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.
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?
Yes, I hear that in stark contrast to sober gay pride parades, those events are drunken bacchanals where children are discouraged to attend and the participants wake up the next day anything but "proud" of what they did in front of the errant child who happened by.
Now who is ignorant? Oh what a difference context makes...
Show where that would happen if the Catholic Charities doesn't get public (aka big government) funds.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?
The link has been posted twice. Adoption by Catholic Charities is shutting down due to the new law requiring them to adopt children to gays. That potentially leaves all those children out in the cold.
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?
Yes, I hear that in stark contrast to sober gay pride parades, those events are drunken bacchanals where children are discouraged to attend and the participants wake up the next day anything but "proud" of what they did in front of the errant child who happened by.
Now who is ignorant? Oh what a difference context makes...
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?
Yes.
Secondly, you're attempting to make the argument or assuming that those kids that were with the Catholic agencies did not go to a juvenile hall or end up on the street. That you cannot do.
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.
Readership is what makes the world go 'round.
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?
Yes.
Secondly, you're attempting to make the argument or assuming that those kids that were with the Catholic agencies did not go to a juvenile hall or end up on the street. That you cannot do.
Yes or no, there is no way to know what will happen to a child when a major advocate is removed from the game. The church has a lot of infrastructure to offer the children also, and these other agencies do not. Officials are highly likely to become frustrated and shortchange the kids.
You are wrong. That is the case.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.
You are wrong. That is the case.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.
Show where that would happen if the Catholic Charities doesn't get public (aka big government) funds.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?
The link has been posted twice. Adoption by Catholic Charities is shutting down due to the new law requiring them to adopt children to gays. That potentially leaves all those children out in the cold.
really? they challenged the application of the law to them in Court? or they just didn't want to stop sucking up government money
what article btw? what source?
Show where that would happen if the Catholic Charities doesn't get public (aka big government) funds.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?
The link has been posted twice. Adoption by Catholic Charities is shutting down due to the new law requiring them to adopt children to gays. That potentially leaves all those children out in the cold.
really? they challenged the application of the law to them in Court? or they just didn't want to stop sucking up government money
what article btw? what source?
The children get the money, not the church.
They challenged the new law for awhile but gave up.
Illinois Catholic Charities Drops Gay Adoption Lawsuit - On Top Magazine Gay news entertainment
You are. You attempt to use a picture to paint the entire LGBT world as such. There should be no problem using a picture of a child molesting priest to paint Catholics as such. Right?
The level of drinking at the festivals would indicate that they have no idea that kids are even there at the time.
You are wrong. That is the case.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.
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?
Yes.
Secondly, you're attempting to make the argument or assuming that those kids that were with the Catholic agencies did not go to a juvenile hall or end up on the street. That you cannot do.
Yes or no, there is no way to know what will happen to a child when a major advocate is removed from the game. The church has a lot of infrastructure to offer the children also, and these other agencies do not. Officials are highly likely to become frustrated and shortchange the kids.
Try again.
You are wrong. That is the case.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.
No. You are.
This has been productive. Your quite the fact free poster.
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?
Yes.
Secondly, you're attempting to make the argument or assuming that those kids that were with the Catholic agencies did not go to a juvenile hall or end up on the street. That you cannot do.
Yes or no, there is no way to know what will happen to a child when a major advocate is removed from the game. The church has a lot of infrastructure to offer the children also, and these other agencies do not. Officials are highly likely to become frustrated and shortchange the kids.
Try again.
Once lost to the system, children won't be able to.
So CC won't allow gays to foster or adopt children because it violates the religious tenets of the church. If that is the case, how can they place children in homes that do not follow Christ as their Savior? "Thou shalt have no others gods before me." Why is placing children in homes that practice other religions not a violation of the religious tenets of the church? These families are in direct violation of the First Commandment. For CC to claim allowing gays to adopt violates their beliefs, all the while allowing members of other faiths to adopt seems a tad hypocritical. Gays cannot foster/adopt children through CC because it violates their beliefs but family units that violate the First Commandment seemingly do not violate their beliefs. Really? How do they reconcile such positions?
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?
Yes.
Secondly, you're attempting to make the argument or assuming that those kids that were with the Catholic agencies did not go to a juvenile hall or end up on the street. That you cannot do.
Yes or no, there is no way to know what will happen to a child when a major advocate is removed from the game. The church has a lot of infrastructure to offer the children also, and these other agencies do not. Officials are highly likely to become frustrated and shortchange the kids.
Try again.
Once lost to the system, children won't be able to.
You have no basis for that.
ST. LOUIS -- In large part due to their faith, Mark Zartman and Beth Banuelos swung open their families' doors to children from broken homes in southern Illinois. Over the years, some two dozen kids have found refuge with the Zartmans and about 50 with the Banueloses. ...
Both families fostered children through Catholic Charities, but they would have to work with a different agency to continue partnering with the state if the nonprofit ultimately loses a legal fight. And they've chosen different paths – Banuelos to continue, Zartman to walk away.
"We prayed about it, talked about it. Sometimes you have to take a stand, and sometimes (it's) hard," said Zartman, 51, a member of a Pentecostal church.
"I'm torn," said Banuelos, 60, a Lutheran. "If we turn our backs on working with another agency, where is it going to leave the kids?" ...
"We're the most-needed program in southern Illinois," said Gary Huelsmann, executive director of Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois, a Belleville diocese entity that handles about 630 foster children for the state.
"People do this out of senses of love and care, and they very much want to do it with an agency that has strong Christian values," he said. "We have a tremendous amount of loyalty."
Harry Wildfeuer, a spokesman for the Joliet diocese, which works with 340 foster households, said he believes the number of families opting out would be "considerable."
So CC won't allow gays to foster or adopt children because it violates the religious tenets of the church. If that is the case, how can they place children in homes that do not follow Christ as their Savior? "Thou shalt have no others gods before me." Why is placing children in homes that practice other religions not a violation of the religious tenets of the church? These families are in direct violation of the First Commandment. For CC to claim allowing gays to adopt violates their beliefs, all the while allowing members of other faiths to adopt seems a tad hypocritical. Gays cannot foster/adopt children through CC because it violates their beliefs but family units that violate the First Commandment seemingly do not violate their beliefs. Really? How do they reconcile such positions?
First of all, Christ isn't God. Christ is OF God, not God in whole. The Judeo-Christian Faith swears no allegiance to any other God but the same, Yahweh or just "God". Likewise mormons hold that Jesus was a prophet of God, and that same God of christians and jews is the one who rules Heaven as the Supreme Being. Islamics also hold that Jesus was a prophet. Much like mormons they believe that he was just one of many, albeit an important one; their more recent and favorite of course is Muhammed. But their Allah is also historically the same Supreme Being.
It's a difference of sects and favorite prophets, rather than a difference of God/Supreme Being. So technically they all worship the same God.
I'm not 100% certain but I feel pretty secure in those people saying they worship Satan would be turned away at CC orphanges. As would all those various "flesh-fest me-first" sects under that main one devoted to the true "other god" warned about in the Bible. So in reality there is no conflict that your smooth tongue is pretending there is..
Yes.
Secondly, you're attempting to make the argument or assuming that those kids that were with the Catholic agencies did not go to a juvenile hall or end up on the street. That you cannot do.
Yes or no, there is no way to know what will happen to a child when a major advocate is removed from the game. The church has a lot of infrastructure to offer the children also, and these other agencies do not. Officials are highly likely to become frustrated and shortchange the kids.
Try again.
Once lost to the system, children won't be able to.
You have no basis for that.
How about common sense, after a tremendous resource in Catholic Charities is lost?
Promises mean nothing. You said yourself in post #122, when it comes to adoption, Americans "don't want kids that are older."
Illinois Catholic Charities Foster Care Dispute A Matter Of Law And Faith
ST. LOUIS -- In large part due to their faith, Mark Zartman and Beth Banuelos swung open their families' doors to children from broken homes in southern Illinois. Over the years, some two dozen kids have found refuge with the Zartmans and about 50 with the Banueloses. ...
Both families fostered children through Catholic Charities, but they would have to work with a different agency to continue partnering with the state if the nonprofit ultimately loses a legal fight. And they've chosen different paths – Banuelos to continue, Zartman to walk away.
"We prayed about it, talked about it. Sometimes you have to take a stand, and sometimes (it's) hard," said Zartman, 51, a member of a Pentecostal church.
"I'm torn," said Banuelos, 60, a Lutheran. "If we turn our backs on working with another agency, where is it going to leave the kids?" ...
"We're the most-needed program in southern Illinois," said Gary Huelsmann, executive director of Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois, a Belleville diocese entity that handles about 630 foster children for the state.
"People do this out of senses of love and care, and they very much want to do it with an agency that has strong Christian values," he said. "We have a tremendous amount of loyalty."
Harry Wildfeuer, a spokesman for the Joliet diocese, which works with 340 foster households, said he believes the number of families opting out would be "considerable."
