Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[QuickHitCurepon]

#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.

If the separate agency is run by the church, it is not wrong to call the agency "the church."

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

This is not a solely legal debate.

 

[Syriusly]

#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.

If the separate agency is run by the church, it is not wrong to call the agency "the church."

It would be inaccurate and untrue- whether or not it is 'wrong' would be an interpretation- I personally find innaccurate and untrue' to be wrong.

 

[WorldWatcher]

#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.

If the separate agency is run by the church, it is not wrong to call the agency "the church."

So we should call Catholic Hospitals "Churches"???



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

This is not a solely legal debate.

It is when the religious organization wants taxpayer money. If they do, they don't get to discriminate. If they want to keep gays from adopting, they must exist on private funds.

 

[Inevitable]

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.

Yes.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

This is not a solely legal debate.

It is when the religious organization wants taxpayer money. If they do, they don't get to discriminate. If they want to keep gays from adopting, they must exist on private funds.

No, it is a moral debate also. Or are you without morals?

 

[Inevitable]

This is not a solely legal debate.

It is when the religious organization wants taxpayer money. If they do, they don't get to discriminate. If they want to keep gays from adopting, they must exist on private funds.

No, it is a moral debate also. Or are you without morals?

Some people have better morals than a church that would torture children for political reasons.

 

[Inevitable]

This is not a solely legal debate.

That is true. a church feeling that they own children, that is morally reprehensible.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

This is not a solely legal debate.

It is when the religious organization wants taxpayer money. If they do, they don't get to discriminate. If they want to keep gays from adopting, they must exist on private funds.

No, it is a moral debate also. Or are you without morals?

Some people have better morals than a church that would torture children for political reasons.

It is not a political reason, and no children are being tortured.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

#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.

If the separate agency is run by the church, it is not wrong to call the agency "the church."

So we should call Catholic Hospitals "Churches"???



>>>>

An adoption agency is not a hospital and since a hospital could obviously never be a church then no. But again, if an agency is run by the church, it is not grammatically wrong to call it "the church."

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

#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.

If the separate agency is run by the church, it is not wrong to call the agency "the church."

It would be inaccurate and untrue- whether or not it is 'wrong' would be an interpretation- I personally find innaccurate and untrue' to be wrong.

You are all being silly. It is just a short and varied way to refer to the agency instead of using the agency's name all the time. It is called writing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

#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.

If the separate agency is run by the church, it is not wrong to call the agency "the church."

So we should call Catholic Hospitals "Churches"???



>>>>

An adoption agency is not a hospital and since a hospital could obviously never be a church then no. But again, if an agency is run by the church, it is not grammatically wrong to call it "the church."

Exactly an "adoption agency", which is not a Church. However, under your logic if a hospital is run by a religious organization then hospitals are "churches" also.

And as I said before religious organization should be able to run private adoption agencies if they choose. On the other hand if they want to run it under government contract, then there are non-discrimination rules that may apply depending on the jurisdiction.


>>>>

 

[Inevitable]

This is not a solely legal debate.

It is when the religious organization wants taxpayer money. If they do, they don't get to discriminate. If they want to keep gays from adopting, they must exist on private funds.

No, it is a moral debate also. Or are you without morals?

Some people have better morals than a church that would torture children for political reasons.

It is not a political reason, and no children are being tortured.

This is not a solely legal debate.

It is when the religious organization wants taxpayer money. If they do, they don't get to discriminate. If they want to keep gays from adopting, they must exist on private funds.

No, it is a moral debate also. Or are you without morals?

Some people have better morals than a church that would torture children for political reasons.

It is not a political reason, and no children are being tortured.

It absolutely is a political reason. And being denied parents because some church marm doesn't like them is abusive.

How is it not a political reason?

 

[WorldWatcher]

#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.

If the separate agency is run by the church, it is not wrong to call the agency "the church."

It would be inaccurate and untrue- whether or not it is 'wrong' would be an interpretation- I personally find innaccurate and untrue' to be wrong.

You are all being silly. It is just a short and varied way to refer to the agency instead of using the agency's name all the time. It is called writing.

Actually its an attempt to elicit an emotional response.


>>>

 

[Syriusly]

#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.

If the separate agency is run by the church, it is not wrong to call the agency "the church."

It would be inaccurate and untrue- whether or not it is 'wrong' would be an interpretation- I personally find innaccurate and untrue' to be wrong.

You are all being silly. It is just a short and varied way to refer to the agency instead of using the agency's name all the time. It is called writing.

I don't find being accurate and honest 'silly'.

 

[Seawytch]

This is not a solely legal debate.

It is when the religious organization wants taxpayer money. If they do, they don't get to discriminate. If they want to keep gays from adopting, they must exist on private funds.

No, it is a moral debate also. Or are you without morals?

You may think it's a moral debate, but that ship has sailed. Most Americans don't believe gays are immoral.

It is really simple...take Uncle Sam's money, play be Uncle Sam's rules. Don't like the rules, play on your own.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

This is not a solely legal debate.

It is when the religious organization wants taxpayer money. If they do, they don't get to discriminate. If they want to keep gays from adopting, they must exist on private funds.

No, it is a moral debate also. Or are you without morals?

Some people have better morals than a church that would torture children for political reasons.

It is not a political reason, and no children are being tortured.

This is not a solely legal debate.

It is when the religious organization wants taxpayer money. If they do, they don't get to discriminate. If they want to keep gays from adopting, they must exist on private funds.

No, it is a moral debate also. Or are you without morals?

Some people have better morals than a church that would torture children for political reasons.

It is not a political reason, and no children are being tortured.

It absolutely is a political reason.

How is it not a political reason?

How is a church political?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

And being denied parents because some church marm doesn't like them is abusive.

Hundreds or thousands of children will be denied parents when Catholic Charities closes down.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

#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.

If the separate agency is run by the church, it is not wrong to call the agency "the church."

It would be inaccurate and untrue- whether or not it is 'wrong' would be an interpretation- I personally find innaccurate and untrue' to be wrong.

You are all being silly. It is just a short and varied way to refer to the agency instead of using the agency's name all the time. It is called writing.

I don't find being accurate and honest 'silly'.

Use your imagination. It is more fun.