Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate For Homosexual Adoptions?

  • Yes, if they hold general public accomodation they will have to adopt to gay couples

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA

    Votes: 24 82.8%
  • You are a baby brains without a formed opinion.

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Other, explain

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Total voters
    29

Silhouette

Gold Member
Jul 15, 2013
25,815
1,938
265
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?"
 
Does your agency take public money? Then your agency does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of the adoption business. AND it is a business.
Since churches run most of the adoption charities, who would you have run orphanages? Maybe these nice folks?...putting children at risk..

gaymidwestparadejpg_zpse239f00e.jpg

gayfreak_zpsede639f5.jpg


Or would you force them to close their doors to the general public, putting children at risk from having few people available to adopt them?
 
Does your agency take public money? Then your agency does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of the adoption business. AND it is a business.
Since churches run most of the adoption charities, who would you have run orphanages? Maybe these nice folks?

gaymidwestparadejpg_zpse239f00e.jpg

gayfreak_zpsede639f5.jpg

Secular institutions or those religiously affiliated agencies that comply.
 
I am not familiar enough with church roles in adoptions in the US to really speak on that specific issue. Most churches are a community controlled by the congregation (a few exceptions like the Catholics). If the community doesn't want the weddings/adoptions then fine. If they do, then fine with them as well. Churches generally are not places of public accommodation.
 
I am not familiar enough with church roles in adoptions in the US to really speak on that specific issue. Most churches are a community controlled by the congregation (a few exceptions like the Catholics). If the community doesn't want the weddings/adoptions then fine. If they do, then fine with them as well. Churches generally are not places of public accommodation.
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. Or they can be sued or fined.

Am I wrong about this?
 
I am not familiar enough with church roles in adoptions in the US to really speak on that specific issue. Most churches are a community controlled by the congregation (a few exceptions like the Catholics). If the community doesn't want the weddings/adoptions then fine. If they do, then fine with them as well. Churches generally are not places of public accommodation.
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.
 
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.
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.

Realize of course that this is what the Europeans saw coming and who acted to head it off. Read about the plaintiff's in this case. Europe said...uh...yeah....."no"...

European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
 
I am not familiar enough with church roles in adoptions in the US to really speak on that specific issue. Most churches are a community controlled by the congregation (a few exceptions like the Catholics). If the community doesn't want the weddings/adoptions then fine. If they do, then fine with them as well. Churches generally are not places of public accommodation.
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. Or they can be sued or fined.

Am I wrong about this?

Yes, you're wrong. It has been pointed out time and time again that churches are not forced comply with public accommodation laws and nor should they be. Not a single church has been forced to marry any couple against their wishes, gay or otherwise. You will continue to ignore these facts so you can persist with your crusade against gays, which is failing miserably I might add, to the delight of many.
 
I am not familiar enough with church roles in adoptions in the US to really speak on that specific issue. Most churches are a community controlled by the congregation (a few exceptions like the Catholics). If the community doesn't want the weddings/adoptions then fine. If they do, then fine with them as well. Churches generally are not places of public accommodation.
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.

Exactly. You can't go rushing off to the government asking for taxpayer's dollars and then complain that the money come with rules attached to it. Keep the orphanage private and free of government money and then they can place children in any family unit they see fit.
 
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.
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."
 
Last edited:
Your 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."

I'm not the one advocating that Catholic Charities close their doors and narrow potential parents down to a thimble; or face a worse fate: complete violation of their faith [Jude 1 New Testament] damning their souls to eternity in hell for keeping their doors open to toss helpless "waifs" into the leering arms of deviant sex street performers and their sychophants role-playing "mommy and daddy".

From the deviant sex-cult's messiah's biography: "The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk", page 180:

"Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems."

Harvey Milk was also sodomizing a 16 year old minor while officiating as his "father figure/guardian". The cult celebrates Harvey Milk not for any other accomplishment apart from his sexual preference.

Here's what this deviant cult just did to honor their "Pedophile in Chief" [The artist even captured the classic glazed creepy smile of a sexual predator of children...such is the lack or disconcern for self-awareness]

c260f88b-b15f-4144-b9ab-fcdfdf3e01d7_zpsa0887f69.jpg
 
Your 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."

I'm not the one advocating that Catholic Charities close their doors and narrow potential parents down to a thimble; or face a worse fate: complete violation of their faith [Jude 1 New Testament] damning their souls to eternity in hell for keeping their doors open to toss helpless "waifs" into the leering arms of deviant sex street performers and their sychophants role-playing "mommy and daddy".

From the deviant sex-cult's messiah's biography: "The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk", page 180:

"Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems."

Harvey Milk was also sodomizing a 16 year old minor while officiating as his "father figure/guardian". The cult celebrates Harvey Milk not for any other accomplishment apart from his sexual preference.

Here's what this deviant cult just did to honor their "Pedophile in Chief" [The artist even captured the classic glazed creepy smile of a sexual predator of children...such is the lack or disconcern for self-awareness]

c260f88b-b15f-4144-b9ab-fcdfdf3e01d7_zpsa0887f69.jpg


No one is advocating that they close their doors. It really is a situation of comply or get out.


I'm not interested in your rhetoric that does not demonstrate anything. I've read your tangents before. They do not provide a necessary argument for religiously affiliated organizations to circumvent law. In fact, they further demonstrate your lack of knowledge of adoption agencies.

Do you have anything else?
 
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?"

Unlike marriage, which is indirectly tied to Scriptural positions, and thus forcing a religious institution whose holy text condemns homosexuality, and presumedly then marriage too, adoption isn't addressed at all. And since babies are blank slates with no religious preference, beliefs, etc. putting them homosexual couples isn't something anyone's going to be able to condemn on religious grounds. That said, should the law force religious institutions to grant babies to homosexual couples? No. Even absent Scriptural support to reject such a thing, there should be a clear separation between religion and the law when ever the two bump into one another. The law should respect the position of the religion and not force a secular interpretation onto it, and religion should respect the law and not try to force a religious interpretation into it applicable to all.
 
Does your agency take public money? Then your agency does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of the adoption business. AND it is a business.
Since churches run most of the adoption charities, who would you have run orphanages? Maybe these nice folks?...putting children at risk..

gaymidwestparadejpg_zpse239f00e.jpg

gayfreak_zpsede639f5.jpg


Or would you force them to close their doors to the general public, putting children at risk from having few people available to adopt them?

Children are at risk because of the silly things done at pride day parades. Watch any episode of 'COPS,' or 'Top 20 Dumbest Things Americans Do When Drunk' to confirm that. :)
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top