Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[QuickHitCurepon]

I wonder what percentage a minority has to become before it isn't okay to deny them the same rights as their fellow citizens? 7%? 10%?

LGBTs aren't minorities. They are people engaged in some [but not the whole gamut] of deviant sex lifestyles. It's a crucial distinction that will come more to the fore as legal arguments progress.

You cannot arbitrarily grant some behaviors repugnant to/subject to local regulations special federal protection while shutting the door on others. Who decides which minority voice is "more better" than others? Surely not the majority anymore, right?

Goodbye democracy. And this is the damage being done to society right now by "gay marriage"...and the attrition happening to democratic rule by SCOTUS refusing to honor its words in Windsor and grant stays to protect "states' choice" in the interim while this question of "just some behaviors getting special protection" appeals its way to a final hearing.

To equate sexual behavior with minority races is a monumental insult to minorities. It cheapens their very existence.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

There isn't any need to say goodbye to democracy consider we are not one. I know you we wish the nation would regress back to the times where state could belittle and diminish the rights of those they deem unworthy but those days are setting. It seems marriage equality is here to stay despite all your efforts to slander and malign gays. I am sure you'll continue to predict that the sky will fall while the rest of us chuckle as your irrational views on gays get discarded on the trash heap of history.

Gays don't have special rights. .

They should have the same rights as everyone else- and everyone else can adopt as long as they meet the criteria for adoption.

You would deny gays equal rights- in adoption, in marriage- and speaking of slippery slopes- who knows where you would end in seeking discrimination against homosexuals? Force them to wear pink stars?

Gays do have equal rights when it comes to adoption, but you can't force those rights on churches that oppose homosexuality in a fit of reverse-discrimination.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Would it be ok to tie homosexuals up by their private parts and beat them with a stick?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

It's common knowledge. In any situation where a child is taken into 'care,' they stay until 18 and are let loose, in a similar way convicts are let out of prison when they've done their time. These kids are then on their own as far as family. Aged out means they stay in the system until they are 18. As most kids don't get adopted when they are older, tons of kids age out of the foster care system, whether it is a Catholic charity or other. General knowledge and common sense logic.

What you are saying is that there is not enough work being done to adopt these kids to families, and forcing Catholic Charities to close its doors will make matters much worse.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I posted these numbers before but I want to post them again

One out of four foster children is available for adoption, but sadly, each year more than 20,000 children age out of foster care (around the age of 18) without being adopted. The outlook for foster youth who age out of the system is dire. Studies show that one in four will be incarcerated within two years of leaving the system, and over one-fifth will become homeless at some time after age 18. In addition, only 58 percent obtain their high school diploma by age 19, compared to the national average of 87 percent for non-foster youth.

If the situation is so dire, why are we forcing Catholic Charities out of the adoption business? That is horribly inhumane to these children.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Rather than discriminating against homosexuals- simply because you hate homosexuals- and denying children parents that will support them emotionally and financially for the rest of their lives- screen adoptive parents for what does matter.

No homosexual is being denied an adoption, so how are opportunities being denied children?

 

[Esmeralda]

It's common knowledge. In any situation where a child is taken into 'care,' they stay until 18 and are let loose, in a similar way convicts are let out of prison when they've done their time. These kids are then on their own as far as family. Aged out means they stay in the system until they are 18. As most kids don't get adopted when they are older, tons of kids age out of the foster care system, whether it is a Catholic charity or other. General knowledge and common sense logic.

What you are saying is that there is not enough work being done to adopt these kids to families, and forcing Catholic Charities to close its doors will make matters much worse.

Work being done to adopt kids? No one should be manipulated or in anyway forced to adopt. That is totally wrong. If people want to adopt, they will find these kids. Using marketing or sales techniques to get these kids adopted is a huge mistake because of the potential of buyer's remorse.

 

[WorldWatcher]

To equate sexual behavior with minority races is a monumental insult to minorities. It cheapens their very existence.

1. The "behaviors" exhibited by homosexuals is the same "behavior" exhibited by heterosexuals. Fellatio, cunnilingus, and anal sex are the "behaviors" and are the same whether it's man/man, man/woman, or woman/woman. Sexual orientation is the gender one is attracted to for sexual and romantic attraction. Just because a celebrate priest does not engage in a sexual behavior does not mean they lack a sexual orientation.


2. Sexual Orientation <> Race, discrimination doe through equal discrimination.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Rather than discriminating against homosexuals- simply because you hate homosexuals- and denying children parents that will support them emotionally and financially for the rest of their lives- screen adoptive parents for what does matter.

No homosexual is being denied an adoption, so how are opportunities being denied children?

Actually there are (or were). Take Utah for example. A lesbian couple in a long term committed relationship conceives a child through sperm. As a couple, Under Utah law only Civilly Married couples could adopt. The biological mother was of course a legal parent, however the child was denied the ability to be adopted by the non-biological mother because Utah designed the law to deny a homosexual couple the ability to have both parents become the legal parents of a child. There are other states with such restrictions.


(Disclaimer, this is how the Utah law function prior to it's case being appealed to the SCOTUS and dismissed leaving the Circuit Court ruling in place.)


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

If the situation is so dire, why are we forcing Catholic Charities out of the adoption business? That is horribly inhumane to these children.

Not if you're an LGBT cultee. It's perfectly acceptable collateral damage, with the added "bonus" of removing the last moral rampart between perverts and orphaned kids. It will literally be a free for all on who can "adopt" them now.

Harvey Milk "adopted" a minor orphaned teen boy. He held himself out to be his father figure/guardian while he was also sodomizing him.

Enjoy your new cult America!

 

[Syriusly]

Harvey Milk "adopted" a minor orphaned teen boy. He held himself out to be his father figure/guardian while he was also sodomizing him.

And of course that is entirely your fantasy.

There is no record of Milk adopting anyone.
There is no record of Milk sodomizing anyone.

Just your fiction to attack homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Rather than discriminating against homosexuals- simply because you hate homosexuals- and denying children parents that will support them emotionally and financially for the rest of their lives- screen adoptive parents for what does matter.

No homosexual is being denied an adoption, so how are opportunities being denied children?

Silhouette does not approve of homosexuals- and therefore does not believe that homosexuals should be able to adopt. I was addressing her position- as far as I am aware of homosexuals can adopt in the U.S. and are held to exactly the same requirements as heterosexual parents- which is how it should be.

 

[Syriusly]

I posted these numbers before but I want to post them again

One out of four foster children is available for adoption, but sadly, each year more than 20,000 children age out of foster care (around the age of 18) without being adopted. The outlook for foster youth who age out of the system is dire. Studies show that one in four will be incarcerated within two years of leaving the system, and over one-fifth will become homeless at some time after age 18. In addition, only 58 percent obtain their high school diploma by age 19, compared to the national average of 87 percent for non-foster youth.

If the situation is so dire, why are we forcing Catholic Charities out of the adoption business? That is horribly inhumane to these children.

We aren't forcing Catholic Charities out of the adoption business.

 

[Syriusly]

I wonder what percentage a minority has to become before it isn't okay to deny them the same rights as their fellow citizens? 7%? 10%?

LGBTs aren't minorities. They are people engaged in some [but not the whole gamut] of deviant sex lifestyles. It's a crucial distinction that will come more to the fore as legal arguments progress.

You cannot arbitrarily grant some behaviors repugnant to/subject to local regulations special federal protection while shutting the door on others. Who decides which minority voice is "more better" than others? Surely not the majority anymore, right?

Goodbye democracy. And this is the damage being done to society right now by "gay marriage"...and the attrition happening to democratic rule by SCOTUS refusing to honor its words in Windsor and grant stays to protect "states' choice" in the interim while this question of "just some behaviors getting special protection" appeals its way to a final hearing.

To equate sexual behavior with minority races is a monumental insult to minorities. It cheapens their very existence.

No one is equating sexual behavior with minority races. For instance- if you have an affair with your neighbors wife, that is not the same as gays being fired from the State Department for being attracted to men, or being arrested in a bar because the bar is known for serving homosexuals.

When I discuss minorities, I speak of minorities that have faced historic discrimination and/or persecution- Jews faced discrimination- legal and otherwise, as did Catholics. Chinese were denied citizenship and the right to own property. African Americans were systemically discriminated against by Jim Crow laws and a host of similar laws. American Indians weren't even considered fully American citizens until the 1920's or 1930's, and had their children removed from them and taken to Indian schools where they were forbidden to speak their native language.

And homosexuals were discriminated against in a variety of ways- NY City and others systematically targeted homosexuals for arrest and shaming. Gays would be arrested, and rather than prosecuting, their pictures were put in the newspapers and employers called in order to get them fired. The State department fired anyone suspected of being gay. And of course being known as gay would mean discharge from the armed forces.

All examples of discrimination by the majority against a 'despised' minority. Was the treatment as 'bad' for each minority? Hardly.

But in all cases the treatment was discrimination based upon the majority believing that the minority was 'less than' the majority- and not deserving of the same rights as the majority.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I wonder what percentage a minority has to become before it isn't okay to deny them the same rights as their fellow citizens? 7%? 10%?

LGBTs aren't minorities. They are people engaged in some [but not the whole gamut] of deviant sex lifestyles. It's a crucial distinction that will come more to the fore as legal arguments progress.

You cannot arbitrarily grant some behaviors repugnant to/subject to local regulations special federal protection while shutting the door on others. Who decides which minority voice is "more better" than others? Surely not the majority anymore, right?

Goodbye democracy. And this is the damage being done to society right now by "gay marriage"...and the attrition happening to democratic rule by SCOTUS refusing to honor its words in Windsor and grant stays to protect "states' choice" in the interim while this question of "just some behaviors getting special protection" appeals its way to a final hearing.

To equate sexual behavior with minority races is a monumental insult to minorities. It cheapens their very existence.

No one is equating sexual behavior with minority races. For instance- if you have an affair with your neighbors wife, that is not the same as gays being fired from the State Department for being attracted to men, or being arrested in a bar because the bar is known for serving homosexuals.

When I discuss minorities, I speak of minorities that have faced historic discrimination and/or persecution- Jews faced discrimination- legal and otherwise, as did Catholics. Chinese were denied citizenship and the right to own property. African Americans were systemically discriminated against by Jim Crow laws and a host of similar laws. American Indians weren't even considered fully American citizens until the 1920's or 1930's, and had their children removed from them and taken to Indian schools where they were forbidden to speak their native language.

And homosexuals were discriminated against in a variety of ways- NY City and others systematically targeted homosexuals for arrest and shaming. Gays would be arrested, and rather than prosecuting, their pictures were put in the newspapers and employers called in order to get them fired. The State department fired anyone suspected of being gay. And of course being known as gay would mean discharge from the armed forces.

All examples of discrimination by the majority against a 'despised' minority. Was the treatment as 'bad' for each minority? Hardly.

But in all cases the treatment was discrimination based upon the majority believing that the minority was 'less than' the majority- and not deserving of the same rights as the majority.

You can rationalize it all day long, but minorities, when it comes to Equal Rights, have always been held to be one race or another. That age-old sentiment will not disappear no matter how much it is redefined to cater to a group. We have not even solved race issues satisfactorily, and now badly confusing the issue with sexual behavior can only weaken and trivialize it. Gays have created their own world of isolation, and the only way they can gain enough acceptance to begin to feel comfortable in society is to tear down age-old beliefs like what Equal Rights and minorities are and have always been. Giving gays the same legal status as a minority race blurs all those lines. We have made tremendous progress in race and should not confuse the issue, and race is too important to lump it together with a social agenda.

Gays are afforded the same protections as everyone else under the Constitution and do not need to be elevated to a class of race.

 

[Syriusly]

I wonder what percentage a minority has to become before it isn't okay to deny them the same rights as their fellow citizens? 7%? 10%?

LGBTs aren't minorities. They are people engaged in some [but not the whole gamut] of deviant sex lifestyles. It's a crucial distinction that will come more to the fore as legal arguments progress.

You cannot arbitrarily grant some behaviors repugnant to/subject to local regulations special federal protection while shutting the door on others. Who decides which minority voice is "more better" than others? Surely not the majority anymore, right?

Goodbye democracy. And this is the damage being done to society right now by "gay marriage"...and the attrition happening to democratic rule by SCOTUS refusing to honor its words in Windsor and grant stays to protect "states' choice" in the interim while this question of "just some behaviors getting special protection" appeals its way to a final hearing.

To equate sexual behavior with minority races is a monumental insult to minorities. It cheapens their very existence.

No one is equating sexual behavior with minority races. For instance- if you have an affair with your neighbors wife, that is not the same as gays being fired from the State Department for being attracted to men, or being arrested in a bar because the bar is known for serving homosexuals.

When I discuss minorities, I speak of minorities that have faced historic discrimination and/or persecution- Jews faced discrimination- legal and otherwise, as did Catholics. Chinese were denied citizenship and the right to own property. African Americans were systemically discriminated against by Jim Crow laws and a host of similar laws. American Indians weren't even considered fully American citizens until the 1920's or 1930's, and had their children removed from them and taken to Indian schools where they were forbidden to speak their native language.

And homosexuals were discriminated against in a variety of ways- NY City and others systematically targeted homosexuals for arrest and shaming. Gays would be arrested, and rather than prosecuting, their pictures were put in the newspapers and employers called in order to get them fired. The State department fired anyone suspected of being gay. And of course being known as gay would mean discharge from the armed forces.

All examples of discrimination by the majority against a 'despised' minority. Was the treatment as 'bad' for each minority? Hardly.

But in all cases the treatment was discrimination based upon the majority believing that the minority was 'less than' the majority- and not deserving of the same rights as the majority.

You can rationalize it all day long, but minorities, when it comes to Equal Rights, have always been held to be one race or another.

I don't know whether you are lying- or you really are this ignorant.

From the 1964 Civil Rights Act- the most important Equal Rights law of the 20th century:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Your claim is flat out wrong.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Rather than discriminating against homosexuals- simply because you hate homosexuals- and denying children parents that will support them emotionally and financially for the rest of their lives- screen adoptive parents for what does matter.

No homosexual is being denied an adoption, so how are opportunities being denied children?

Actually there are (or were). Take Utah for example. A lesbian couple in a long term committed relationship conceives a child through sperm. As a couple, Under Utah law only Civilly Married couples could adopt. The biological mother was of course a legal parent, however the child was denied the ability to be adopted by the non-biological mother because Utah designed the law to deny a homosexual couple the ability to have both parents become the legal parents of a child. There are other states with such restrictions.


(Disclaimer, this is how the Utah law function prior to it's case being appealed to the SCOTUS and dismissed leaving the Circuit Court ruling in place.)


>>>>

I meant with the new laws that are the topic of this thread.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I wonder what percentage a minority has to become before it isn't okay to deny them the same rights as their fellow citizens? 7%? 10%?

LGBTs aren't minorities. They are people engaged in some [but not the whole gamut] of deviant sex lifestyles. It's a crucial distinction that will come more to the fore as legal arguments progress.

You cannot arbitrarily grant some behaviors repugnant to/subject to local regulations special federal protection while shutting the door on others. Who decides which minority voice is "more better" than others? Surely not the majority anymore, right?

Goodbye democracy. And this is the damage being done to society right now by "gay marriage"...and the attrition happening to democratic rule by SCOTUS refusing to honor its words in Windsor and grant stays to protect "states' choice" in the interim while this question of "just some behaviors getting special protection" appeals its way to a final hearing.

To equate sexual behavior with minority races is a monumental insult to minorities. It cheapens their very existence.

No one is equating sexual behavior with minority races. For instance- if you have an affair with your neighbors wife, that is not the same as gays being fired from the State Department for being attracted to men, or being arrested in a bar because the bar is known for serving homosexuals.

When I discuss minorities, I speak of minorities that have faced historic discrimination and/or persecution- Jews faced discrimination- legal and otherwise, as did Catholics. Chinese were denied citizenship and the right to own property. African Americans were systemically discriminated against by Jim Crow laws and a host of similar laws. American Indians weren't even considered fully American citizens until the 1920's or 1930's, and had their children removed from them and taken to Indian schools where they were forbidden to speak their native language.

And homosexuals were discriminated against in a variety of ways- NY City and others systematically targeted homosexuals for arrest and shaming. Gays would be arrested, and rather than prosecuting, their pictures were put in the newspapers and employers called in order to get them fired. The State department fired anyone suspected of being gay. And of course being known as gay would mean discharge from the armed forces.

All examples of discrimination by the majority against a 'despised' minority. Was the treatment as 'bad' for each minority? Hardly.

But in all cases the treatment was discrimination based upon the majority believing that the minority was 'less than' the majority- and not deserving of the same rights as the majority.

You can rationalize it all day long, but minorities, when it comes to Equal Rights, have always been held to be one race or another.

I don't know whether you are lying- or you really are this ignorant.

From the 1964 Civil Rights Act- the most important Equal Rights law of the 20th century:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Your claim is flat out wrong.

My comment was solely about minorities and race.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

To equate sexual behavior with minority races is a monumental insult to minorities. It cheapens their very existence.

1. The "behaviors" exhibited by homosexuals is the same "behavior" exhibited by heterosexuals. Fellatio, cunnilingus, and anal sex are the "behaviors" and are the same whether it's man/man, man/woman, or woman/woman. Sexual orientation is the gender one is attracted to for sexual and romantic attraction. Just because a celebrate priest does not engage in a sexual behavior does not mean they lack a sexual orientation.


2. Sexual Orientation <> Race, discrimination doe through equal discrimination.



>>>>

Sex is not race.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To equate sexual behavior with minority races is a monumental insult to minorities. It cheapens their very existence.

1. The "behaviors" exhibited by homosexuals is the same "behavior" exhibited by heterosexuals. Fellatio, cunnilingus, and anal sex are the "behaviors" and are the same whether it's man/man, man/woman, or woman/woman. Sexual orientation is the gender one is attracted to for sexual and romantic attraction. Just because a celebrate priest does not engage in a sexual behavior does not mean they lack a sexual orientation.


2. Sexual Orientation <> Race, discrimination doe through equal discrimination.



>>>>

Sex is not race.

You are not a simpleton, so stop acting like one.