Comments on: No, these are not “our kids,” they are their parents’ kids to protect and raise.

By: jerome ennis

jerome ennis — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:20:00 +0000

The Fascist Nanny State Way is to Regulate and Control the Masses who are Law Abiding and Responsible, instead of Regulating and Controlling Criminals. These same Criminals are generally Democrats and Love the Democrats because the Democrats Coddle Murderers and Child Rapists and condemn anybody who protects themselves and their families from these animals. The same Democrats who Embrace the Murder of unborn children all the way through the 3rd trimester, and then Stand Outside Prisons and Protest Death Penalty of animals who rape, mame and murder children, the elderly and other defenseless and innocent citizens. The Democrat party is not only a criminal enterprise, it is also just plain Evil In The Flesh. These Democrats Must Be Defeated in all ways possible. They are a Threat and Danger to Public Safety of all citizens in this country.

By: Mark Frances

Mark Frances — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:56:00 +0000

It is called the world socialism predicted by Malachi Martin in his writings. The priesthood will be destroyed The lay oriented Church will then merge with the socialist agenda. After the inauguration, events will move quickly. It has already been documented by Malachi Martin that with the death of Benedict that the final pope will take the throne of Peter. Peter Romanus will then usher in that perfect world utopia where there will no longer be a need for a pope but that the “people of God” will rule the world.

By: Paulspr

Paulspr — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:47:00 +0000

Wow Anne, that’s exactly what Obama suggested and what this article is suggesting good “Catholics” should fight against. Careful, someone might mistake you for a liberal!

By: Anne

Anne — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:12:00 +0000

We should protect them from being murdered by a crazy man with a semiautomatic weapon. By protecting the semiautomatic weapon from the crazy man. NOT by punishing the non-crazy man whose hobby is semiautomatic weapons and would hurt a fly.

By: abadilla

abadilla — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:33:00 +0000

It is both. It is an informed opinion based on scientific fact. I didn’t wake up one morning and decided on my own that a stage of development of a human being somehows robs that human being of its humanity. I didn’t arbitrarily decide when human life begins or when it ends. Even if I were an atheist, I don’t decide that on my own unless I want to be completely irational. That a fetus is a human being growing in the womb of a mother has absolutely nothing to do with religious dogma, so why do you presume my belief that a fetus is a human being is based on any religious dogma? By the way, in this context I use the word “mother” cautiously because the word “mother” implies care, nurturing, protecting, upholding the life within her, etc, and a woman that is willing to murder her own child can’t possibly be a “mother” in the full sense of the meaning of that word. How does a “mother” turn against her own child, her own flesh?
Opinions are not necessarily objective unless they are informed opinions. Far too many people today think their opinion “is” the truth, when, in fact, it is a distortion of the truth. that is why many of us call this era “the age of moral relativism.”

By: Joe M

Joe M — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:03:00 +0000

Thank you Greg. I’ve known people who did that as well. It goes to show that gay people do already have equal rights when it comes to marriage.

By: Marvin Derks

Marvin Derks — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:04:00 +0000

That’s really deep. Is that a scientific fact or just your opinion? Oops, you don’t believe in opinion. Expressing a personal opinion, for you, is like risking that you might be wrong so you use “scientific fact” and “religious dogma” to back up everything you say. How about offering a personal opinion on some subject, any subject? All you have to do is start your statement with “in my opinion.” It really isn’t as scary as you think.

By: Marvin Derks

Marvin Derks — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 13:52:00 +0000

Then I guess I’ve killed a lot of oak trees with my lawn mover.

By: Marvin Derks

Marvin Derks — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 13:33:00 +0000

We could have this discussion forever and still not agree. The simple fact, in my opinion, is that a woman has the right to determine when she will become a mother, if ever, regardless of whether the fetus is considered a human being or not. Women are born with this right. Taking that right away is a form of slavery and a violation of one of our primary rights as human beings.

By: abadilla

abadilla — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 05:21:00 +0000

Paul, you want to find the worse about people, don’t you? If I didn’t care, I would not have asked you. How about getting off your high moral horse and giving me the benefit of the doubt? Again, I don’t trust the INTERNET for a serious search of issues. I do trust university data bases, and certain organizations which have come out with studies, and the teachings of my Catholic Church.

If it is true gay people, even with civil unions do not have the right to,

“The right to file joint taxes
The right to social security survivors benefits
Tax breaks from estate taxes
The right to sponsor your foreign born spouse for immigration
The right to refuse to testify against your spouse
Tax breaks for your family.”
I would say the answer then lies in strenghtening civil unions, not in seeking a marriage which is only between a woman and a man in order to procreate children and build up society.
Do you honestly believe I and many Catholics also oppose the right to file joint taxes and all the other rights you listed by gay people?