Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
That thread has over 33,000 views, sports one of the largest responses to a poll EVER at USMB, yet only has just a few people posting on it. So the silent majority is coming out to hint how they vote.
The argument you always hear is "gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone". But then again if you don't consider children actual viable people with their own intrinsic rights, that argument may hold water.
However if you do consider children as having rights, civil rights and potential to experience harm..you may want to consider the following:
The 82% of that link's poll say they want to regulate which behaviors may force a church to marry them...and then of course later to adopt orphans to them. "Private vs public" accomodation, says that if a catholic or christian orphanage currently has its doors open to the public outside their faith, gay marriage will bring about a legal situation where gays can sue and force them to adopt to gays against their faith.
Catholic orphanages currently adopt out kids to catholics and non-catholics. If they want to stay faithful to their core values as outlined in Jude 1, if gays get to marry...any lawsuit will force catholic orphanges to close their doors to the general public in order to protect the children from a culture/cult that is 100% behind lewd sex acts in front of kids in public in unapologetic/unrepentant "pride". That will greatly reduce the number of homes where orphans can go. So children will directly suffer as a result of gay marriage becoming "federally protected".
So I offer a new poll in line with the old one. A "natural offshoot"...
"Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual adoptions?"
Why is it, that it is easier to adopt a child from another country than it is to adopt one here at home? That is the question we need to be asking.
Probably because if adoption were easy, there would be a shortage of kids, and that would entice women to carry to term and adopt out instead of getting abortions.
Well it's simple except that in order to adopt out children to "gay marriages" the church would be condemning itself to obliteration, and thereby be forced to abandon its freedom to practice its core faith values. Read Jude 1 of Jesus's NEW Testament when you get a chance.Your agency wants the contract. Your agency wants to and receives the vast majority of funding from the American tax payers. Thus, your agency is not allowed to discriminate. Pretty simple.
Requiring someone to violate their religious freedom cannot be a secular law. So I don't think it's going to be as simple as all that. What you're up to is forcing churches and faithful people to disgorge their protected orphans into the clutches of lewd sex street performers and their 100% -supportive sychophants/sex cult.
I think this is as they say..."where the rubber will meet the road" on the gay marriage debate in the courts... There is something "simple" about it though in the end.. The choice will be one the judges will have to make about what is more important:
1. Children or
2. The cult of LGBT who wants to force churches to surrender kids to them.
You're not interested in the children.
What is the highest law in the land?
Two thirds of the funding of Catholic Charities comes from the tax payers. If you cannot fulfill the contract then you have no place accepting the money. I guarantee you that they don't sit on the side lines and say, "We can't accept that money because we know that LGBT paid into this system."
It should come from the taxpayers. They are performing an incredibly valuable public service, but to make them go against one of their most fundamental beliefs is a violation of Freedom of Religion. The lawmakers can easily make an exception for the church.
No.
Secular organizations are actually much better at this.
But are there or will there be enough of them so that just one child, who would have otherwise have been taken by the church, is not denied a chance and sent to juvenile hall instead, for the smallest of reasons, or worst yet, lost in the shuffle and then ends up on the street?
Let's stop your statement at the part in bold. Because the rest of your conclusions cannot stand if it doesn't.reading a thread is no indication of anything except that they read the thread.
every legitimate study shows there is no detriment to children in having same-sex parents.
if your church takes gubmint money... they can't discriminate. if they don't, they can do what they want, imo.... same as churches can't be forced to perform same sex marriage because of the first amendment.
why churches don't pay taxes and yet grab government money is beyond understanding anyway
http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001
ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...
Mayo Clinic 2007
One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor, in which the abused child is trying to gain a new identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf
I agree with you on most of what you say. However, I believe churches, all churches, should have lost their tax-exempt status a long time ago.They are taking the money to PROVIDE to the children in need. They're not pocketing the money Also they following the rules and laws of their freedom of religion but yet, you seem to be wanting to make a big stink about things, why?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.
I never claimed they are pocketing the money. No organization; religious or otherwise, has a right to government funds and make no mistake that it is exactly that this is about. Do not accept public funds, become private, and tell the state to mind their own damn business.
On most issue concerning churches I find myself siding with the church despite losing my faith many years ago:
Should churches be forced to marry gays? (Or anyone for that matter) Absolutely not.
This nonsense with subpoenas in Houston? I support the churches.
When churches fire gay employees for violating their morality clauses, I've sided with the churches.
Should churches lose their tax exempt status for speaking out against gays? Of course not.
Should private religious adoption agencies be forced to place children with gays? Nope on that one as well.
This boils down to public funds for me and not some animosity towards churches.
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
That thread has over 33,000 views, sports one of the largest responses to a poll EVER at USMB, yet only has just a few people posting on it. So the silent majority is coming out to hint how they vote.
The argument you always hear is "gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone". But then again if you don't consider children actual viable people with their own intrinsic rights, that argument may hold water.
However if you do consider children as having rights, civil rights and potential to experience harm..you may want to consider the following:
The 82% of that link's poll say they want to regulate which behaviors may force a church to marry them...and then of course later to adopt orphans to them. "Private vs public" accomodation, says that if a catholic or christian orphanage currently has its doors open to the public outside their faith, gay marriage will bring about a legal situation where gays can sue and force them to adopt to gays against their faith.
Catholic orphanages currently adopt out kids to catholics and non-catholics. If they want to stay faithful to their core values as outlined in Jude 1, if gays get to marry...any lawsuit will force catholic orphanges to close their doors to the general public in order to protect the children from a culture/cult that is 100% behind lewd sex acts in front of kids in public in unapologetic/unrepentant "pride". That will greatly reduce the number of homes where orphans can go. So children will directly suffer as a result of gay marriage becoming "federally protected".
So I offer a new poll in line with the old one. A "natural offshoot"...
"Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual adoptions?"
reading a thread is no indication of anything except that they read the thread.
Show where that would happen if the Catholic Charities doesn't get public (aka big government) funds.Well it's simple except that in order to adopt out children to "gay marriages" the church would be condemning itself to obliteration, and thereby be forced to abandon its freedom to practice its core faith values. Read Jude 1 of Jesus's NEW Testament when you get a chance.
Requiring someone to violate their religious freedom cannot be a secular law. So I don't think it's going to be as simple as all that. What you're up to is forcing churches and faithful people to disgorge their protected orphans into the clutches of lewd sex street performers and their 100% -supportive sychophants/sex cult.
I think this is as they say..."where the rubber will meet the road" on the gay marriage debate in the courts... There is something "simple" about it though in the end.. The choice will be one the judges will have to make about what is more important:
1. Children or
2. The cult of LGBT who wants to force churches to surrender kids to them.
You're not interested in the children.
What is the highest law in the land?
Two thirds of the funding of Catholic Charities comes from the tax payers. If you cannot fulfill the contract then you have no place accepting the money. I guarantee you that they don't sit on the side lines and say, "We can't accept that money because we know that LGBT paid into this system."
It should come from the taxpayers. They are performing an incredibly valuable public service, but to make them go against one of their most fundamental beliefs is a violation of Freedom of Religion. The lawmakers can easily make an exception for the church.
No.
Secular organizations are actually much better at this.
But are there or will there be enough of them so that just one child, who would have otherwise have been taken by the church, is not denied a chance and sent to juvenile hall instead, for the smallest of reasons, or worst yet, lost in the shuffle and then ends up on the street?
A private faith based adoption agency can place a child in any family unit they see fit, as it should be. The moment they accept money from the government then they must abide by the rules that come attached with the money. They can't willingly take money from the taxpayers and say, sorry, we don't place children with Southern Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Wiccans, etc because use it violates the tenants of our faith. Stop accepting the money from the state and they can place children with whomever they please. Instead, they want the money; that all the taxpayers pay into, and then tell certain taxpayers that they cannot use their services. It doesn't work that way.
It's official now then...."LGBT" is a religion...well...more properly a cult.
Thanks for finally admitting that. You know one thing for sure at least. It's not a race.
Unfortunately the Catholic charities don't believe that placing children with your particular dogma is in their best interest.
Shall I post the gay pride parade pictures again or spare you the embarassment?
Well, but the legal mandate now is, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that if any entity holds itself open to the public, they have to abide by gay marriages in every stage, from planning the wedding to adopting children to them.
Am I wrong about this?
Yes.
Your agency wants the contract. Your agency wants to and receives the vast majority of funding from the American tax payers. Thus, your agency is not allowed to discriminate. Pretty simple.
It is so simple that you are wrong. Churches are not allowed to discriminate in relation to those matters subject to the public funds. They are still free to discriminate i.e. not perform the weddings if they so desire. The Catholic adoption agencies that have voluntarily closed did so as not to have to provide those adoption services to gays, not to avoid performing the weddings.
No. I'm not interested in whether or not churches preform weddings. Adoption agencies are a different matter all together. You are aware of this.
I am aware that your response to another poster contained inaccurate information. This is a nuanced area of law that has well predated gay marriage. The line was drawn over things like shelter/soup kitchen/support group services. To me, the grayest line has been over Alcoholic's Anonymous type programs. AA is so oriented around Christianity and the Bible, giving public funds for those type programs probably crosses the church-state line.
AA is self supporting. Again. If your agency receives public funding then it may not discriminate.
The author wished to bring extras into it and hold it up as nice shiny bright objects to deflect from the above statement. I was not wrong. At all.
Yes.
Your agency wants the contract. Your agency wants to and receives the vast majority of funding from the American tax payers. Thus, your agency is not allowed to discriminate. Pretty simple.
It is so simple that you are wrong. Churches are not allowed to discriminate in relation to those matters subject to the public funds. They are still free to discriminate i.e. not perform the weddings if they so desire. The Catholic adoption agencies that have voluntarily closed did so as not to have to provide those adoption services to gays, not to avoid performing the weddings.
No. I'm not interested in whether or not churches preform weddings. Adoption agencies are a different matter all together. You are aware of this.
I am aware that your response to another poster contained inaccurate information. This is a nuanced area of law that has well predated gay marriage. The line was drawn over things like shelter/soup kitchen/support group services. To me, the grayest line has been over Alcoholic's Anonymous type programs. AA is so oriented around Christianity and the Bible, giving public funds for those type programs probably crosses the church-state line.
AA is self supporting. Again. If your agency receives public funding then it may not discriminate.
The author wished to bring extras into it and hold it up as nice shiny bright objects to deflect from the above statement. I was not wrong. At all.
Since you believe children should be placed with whomever without discrimination, then you would also say that any cult including Warren Jeffs' FLDS CHURCH should get those adopted children from Catholic Charities along with the gays.
Upset that your picture may be in it?That folder on your computer full of photos of gay dudes must be getting pretty big sillhy.
Since you believe children should be placed with whomever without discrimination, then you would also say that any cult including Warren Jeffs' FLDS church should get those adopted children from Catholic Charities along with the gays.
It is so simple that you are wrong. Churches are not allowed to discriminate in relation to those matters subject to the public funds. They are still free to discriminate i.e. not perform the weddings if they so desire. The Catholic adoption agencies that have voluntarily closed did so as not to have to provide those adoption services to gays, not to avoid performing the weddings.
No. I'm not interested in whether or not churches preform weddings. Adoption agencies are a different matter all together. You are aware of this.
I am aware that your response to another poster contained inaccurate information. This is a nuanced area of law that has well predated gay marriage. The line was drawn over things like shelter/soup kitchen/support group services. To me, the grayest line has been over Alcoholic's Anonymous type programs. AA is so oriented around Christianity and the Bible, giving public funds for those type programs probably crosses the church-state line.
AA is self supporting. Again. If your agency receives public funding then it may not discriminate.
The author wished to bring extras into it and hold it up as nice shiny bright objects to deflect from the above statement. I was not wrong. At all.
Since you believe children should be placed with whomever without discrimination, then you would also say that any cult including Warren Jeffs' FLDS CHURCH should get those adopted children from Catholic Charities along with the gays.
Quit making shit up. You don't have that anywhere in what I have said.
No. I'm not interested in whether or not churches preform weddings. Adoption agencies are a different matter all together. You are aware of this.
I am aware that your response to another poster contained inaccurate information. This is a nuanced area of law that has well predated gay marriage. The line was drawn over things like shelter/soup kitchen/support group services. To me, the grayest line has been over Alcoholic's Anonymous type programs. AA is so oriented around Christianity and the Bible, giving public funds for those type programs probably crosses the church-state line.
AA is self supporting. Again. If your agency receives public funding then it may not discriminate.
The author wished to bring extras into it and hold it up as nice shiny bright objects to deflect from the above statement. I was not wrong. At all.
Since you believe children should be placed with whomever without discrimination, then you would also say that any cult including Warren Jeffs' FLDS CHURCH should get those adopted children from Catholic Charities along with the gays.
Quit making shit up. You don't have that anywhere in what I have said.
To most Catholics, there is no difference between the FLDS church or gays. They probably believe gays are worse. Why should your beliefs be respected and not the church's?
I am aware that your response to another poster contained inaccurate information. This is a nuanced area of law that has well predated gay marriage. The line was drawn over things like shelter/soup kitchen/support group services. To me, the grayest line has been over Alcoholic's Anonymous type programs. AA is so oriented around Christianity and the Bible, giving public funds for those type programs probably crosses the church-state line.
AA is self supporting. Again. If your agency receives public funding then it may not discriminate.
The author wished to bring extras into it and hold it up as nice shiny bright objects to deflect from the above statement. I was not wrong. At all.
Since you believe children should be placed with whomever without discrimination, then you would also say that any cult including Warren Jeffs' FLDS CHURCH should get those adopted children from Catholic Charities along with the gays.
Quit making shit up. You don't have that anywhere in what I have said.
To most Catholics, there is no difference between the FLDS church or gays. They probably believe gays are worse. Why should your beliefs be respected and not the church's?
If your agency receives public funding it may not discriminate.
Period.
That is the issue.
You don't have a case.
How can pictures be "ignorant"? They show real events impregnated onto a digital format rendering a two-dimensional image of a real thing. Are you suggesting they are photoshopped? I think the children's faces in the one shot are blurred slightly to hide their identity. But the rest of them look crystal clear/no tampering. Define "ignorant" with respect to photos please. Either these types of events and displays of lewd behavior happen in gay pride parades in front of kids, or they don't.For every ignorant picture that you have, I can locate a convicted Catholic child molester. Ok? Your pictures are stupid. Really.
How can pictures be "ignorant"? They show real events impregnated onto a digital format rendering a two-dimensional image of a real thing. Are you suggesting they are photoshopped? I think the children's faces in the one shot are blurred slightly to hide their identity. But the rest of them look crystal clear/no tampering. Define "ignorant" with respect to photos please. Either these types of events and displays of lewd behavior happen in gay pride parades in front of kids, or they don't.For every ignorant picture that you have, I can locate a convicted Catholic child molester. Ok? Your pictures are stupid. Really.
Are you saying they don't? And for every one of those you don't like, I've got ones that are worse, taken from gay pride parades held in front of kids; even where kids were participating nearby. USMB won't let me post them. Which I've always thought was odd since they were taken in broad daylight, down a main thoroughfare, with uniformed police standing by doing nothing...and all this in front of kids of all ages...
It's a weird double-standard world we live it. If heteros tried that, they'd have had cuffs slammed on them so quick it would make your head spin...
AA is self supporting. Again. If your agency receives public funding then it may not discriminate.
The author wished to bring extras into it and hold it up as nice shiny bright objects to deflect from the above statement. I was not wrong. At all.
Since you believe children should be placed with whomever without discrimination, then you would also say that any cult including Warren Jeffs' FLDS CHURCH should get those adopted children from Catholic Charities along with the gays.
Quit making shit up. You don't have that anywhere in what I have said.
To most Catholics, there is no difference between the FLDS church or gays. They probably believe gays are worse. Why should your beliefs be respected and not the church's?
If your agency receives public funding it may not discriminate.
Period.
That is the issue.
You don't have a case.
We are talking about changes, and my question was more philosophical than to the point, but you go back to the same old broken record and dodge the question.
It doesn't actually address the issue. That's why. Hetero's do that crap all the time. Been to Mardi Gras or Fantasy Fest?
