <br /><br />~College StudentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-38850776408554042262012-01-08T10:39:01.194-07:002012-01-08T10:39:01.194-07:00Leila,
I thought we were talking about laws not ...Leila, <br /><br />I thought we were talking about laws not morals. Laws are absolutely based on fairness and equality, as well as tangible application.<br /><br />Legally you have a right to have as many babies as you can squeeze out. You need not be married, or straight. If you feel like having a baby and your body can produce one, and you find a willing partner, you're good to go. No one gives you this right you just have it. <br /><br /><br />"No one has ever posited that having babies in wedlock is a moral evil!"<br /><br />Yet it is not always best for the child. Your marriage certificate doesnt make u stellar parents. You have a baby because you feel like it' Just as a gay or single person might do. Everything being equal, I think a perfect married couple is better than a perfect gay couple. But I also think a perfect gay couple is better than an average straight couple.<br /><br />This idea that since everyone does immoral things and everyone is divorced then it's suddenly "okay" to do "less ideal" things because we "want to" is simply bizarre.<br /><br />Holding one group of people to a super-high standard that another group is not held to is discrimination under the law. Nothing bizzare about it. <br /><br />~College StudentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-64862071225850278942012-01-08T09:49:52.701-07:002012-01-08T09:49:52.701-07:00*oops! Meant to say: "That is NOT how we mora...*oops! Meant to say: "That is NOT how we morally reason.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-38796358845454364362012-01-08T09:48:53.509-07:002012-01-08T09:48:53.509-07:00College student, none of that addresses whether or...College student, none of that addresses whether or not it's <i>right</i> to do those things (have a baby out of wedlock, divorce, making babies in a lab/leaving them fatherless because gay people cannot -- due to biological imperative -- create children together).<br /><br />Married people having babies together is what married people <i>do</i>. Of course they can have babies when they "feel" like it, because they are married, and in a position to do so. That's what sex does: Makes babies. That is why sex is to be used only in marriage.<br /><br />Come back to the point: What is right and what is wrong. No one has ever posited that having babies in wedlock is a moral evil! Of course that's the moral way to have babies! Even you say it's ideal. No brainer.<br /><br />This idea that since everyone does immoral things and everyone is divorced then it's suddenly "okay" to do "less ideal" things because we "want to" is simply bizarre. That is now how we morally reason.<br /><br />Moral reasoning 101: Is the act moral, is the circumstance moral, and is the end moral? If one or more of those are immoral, then you may not do the act. Of course, people do immoral things all the time, but it doesn't make it right. <br /><br />Where are the <i>principles</i> that are in play in your worldview of what you have described above? "We do what we want, as long as other people are doing bad things, too"? <br /><br />And you will find that people on this blog will not RIP a child from a single mother if she chooses to parent, but that does not in any way mean that she would not be encouraged to place the baby for adoption. We are all about adoption on these blogs (check my blog roll). <br /><br />Blessings!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-4694465532379924862012-01-08T09:39:10.324-07:002012-01-08T09:39:10.324-07:00Furthermore, it is horribly hypocritical to chasti...Furthermore, it is horribly hypocritical to chastise gays for trying having children even if it is not 100% in the children’s interest. People have children (often prompted by their religions) whenever they FEEL like it. Women on this blog have talked about how they want to get pregnant even though they are dirt poor. Single women with little resources are still encouraged to keep their babies if they WANT them, even if it would be better for the child to go to an adoptive couple. When you want to have children, society accepts that your desires often supersedes what is ‘100% best for the child’<br /><br />As for IVF and Surrogacy, gay people are using these methods just to keep things kosher. Like us, homosexuals have genitals. They can pick a random person of the opposite sex to procreate, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper. We don’t give gay people the permission to have babies. We just make it more difficult for them to have families. <br /><br /><br />~College StudentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-77554069175314061202012-01-08T09:38:16.796-07:002012-01-08T09:38:16.796-07:00I actually disagree that most liberals think there...I actually disagree that most liberals think there are no differences between a child being raised by a mother and a father versus two gays parents. Obviously there are some people who think way but I do think most liberals deep down think a mother and father is ideal. <br /><br />The point is that very few children are raised in the ideal. 40% of white children are born to unmarried parents, 70% of black children are. And half of all marriages end in divorce. That doesn’t even include the families ravaged by abuse, or children raised by emotionally distant parents. <br /><br />No one is really raised in a two-parent household anymore. Which is why I think homosexual parenting has emerged as such an appealing option. Because the ideal, has transformed into a fantasy, and reality has shown us that if you have two moms or two dads who treat you right you’re a hell of a lot better off than most of your peers. The fact that homosexual parenting is even an option is the fault of a lapse of heterosexual parenting.<br /><br />~College StudentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-14041686531192207312012-01-08T08:20:20.889-07:002012-01-08T08:20:20.889-07:00Leila, I agree that prayer is the answer for you -...Leila, I agree that prayer is the answer for you - prayer about what path to follow in your blog (I do like the "no comments" option, too, if you need it!) and prayer for the people you engage who have lost of sense of sin. We know their loss is more than the loss of basic understanding of right and wrong. It is a terrible loss to deny God, whether they recognize that loss or not.<br /><br />I value your blog, Leila, and when you took your Advent break I did not come across one that had quite the same flavor as yours. The discussions just weren't the same. The only problem I have is that I don't have nearly the time to keep up with the comments as I'd like. Just this morning I set the timer so I wouldn't stay here too long, but the drive to get to that last comment just "made" me toss the timer aside when it went off! I learn a lot here about how some liberals think, about how to recognize a bad argument, about how to be kind while discussing contentious issues. You are fighting against powers and principalities, though, and that is bound to get tiring. I'll offer up today's Communion for you, Leila!<br /><br />I know your blogs comments do run off in many tangents and I just can't resist asking one question of Maizeke. When does a life go from being "potential" to being "actual"? I know you like to take a scientific perspective so I'd appreciate seeing where in science that distinction can be made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-83865108772898938372012-01-07T23:50:22.555-07:002012-01-07T23:50:22.555-07:00Elizabeth, well said!Elizabeth, well said!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85389894541992838532012-01-07T23:43:24.015-07:002012-01-07T23:43:24.015-07:00I would like to add one comment. Often times, peo...I would like to add one comment. Often times, people point out that heterosexual couples could be bad parents - violent or abusive. This is true of anyone in this world; however, in the issue of adoption, all couples are heavily screened. Adoption by its very nature is discriminatory in order to ensure the best situation for the child. Heterosexual married couples, even in the Christian world, do not get an automatic pass to adopt children just because they are married and heterosexual. There are many, many requirements in place to protect against violent or abusive adoptive parents. While there will be a few that slip through the cracks -- We live in an imperfect world -- there is never a "choice between a loving homosexual couple and a violent heterosexual couple". The known violent couple is not allowed to adopt period. Adoption agencies don't "choose" between those. They dismiss the "bad couple" regardless of any other options. <br /><br />Also keep in mind that, while most people can biologically have babies regardless of their worthiness as parents, adoption does not allow anyone capable of bearing biological children the option of adoptive children. Adoption requirements are far stricter than nature's requirements precisely to protect the child. There is a loss and now greater care must be taken in compensating for the loss of biological parents. Adoption is not a "right" granted to anyone. They must prove themselves worthy, and the interest of the child does come first. The nature of a couple's relationship is part of this.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03625746219907319100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-76447473702005640632012-01-07T23:38:13.110-07:002012-01-07T23:38:13.110-07:00Thanks Barbara (intimate geography is harder to ty...Thanks Barbara (intimate geography is harder to type, ha ha!)!! Well said. <br />And to clarify, the scenario I was referring to about the infant was one I posed to another reader, not Barbara, but Barbara's points about purposeful motherlessness or fatherlessness stand. <br /><br />So, Sarah, if I read you right, the number "two" makes sense because a "couple" makes sense as parents. I agree. Because we know that it takes two parents (male/female) to make a child. You don't base it on that fact, though, right? You just think it makes sense and seems right. But you don't see that it "makes sense" that a child needs a father and a mother? See, that is where you lose me. How can one thing make sense and not the other? It seems totally common sensical that a child needs a mom and a dad. (The source of the instinct for the "two".)<br /><br />As for the adoption scenario: Of course I was assuming a homestudy had been done on the couples, and they are healthy and non-abusive. ;) All things being equal, who should get the infant? You say it doesn't matter. I say a child needs a mom and a dad. I say that motherhood matters. I say that fatherhood matters. That is where we disagree.<br /><br />As to why homosexuality is sinful. Wow, that hard to put in a combox. First, it's instinctive in us to know that putting certain body parts in other body parts (like a penis up a rectum…sorry) is something that makes us recoil. Unless we are desensitized to it. But there is instinctive repulsion there, as there should be. Homosexuality has always been seen as sinful by the orthodox of the major world religions. It's not as if the Catholic Church is the only one to teach it as disordered sexual behavior. It's been fairly universal. Even up till recently, the (secular) APA declared it to be disordered. <br /><br />From the Catholic perspective: Misuse of human sexuality is always a sin, and the only proper use of sex is within marriage -- in a committed lifelong relationship, where the babies that might result can be born into a stable home life. Sex is both unitive and procreative in nature. If we separate those two aspects, we get into all sorts of moral conundrums. I know you don't accept that sodomy is sin, so I don't expect you to accept what I am saying. However, even by the light of the natural law we can see that sex has a purpose. To find the truth of something, we ask, "What is the nature of a thing?" From there, we can see how the human body is designed to work and what the parts are for. To use them in ways that go against their design is never optimal. (Again, I'm not even speaking of the spiritual side of the misuse of sex.)<br /><br />Do you think the sexual organs can be misused?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-55590954203062449122012-01-07T23:19:23.712-07:002012-01-07T23:19:23.712-07:00Hi Sarah
I was the one who made the original comm...Hi Sarah<br /><br />I was the one who made the original comment about "compensating for a loss and creating one." You can read my original comment if you scroll up a bit, but I will clarify what I mean.<br /><br />Let me reiterate this again and again because the message is not getting through. Mine and the Church's opposition to gay marriage/adoption is not an issue of PERFORMANCE, if performance alone were the issue you would have a valid point. The issue is that gay adoption, as well as IVF and surrogacy is depriving a child of something she needs, a vital element of her upbringing. A child *needs* both a mother and a father. They are not interchangeable, nor is gender difference negligeable. Parenting is a gendered task, nature designed it that way, not only in terms of conception but in terms of development. It's statistically observable that children who grow up with two loving opposite sex caregivers who are married and committed to one another, turn out better in every aspect of life, emotional, physical, relational, psychological, financial, across the board. <br /><br />Let me put it this way. We know that for human beings water is a vital element for human health. What if I were a person who simply felt no attraction to water and generally disliked the stuff, so instead of giving my little girl water I replaced it with grape soda. I could believe in my heart that grape soda was as good as water, that there was no real difference. And certainly, I'm not starving my little girl. I give her square meals prepared with nurturing and caring and love. However, how would depriving her of water in preference to grape soda affect her health over the long run? Would it contribute to issues with obesity or diabetes? would she develop a sugar addiction she couldn't shake? Would she have the same energy and verve as a girl who was given water to drink? Or would she be physically weakened by taking in unhealthy amounts of sugar over a long period of time? <br /><br />The argument that there are bad fathers and mothers out there is kind of like saying "some water is dirty and can give you dysentery" which is true, it doesn't follow, however, that because some water is dirty that water itself is unnecessary and that grape soda is a perfectly acceptable replacement.<br /><br />In my case, my opposition falls more on the IVF/Surrogacy cases than adoption. Adoption by gay couples at least attempts to help compensate for a loss in a child's life. Surrogacy and IVF is trying to create motherless and fatherless babies. Something I oppose much more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com