Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[Inevitable]

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.

Well, you're a dipshit. Minority means the people who aren't the majority. Has nothing really to do with race.

Nothing at all.

Potato Jack hammer

 

[Syriusly]

I have answered this exact question at least twice already. The church cannot violate one of its most basic of faiths so they are forced to close because of that.

And that is just one of several ways that gay marriage hurts children in a real and tangible way. Here are others:

Suppose there are real and compelling reasons why church orphanages/homes would completely refuse to participate in adopting kids to "married couples" if gay marriage becomes federally protected without the permission of the states they operate in?

Silhouette-- why do you hate children?

Because you would prefer that this boy, abandoned by his biological parents, to never have a home, never have a father- rather than have a gay father.

I met my son 9 years ago while I was working at a skilled care facility and we had a unit for special needs adults. Minors were not usually placed there but the state allowed this for one week until a foster placement could be arranged....
He could not walk or feed himself, and was not toilet trained. He was 7 years old at the time, primarily strapped in a wheelchair and had all care provided to him. He has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. I am a nurse by background so I had a tendency to see his potential....

...He arrived at my house on July 3, 1998 and we have been a family since. He is absolutely my best gift ever in the whole world! He doesn't say many words although one he does say is "Dad".

 

[Syriusly]

There are no orphanages in America. They were outlawed years ago. We now have the foster child program where kids are put in a real home and not an orphanage. Not all agencies that handle adoption are religious. A lot of adoptions in America are private and handled by a facilitator and a lawyer.

But the agencies who are religious ones handling adoptions (the majority of them) cannot adopt children into unfit homes according to their faith and common sense BTW. So they are closing their doors to these poor kids.
\..

Most of the adoptions are done through state agencies.

Like this one.

This one you would prefer that this boy, abandoned by his biological parents, to never have a home, never have a father- rather than have a gay father.

I met my son 9 years ago while I was working at a skilled care facility and we had a unit for special needs adults. Minors were not usually placed there but the state allowed this for one week until a foster placement could be arranged....
He could not walk or feed himself, and was not toilet trained. He was 7 years old at the time, primarily strapped in a wheelchair and had all care provided to him. He has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. I am a nurse by background so I had a tendency to see his potential....

...He arrived at my house on July 3, 1998 and we have been a family since. He is absolutely my best gift ever in the whole world! He doesn't say many words although one he does say is "Dad".

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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?

Like laughing, first it isn't Texas authorities, it isn't some unseen magical cult, it's a nutcase mayor. And she was forced to withdraw her subpoenas. Obviously, the religion is protected by the first amendment.

Just the fact that she caused so much alarm in the religious community there, with her subpoenas, for quite awhile, shows she is not only crazy, but that she has tremendous ideological backing. She could not have done such a thing by herself. It is the same backing that has allowed the discrimination against Catholic Charities in adoption to occur. Without that narrow but powerful influence, such an unreasonable requirement would never have been considered to be placed upon a church in either case.

Yeah, one person can't do anything without there being some conspiracy agenda bent to take down religion.

Conspiracy is hands on, but your reading comprehension is lacking. When I said "ideological backing," that should have been a clue. People, especially those in power, don't do anything that will look bizarre or totally unacceptable.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The subpoenas she issued were also backed by four of the most powerful law firms in the United states. The pastors hired one lawyer. They won. The subpoenas were recalled. It just isn't an issue, the constitution protects that.

I know you want to pretend that there is an entire world against you so you stomp your feet and say "it's not fair" but this wasn't an issue.

Get your panties out of a bunch and wine and cry about something that actually does do harm, say ACA perhaps. And the pathetic republicans that we elected that won't do a damned thing about it.

It is communism to interfere with sermons given at a pulpit.

 

[Inevitable]

The subpoenas she issued were also backed by four of the most powerful law firms in the United states. The pastors hired one lawyer. They won. The subpoenas were recalled. It just isn't an issue, the constitution protects that.

I know you want to pretend that there is an entire world against you so you stomp your feet and say "it's not fair" but this wasn't an issue.

Get your panties out of a bunch and wine and cry about something that actually does do harm, say ACA perhaps. And the pathetic republicans that we elected that won't do a damned thing about it.

It is communism to interfere with sermons given at a pulpit.

Not really communism, that is more of an economic philosophy combined with socialism or fascism.

But since nothing interfered with any sermons, the constitution and the republic remains in tact.

 

[Inevitable]

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?

Like laughing, first it isn't Texas authorities, it isn't some unseen magical cult, it's a nutcase mayor. And she was forced to withdraw her subpoenas. Obviously, the religion is protected by the first amendment.

Just the fact that she caused so much alarm in the religious community there, with her subpoenas, for quite awhile, shows she is not only crazy, but that she has tremendous ideological backing. She could not have done such a thing by herself. It is the same backing that has allowed the discrimination against Catholic Charities in adoption to occur. Without that narrow but powerful influence, such an unreasonable requirement would never have been considered to be placed upon a church in either case.

Yeah, one person can't do anything without there being some conspiracy agenda bent to take down religion.

Conspiracy is hands on, but your reading comprehension is lacking. When I said "ideological backing," that should have been a clue. People, especially those in power, don't do anything that will look bizarre or totally unacceptable.

And since the subpoenas were tossed out, there really isn't any reason to even discuss this. You know since nothing really happened.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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

Like laughing, first it isn't Texas authorities, it isn't some unseen magical cult, it's a nutcase mayor. And she was forced to withdraw her subpoenas. Obviously, the religion is protected by the first amendment.

Just the fact that she caused so much alarm in the religious community there, with her subpoenas, for quite awhile, shows she is not only crazy, but that she has tremendous ideological backing. She could not have done such a thing by herself. It is the same backing that has allowed the discrimination against Catholic Charities in adoption to occur. Without that narrow but powerful influence, such an unreasonable requirement would never have been considered to be placed upon a church in either case.

Yeah, one person can't do anything without there being some conspiracy agenda bent to take down religion.

Conspiracy is hands on, but your reading comprehension is lacking. When I said "ideological backing," that should have been a clue. People, especially those in power, don't do anything that will look bizarre or totally unacceptable.

And since the subpoenas were tossed out, there really isn't any reason to even discuss this. You know since nothing really happened.

The subpoenas she issued were also backed by four of the most powerful law firms in the United states. The pastors hired one lawyer. They won. The subpoenas were recalled. It just isn't an issue, the constitution protects that.

I know you want to pretend that there is an entire world against you so you stomp your feet and say "it's not fair" but this wasn't an issue.

Get your panties out of a bunch and wine and cry about something that actually does do harm, say ACA perhaps. And the pathetic republicans that we elected that won't do a damned thing about it.

It is communism to interfere with sermons given at a pulpit.

Not really communism, that is more of an economic philosophy combined with socialism or fascism.

But since nothing interfered with any sermons, the constitution and the republic remains in tact.

Pastors were intimidated when they ought not have been, and they should not have to worry about the state when composing a sermon.

Communism is control.

 

[Inevitable]

Like laughing, first it isn't Texas authorities, it isn't some unseen magical cult, it's a nutcase mayor. And she was forced to withdraw her subpoenas. Obviously, the religion is protected by the first amendment.

Just the fact that she caused so much alarm in the religious community there, with her subpoenas, for quite awhile, shows she is not only crazy, but that she has tremendous ideological backing. She could not have done such a thing by herself. It is the same backing that has allowed the discrimination against Catholic Charities in adoption to occur. Without that narrow but powerful influence, such an unreasonable requirement would never have been considered to be placed upon a church in either case.

Yeah, one person can't do anything without there being some conspiracy agenda bent to take down religion.

Conspiracy is hands on, but your reading comprehension is lacking. When I said "ideological backing," that should have been a clue. People, especially those in power, don't do anything that will look bizarre or totally unacceptable.

And since the subpoenas were tossed out, there really isn't any reason to even discuss this. You know since nothing really happened.

The subpoenas she issued were also backed by four of the most powerful law firms in the United states. The pastors hired one lawyer. They won. The subpoenas were recalled. It just isn't an issue, the constitution protects that.

I know you want to pretend that there is an entire world against you so you stomp your feet and say "it's not fair" but this wasn't an issue.

Get your panties out of a bunch and wine and cry about something that actually does do harm, say ACA perhaps. And the pathetic republicans that we elected that won't do a damned thing about it.

It is communism to interfere with sermons given at a pulpit.

Not really communism, that is more of an economic philosophy combined with socialism or fascism.

But since nothing interfered with any sermons, the constitution and the republic remains in tact.

Pastors were intimidated when they ought not have been, and they should not have to worry about the state when composing a sermon.

They chose to be intimidated. Because they didn't have to be. I wouldn't. Governments don't have that power. Not unless they are given that power.

Communism is control.

Control is control, it exists in all societies that aren't anarchic. Communism is not simply control because any law or rule existing would make the society that enforces them communist. It is really the government owning all wealth and all assets.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Pastors were intimidated when they ought not have been, and they should not have to worry about the state when composing a sermon.

They chose to be intimidated. Because they didn't have to be. I wouldn't. Governments don't have that power. Not unless they are given that power.

Because what the court wants is totally frivolous.

Communism is control.

Control is control, it exists in all societies that aren't anarchic. Communism is not simply control because any law or rule existing would make the society that enforces them communist. It is really the government owning all wealth and all assets.

The degree and lengths they went to reaches that height.

 

[Inevitable]

Pastors were intimidated when they ought not have been, and they should not have to worry about the state when composing a sermon.

They chose to be intimidated. Because they didn't have to be. I wouldn't. Governments don't have that power. Not unless they are given that power.

Because what the court wants is totally frivolous.

Communism is control.

Control is control, it exists in all societies that aren't anarchic. Communism is not simply control because any law or rule existing would make the society that enforces them communist. It is really the government owning all wealth and all assets.

The degree and lengths they went to reaches that height.

Think before you post.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Pastors were intimidated when they ought not have been, and they should not have to worry about the state when composing a sermon.

They chose to be intimidated. Because they didn't have to be. I wouldn't. Governments don't have that power. Not unless they are given that power.

Because what the court wants is totally frivolous.

Communism is control.

Control is control, it exists in all societies that aren't anarchic. Communism is not simply control because any law or rule existing would make the society that enforces them communist. It is really the government owning all wealth and all assets.

The degree and lengths they went to reaches that height.

Think before you post.

Post what?

 

[Inevitable]

Pastors were intimidated when they ought not have been, and they should not have to worry about the state when composing a sermon.

They chose to be intimidated. Because they didn't have to be. I wouldn't. Governments don't have that power. Not unless they are given that power.

Because what the court wants is totally frivolous.

Communism is control.

Control is control, it exists in all societies that aren't anarchic. Communism is not simply control because any law or rule existing would make the society that enforces them communist. It is really the government owning all wealth and all assets.

The degree and lengths they went to reaches that height.

Think before you post.

Post what?

Unintelligible rubbish

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Pastors were intimidated when they ought not have been, and they should not have to worry about the state when composing a sermon.

They chose to be intimidated. Because they didn't have to be. I wouldn't. Governments don't have that power. Not unless they are given that power.

Because what the court wants is totally frivolous.

Communism is control.

Control is control, it exists in all societies that aren't anarchic. Communism is not simply control because any law or rule existing would make the society that enforces them communist. It is really the government owning all wealth and all assets.

The degree and lengths they went to reaches that height.

Think before you post.

Post what?

Unintelligible rubbish

Maybe, you took it literally.

What type of government would you say will not give a church its most basic rights that it has already had for at least 40 years when adopting out children?

 

[Inevitable]

They chose to be intimidated. Because they didn't have to be. I wouldn't. Governments don't have that power. Not unless they are given that power.

Because what the court wants is totally frivolous.

Communism is control.

Control is control, it exists in all societies that aren't anarchic. Communism is not simply control because any law or rule existing would make the society that enforces them communist. It is really the government owning all wealth and all assets.

The degree and lengths they went to reaches that height.

Think before you post.

Post what?

Unintelligible rubbish

Maybe, you took it literally.

What type of government would you say will not give a church its most basic rights that it has already had for at least 40 years when adopting out children?

It really all depends. I would say great if that said "church" has decades of history of abusing children, also if the church placed it's core values over the well being of a child. I don't care if they claim it as their right based on having done it for decades.

 

[Syriusly]

They chose to be intimidated. Because they didn't have to be. I wouldn't. Governments don't have that power. Not unless they are given that power.

Because what the court wants is totally frivolous.

Communism is control.

Control is control, it exists in all societies that aren't anarchic. Communism is not simply control because any law or rule existing would make the society that enforces them communist. It is really the government owning all wealth and all assets.

The degree and lengths they went to reaches that height.

Think before you post.

Post what?

Unintelligible rubbish

Maybe, you took it literally.

What type of government would you say will not give a church its most basic rights that it has already had for at least 40 years when adopting out children?

Church's don't adopt out children.

 

[Inevitable]

Because what the court wants is totally frivolous.

The degree and lengths they went to reaches that height.

Think before you post.

Post what?

Unintelligible rubbish

Maybe, you took it literally.

What type of government would you say will not give a church its most basic rights that it has already had for at least 40 years when adopting out children?

Church's don't adopt out children.

I don't really know.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Maybe, you took it literally.

What type of government would you say will not give a church its most basic rights that it has already had for at least 40 years when adopting out children?

Church's don't adopt out children.

I don't really know.

#1 Couples (or single) perspective parents adopt children not "Churches".

#2 Adoption agencies run by religious organizations are a separate non-profit organization that facilitates the coming together of prospective parents and children in need of parents. And as far as I know that function has not been denied to any organization, they are free to facilitate such coming together of the two parties involved (prospective parents with needy children) all they want on their own dime. There have been situations where these non-profit organization sought government funding for their operations and the government placed conditions on receipt of such contracts. The organization is free to operate under their own rules if they fund an operation, however they must abide by rules attached to government contracts if they wish taxpayer funding.



>>>>

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Because what the court wants is totally frivolous.

The degree and lengths they went to reaches that height.

Think before you post.

Post what?

Unintelligible rubbish

Maybe, you took it literally.

What type of government would you say will not give a church its most basic rights that it has already had for at least 40 years when adopting out children?

Church's don't adopt out children.

"Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?"

Explain to me then the title of the thread. Adopt out = Adoptions.

 

[Syriusly]

Think before you post.

Post what?

Unintelligible rubbish

Maybe, you took it literally.

What type of government would you say will not give a church its most basic rights that it has already had for at least 40 years when adopting out children?

Church's don't adopt out children.

"Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?"

Explain to me then the title of the thread.

It is a stupid dishonest title by a person who is an idiot?