OffensivelyOpenMinded
Gold Member
- Banned
- #161
Nobody is 'born' to be homosexual. Tons of studies have been done, especially the twin studies that debunk the idea of one being born that way.That's true. If it had been left up to the individual states you'd still have a majority that would not allow gay marriage. Now I personally think under the Constitution gays have a right to live their lifestyle. That said I don't think gays have a right to ram their lifestyle down everybody's throat who doesn't approve anymore than I.E. Catholic's can insist you abide by the Pope and follow Catholic traditions and policy's. And yes LGBT for the most part it is a lifestyle and not something you're born with or biological. Very few of the LGBT are actually born gay. This is evidenced by the who they choose as partners. I.E.If a lesbian hooks up with a lesbian who looks like a man( and most of them that i've seen do) than obviously they don't have a problem being attracted to men. It's a sexual preference not a biological thing. You can't force someone to accept your sexual preference. This means that a good portion of the LGBT is sexual preference and forcing people to accept their lifestyle should be unconstitutional. Sex change is mostly a mental issue and again people should not be legally forced accept it anymore than you guys should be forced to abide by my diagnosed germaphobe obsessive cleaning OCD.Lol....just like the homos have weaponized the government against people of faith. Don't cry when your tactics backfire on you. And remember, your side has always been the aggressor...you wanted to change society and force people to accept your lifestyle...and when the people were asked to vote on fag 'marriage' in the States... You lost the vast majority of times.What the left does understand, and that you don't seem to understand, is that the concept of religious freedom has been distorted, bastardized and weaponized by the religious right. It is only in recent history that it has become an excuse to discriminate.Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.
IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.
"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't even make sense to make the claim. Men and women are physiologically designed to compliment each other, to become companions.