Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[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.



>>>>

Sex is not race.

Correct sex is a gender not a race.

National Origin is a country of birth and not race.

Religion is a belief system and not a race.

Sexual orientation is a - well - orientation (not a "behavior" as the same acts are performed by homosexuals and heterosexuals) and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Age is time since birth and not a race.

Martial status is being married, single or divorced and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Veterans status is whether you have served in the military or not and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Disability is an indication of physical or mental functioning and not a race.




Any other obvious statements we can add here?



>>>>

 

[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.

Correct sex is a gender not a race.

National Origin is a country of birth and not race.

Religion is a belief system and not a race.

Sexual orientation is a - well - orientation (not a "behavior" as the same acts are performed by homosexuals and heterosexuals) and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Age is time since birth and not a race.

Martial status is being married, single or divorced and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Veterans status is whether you have served in the military or not and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Disability is an indication of physical or mental functioning and not a race.




Any other obvious statements we can add here?



>>>>

It is obvious the gay lifestyle will never be normal. That is why the church is their target to demonize the opposition.

 

[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.

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

Gays should stop acting like they can fit in everywhere.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Rather a circular argument then. You claimed that Equal Rights for minorities is about race when I mentioned

You: 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 in response to this post of mine:

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..

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Correct sex is a gender not a race.

National Origin is a country of birth and not race.

Religion is a belief system and not a race.

Sexual orientation is a - well - orientation (not a "behavior" as the same acts are performed by homosexuals and heterosexuals) and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Age is time since birth and not a race.

Martial status is being married, single or divorced and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Veterans status is whether you have served in the military or not and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Disability is an indication of physical or mental functioning and not a race.




Any other obvious statements we can add here?



>>>>

It is obvious the gay lifestyle will never be normal. That is why the church is their target to demonize the opposition.

I have seen people say the same thing about Jews.

 

[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.

Correct sex is a gender not a race.

National Origin is a country of birth and not race.

Religion is a belief system and not a race.

Sexual orientation is a - well - orientation (not a "behavior" as the same acts are performed by homosexuals and heterosexuals) and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Age is time since birth and not a race.

Martial status is being married, single or divorced and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Veterans status is whether you have served in the military or not and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Disability is an indication of physical or mental functioning and not a race.




Any other obvious statements we can add here?



>>>>

It is obvious the gay lifestyle will never be normal. That is why the church is their target to demonize the opposition.

I have seen people say the same thing about Jews.

I was talking about normal behavior.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Correct sex is a gender not a race.

National Origin is a country of birth and not race.

Religion is a belief system and not a race.

Sexual orientation is a - well - orientation (not a "behavior" as the same acts are performed by homosexuals and heterosexuals) and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Age is time since birth and not a race.

Martial status is being married, single or divorced and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Veterans status is whether you have served in the military or not and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Disability is an indication of physical or mental functioning and not a race.




Any other obvious statements we can add here?



>>>>

It is obvious the gay lifestyle will never be normal. That is why the church is their target to demonize the opposition.

I have seen people say the same thing about Jews.

I was talking about normal behavior.

I have seen people say the same thing about Jews.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quickhitcurepon doesn't seem normal here.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Correct sex is a gender not a race.

National Origin is a country of birth and not race.

Religion is a belief system and not a race.

Sexual orientation is a - well - orientation (not a "behavior" as the same acts are performed by homosexuals and heterosexuals) and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Age is time since birth and not a race.

Martial status is being married, single or divorced and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Veterans status is whether you have served in the military or not and not a race (and is protected in some states).

Disability is an indication of physical or mental functioning and not a race.





Any other obvious statements we can add here?



>>>>

Height and weight are protected in some states.

 

[Silhouette]

It is obvious the gay lifestyle will never be normal. That is why the church is their target to demonize the opposition.

Yep. And that's why if they gain special federal protection for their cult, they will be suing the pants off of anyone, including churches, pastors, and people of all walks of faith to incorporate their thoroughly repugnant lifestyle into the fabric of that church...or they will petition the fed to strangulate that church financially.

That's exactly what they've said here that they're going to do. Take them at their word. They're already forcing the catholic church to abandon the orphan charities for fear they'll be sued for standing by their faith with regards to screening "parents" for those kids.

How does gay marriage hurt you? Well you personally, if you're not an orphan? Probably not much. But an orphaned kid sure has a lot to lose given the position they'll soon be in. Read Harvey Milk's bio when you get a chance for more on that position..

 

[JakeStarkey]

You and Where and Quick now are in the league of cultsmasher.

No one really cares what you think.

It is just fun to poke at you.

 

[Silhouette]

You and Where and Quick now are in the league of cultsmasher.

No one really cares what you think.

It is just fun to poke at you.

Yes, smashing cults is a great idea. Let's start with yours..

 

[Silhouette]

78% is darn near over 80% at the other thread on churches being forced to perform gay marriages. Impressive numbers!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Government shouldn't be telling religion anything. ...Well, building codes are ok. Probably some other things.

 

[Silhouette]

Government shouldn't be telling religion anything. ...Well, building codes are ok. Probably some other things.

How do you feel about the Texas authorities attempting to call in preacher's sermons to redact them for favoritism towards the LGBT CULTure?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Government shouldn't be telling religion anything. ...Well, building codes are ok. Probably some other things.

How do you feel about the Texas authorities attempting to call in preacher's sermons to redact them for favoritism towards the LGBT CULTure?

I'm ok with it so long as they all say, "After church lets out today brothers and sisters, go to your homes, get your rifles and pistols and gasoline and meet at the steps of the legislature. We'll purify them them with fire!"

 

[Silhouette]

Government shouldn't be telling religion anything. ...Well, building codes are ok. Probably some other things.

How do you feel about the Texas authorities attempting to call in preacher's sermons to redact them for favoritism towards the LGBT CULTure?

I'm ok with it so long as they all say, "After church lets out today brothers and sisters, go to your homes, get your rifles and pistols and gasoline and meet at the steps of the legislature. We'll purify them them with fire!"

A little spooky though that they'd even try such a 3rd Reicht move in the 21st Century though...wouldn't you say?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I hope other states besides Illinois and Massachusetts do not fall for this.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Government shouldn't be telling religion anything. ...Well, building codes are ok. Probably some other things.

How do you feel about the Texas authorities attempting to call in preacher's sermons to redact them for favoritism towards the LGBT CULTure?

Well, since that never actually happened, I don't know what you expect anyone to "feel" about it.

 

[Syriusly]

. But an orphaned kid sure has a lot to lose given the position they'll soon be in.

An orphaned child has a lot to lose? Seriously- how much do you hate orphans?

Approximately 200,000 children a year in the United States who are adoptable, are not adopted.

Children who don't get adopted age out of the system and exit without any family- and any support system.

Now- contrast that to children who are adopted by loving parents who pass the required background checks- regardless of gender or sexual preference- those children have a better chance of completing high school and of going to college. Those children have a better chance of not being homeless or on drugs.

So why do you hate orphans so much?