Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[Silhouette]

Yes....they don't have to close their doors...however, they can't suck at the public teat anymore if they don't comply with the public rules. They can go 100% private at anytime.

So in the end who is "gay marriage" punishing? Answer: The children who would be turned away from the catholic orphange that no longer could afford to care for them.

Yeah, I think it's becoming clear where the "LGBT' priorities are with respect to children.

Should I post the "pride" pictures again to emphasize my point here?

Happily "the public rules" say gay marriage isn't legal in most states. Unless you're talking about the oligarchy currently dictating to the majority on which behaviors they can regluate and which ones they cannot...

 

[Syriusly]

[
So in the end who is "gay marriage" punishing? The children who would be turned away from the catholic orphange that no longer could afford to care for them....

No one.

Adoption- for both homosexuals and heterosexuals is almost completely unrelated to adoption- adoption agencies allow unmarried couples to adopt.

Gay marriage however would however mean the thousands and thousands of children of gay parents would have married parents.

Why do the opponents of gay marriage hate the idea of the children of homosexuals having married parents?

 

[Syriusly]

From St. Joseph's adoption

What are the qualifications to adopt?
Families are as diverse as the children who are available for adoption. The parents may be single or married, they may or may not be the same race as the child, they do not have to be rich just financially stable, they do not have to own their home simply have enough room for another child.
The main qualification is that the parents be committed for the long haul and be willing to work with the child as they overcome their past traumas. Parents must understand that it will take a long time for the child to function well in their new family.

Would you prevent religious orphanages allowing gay couples to adopt?

Depending upon the religion, yes. If it means harm to the child is how I filter everything..

Wow so even if a religious orphanage chose to allow gay couples to adopt children you would oppose that.

You would prefer children languish in orphanages rather than allow religious orphanages to adopt to gay couples.

That is sad.

 

[Silhouette]

Adoption- for both homosexuals and heterosexuals is almost completely unrelated to adoption- adoption agencies allow unmarried couples to adopt.

Gay marriage however would however mean the thousands and thousands of children of gay parents would have married parents.

Why do the opponents of gay marriage hate the idea of the children of homosexuals having married parents?

After careful screening, individuals who aren't shacking up with someone yes, may adopt. But those who are shacking up together as "man and wife" must be legally married. Sadly, two women or two men are not "man and wife". Check the rule book. Or, failing that, check reality.

 

[Syriusly]

[ Unless you're talking about the oligarchy currently dictating to the majority on which behaviors they can regluate and which ones they cannot...

You mean the courts following the United States Constitution?

Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[Silhouette]

Wow so even if a religious orphanage chose to allow gay couples to adopt children you would oppose that.

You would prefer children languish in orphanages rather than allow religious orphanages to adopt to gay couples.

That is sad.

Absolutely I would choose letting children stay in the orphanage before going to a gay pride participant/supporter's home. Without a shadow of a doubt. That's because when faced with two unfortunate choices when kids are concerned, you ALWAYS pick the one that would cause them less harm.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Why should every other public adoption agency have to follow the rules and yet they alone get an exemption?

Because they are a church and can't be dealt with like a secular agency. A little common sense is needed.

 

[AgentSparky]

First reference this thread's poll at the top. Note the numbers and the non-support for forcing gay marraige upon churches: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 162 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual adoptions?"

I support gay couples adopting children if they meet the requirements to proving a good loving home for them. If this goes against the Church's religion in accomodating them, then who are we to force them to?

Agreed, but nobody is forcing them to accept public funds. If you accept those funds then you have to follow the rules like every other adoption agency.

Why shouldn't the Churches accept public funding if they are using the money to provide food, shelter, clothing and schooling for the children?

Why should they be exempt from the rules that every other public adoption agency has to follow?.

Because they are using that money to provide food, shelter, clothing and schooling for orphaned children in need. It's for helping the children. Why would you not want Churches to help children?

What is stopping other agencies from taking public funds and announcing the rules don't apply to them as well. Don't want to follow the rules then don't accept the money. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Why are you so hung up on what rules can apply to what different agencies if they all share a common interest in providing food, shelter, clothing and schooling for the children in need?

Why can't you be happy that there's also agencies that will happily provide adoptions for gay couples ? That's the beauty of American Liberty.
If other agencies aren't

 

[Syriusly]

Adoption- for both homosexuals and heterosexuals is almost completely unrelated to adoption- adoption agencies allow unmarried couples to adopt.

Gay marriage however would however mean the thousands and thousands of children of gay parents would have married parents.

Why do the opponents of gay marriage hate the idea of the children of homosexuals having married parents?

After careful screening, individuals who aren't shacking up with someone yes, may adopt. But those who are shacking up together as "man and wife" must be legally married. Sadly, two women or two men are not "man and wife". Check the rule book. Or, failing that, check reality.

Adoption- for both homosexuals and heterosexuals is almost completely unrelated to adoption- adoption agencies allow unmarried couples to adopt.

Gay marriage however would however mean the thousands and thousands of children of gay parents would have married parents.

Why do the opponents of gay marriage hate the idea of the children of homosexuals having married parents?

Because of their hatred of homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

Adoption- for both homosexuals and heterosexuals is almost completely unrelated to adoption- adoption agencies allow unmarried couples to adopt.

Gay marriage however would however mean the thousands and thousands of children of gay parents would have married parents.

Why do the opponents of gay marriage hate the idea of the children of homosexuals having married parents?

Because of their hatred of homosexuals.

The benefits to society and subsequent generations of children...of keeping marriage man/woman outweigh any short-term myopic "benefits" of holding out two people of the same gender as "mom and dad" so that their kids could feel better about the unfortunate situation.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow so even if a religious orphanage chose to allow gay couples to adopt children you would oppose that.

You would prefer children languish in orphanages rather than allow religious orphanages to adopt to gay couples.

That is sad.

Absolutely I would choose letting children stay in the orphanage before going to a gay pride participant/supporter's home. Without a shadow of a doubt. That's because when faced with two unfortunate choices when kids are concerned, you ALWAYS pick the one that would cause them less harm.

Children left in orphanages, aging out to be on their own, with no family, no support system.
Or children raised by loving parents who happen to be gay- and who provide a lifetime of love and financial and emotional support.

You chose the first.

I chose the second- because I care about children.

 

[Syriusly]

Adoption- for both homosexuals and heterosexuals is almost completely unrelated to adoption- adoption agencies allow unmarried couples to adopt.

Gay marriage however would however mean the thousands and thousands of children of gay parents would have married parents.

Why do the opponents of gay marriage hate the idea of the children of homosexuals having married parents?

Because of their hatred of homosexuals.

The benefits to society and subsequent generations of children...of keeping marriage man/woman outweigh any short-term myopic "benefits" of holding out two people of the same gender as "mom and dad" so that their kids could feel better about the unfortunate situation.

Why do the opponents of gay marriage hate the idea of the children of homosexuals having married parents?

Because of their hatred of homosexuals.

Heterosexuals are the ones who abandon their children who end up in orphanages and foster care. Marriage doesn't solve that.

 

[bodecea]

Nope. No sucking on the public teat if you go against establish
ed rules for distributing public money. They can use the same crying towel as the BSA.

Nope, they aren't. They are a charity.

They are a charity...but they WERE taking public money. Now they aren't. A win/win.

 

[bodecea]

That's fine. But if you are going to take public tax money, there are stipulations.

The stipulations can be changed to accommodate the church and Religious Freedom.

Not with public money they can't.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Nope. No sucking on the public teat if you go against establish
ed rules for distributing public money. They can use the same crying towel as the BSA.

Nope, they aren't. They are a charity.

They are a charity...but they WERE taking public money. Now they aren't. A win/win.

Not for the children

 

[mdk]

First reference this thread's poll at the top. Note the numbers and the non-support for forcing gay marraige upon churches: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 162 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual adoptions?"

I support gay couples adopting children if they meet the requirements to proving a good loving home for them. If this goes against the Church's religion in accomodating them, then who are we to force them to?

Agreed, but nobody is forcing them to accept public funds. If you accept those funds then you have to follow the rules like every other adoption agency.

Why shouldn't the Churches accept public funding if they are using the money to provide food, shelter, clothing and schooling for the children?

Why should they be exempt from the rules that every other public adoption agency has to follow?.

Because they are using that money to provide food, shelter, clothing and schooling for orphaned children in need. It's for helping the children. Why would you not want Churches to help children?

What is stopping other agencies from taking public funds and announcing the rules don't apply to them as well. Don't want to follow the rules then don't accept the money. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Why are you so hung up on what rules can apply to what different agencies if they all share a common interest in providing food, shelter, clothing and schooling for the children in need?

Why can't you be happy that there's also agencies that will happily provide adoptions for gay couples ? That's the beauty of American Liberty.
If other agencies aren't

I have no problem with churches helping children in the least. You don't get to take taxpayers funds then decide that rules do not apply to you. It isn't just gays that are effected. Do you think CC are allowing adoptions to Jews, Atheists, or Muslims? My understanding is that CC handled 1/4 of all adoptions in Illinois. They are effectively cutting out whole swatches of taxpayers from using their services despite the fact that they are funding it. That isn't right. No organization has a right to government funds and the courts told them as much.

 

[bodecea]

Nope. No sucking on the public teat if you go against establish
ed rules for distributing public money. They can use the same crying towel as the BSA.

Nope, they aren't. They are a charity.

They are a charity...but they WERE taking public money. Now they aren't. A win/win.

Not for the children

The children.....so you think a catholic charity should not have to follow any rules but get public funds just because........why?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

That's fine. But if you are going to take public tax money, there are stipulations.

The stipulations can be changed to accommodate the church and Religious Freedom.

Not with public money they can't.

I asked but no one answered so I just assume this to be true. If I am wrong, correct me, but almost all states still give the public money to churches that don't adopt to gays. So how can you say that?

 

[bodecea]

That's fine. But if you are going to take public tax money, there are stipulations.

The stipulations can be changed to accommodate the church and Religious Freedom.

Not with public money they can't.

I asked but no one answered so I just assume this to be true. If I am wrong, correct me but almost all states still give the public money to churches that don't adopt to gays. So how can you say that?

No they don't....unless the STATE itself forbids the adoption to gays.....then there is no conflict between the church and state.

But that's gonna change soon.

 

[Seawytch]

The church needs to be accommodated if we the taxpayers are going to take advantage of their services.

They are...never heard of "Faith Based Initiatives"?