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
Race isn't the same as a deviant sex cult. One has constitutional protections. the other doesn't. The difference is not-behaviors vs behaviors.

Behaviors? Religion is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior. Political preference is a behavior.

Sexual preference discrimination is constitutionally prohibited in many states.

And we all know how much you value State laws........

Anyway- as I said- that ship sailed in 1964- government can indeed tell people that they have to do business with people- and have been doing so for 50 years now.
 
"Tykes on trikes" at next Summer's LGBT parade in San Francisco, CA will be leading off groups like this.

So is there any basis in reality for this claim?

Perhaps you were confusing this with this years Oakland LGBT parade.....

Joe. My. God. Leather Controversy At Oakland Pride

One thing you probably won't find at Oakland's first LGBT Pride Parade on Sunday: partially clad men in leather chaps. What you will find is the Jolly Trolly from Children's Fairyland, pony rides, antique fire engines and singer/drummer Sheila E. Instead of kicking off with Dykes on Bikes, as is the tradition in San Francisco, Oakland's parade starts with Tykes on Trikes.

"We had some leather groups from San Francisco who wanted to come, and we politely declined. We want to keep this G-rated," said Carlos Uribe, one of the organizers. "We don't want to compete with San Francisco Pride, we just want to offer a more family-friendly, diverse celebration. Sort of an end-of-summer bookend to SF Pride." The city has hosted a Pride fest on and off since the 1990s, but the current incarnation started five years ago with the goal of eventually opening an LGBT community center. Last year, organizers polled the festival's 30,000 attendees about what they'd like to see at future fests, and 80 percent said they wanted a parade.

"We're going to be the most family-friendly Pride parade anywhere, ever," said Amber Todd, chair of Oakland Pride. "We'll have something for everyone - gay, straight, pansexual, kids. My 75-year-old mother's coming, and she's as straight as the day is long."

Since Sil is still spouting idiocy about 'Dykes on Trikes'- I thought I would post this again.
 
Behaviors? Religion is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior. Political preference is a behavior.

Sexual preference discrimination is constitutionally prohibited in many states.

Compulsive theft is also a behavior but neither it nor "gay" marriage are a guarantee in the constitution. Both are repugnant to the majority and as such are subject to the majority rule. Theft, even when the person is needy, is not allowed. Gay marriage, even when the people feel very strongly that they think they want that, is not allowed.

We reason that stealing harms society. And we reason that adopting children out to those wedging into access to them via the loophole of marriage is harmful to them. Gay pride parades. Harvey Milk. Both red flags as to how "gay marriage" can harm children.
 
Statements like Go to one next Summer "tykes on bikes" will be the opening act, followed by the leather communities, S&M, bondage and all the rest "tykes on bikes" will be the opening act, followed by the leather communities, S&M, bondage and all the rest makes people realize just how diseased is Sil's head. There is no such opening act except in Sil's sick head.
 
Behaviors? Religion is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior. Political preference is a behavior.

Sexual preference discrimination is constitutionally prohibited in many states.
Both are repugnant to the majority and as such are subject to the majority rule. .

Religion is a behavior. Not very long ago Judaism was a behavior 'repugnant' to the majority- luckily we have a Constitution to protect minorities from the tyranny of majority rule.

Private sexual behavior is also a behavior- and that is protected by our right to privacy.

We also have a right to marriage.

And the tyranny of voters can't take that away from Americans.

No matter how much you cry.
 
Religion is a behavior. Not very long ago Judaism was a behavior 'repugnant' to the majority- luckily we have a Constitution to protect minorities from the tyranny of majority rule.

Private sexual behavior is also a behavior- and that is protected by our right to privacy.

We also have a right to marriage.

And the tyranny of voters can't take that away from Americans.

No matter how much you cry.

So is LGBT a religion now? Certainly I wouldnt' disagree with you there...a cult for sure anyway.

A right to privacy does not extend to a "right to marry". If it did, private polygamists could marry today right alongside the church of LGBT.
 
Religion is a behavior. Not very long ago Judaism was a behavior 'repugnant' to the majority- luckily we have a Constitution to protect minorities from the tyranny of majority rule.

Private sexual behavior is also a behavior- and that is protected by our right to privacy.

We also have a right to marriage.

And the tyranny of voters can't take that away from Americans.

No matter how much you cry.

So is LGBT a religion now? Certainly I wouldnt' disagree with you there...a cult for sure anyway.

A right to privacy does not extend to a "right to marry". If it did, private polygamists could marry today right alongside the church of LGBT.

Reading comprehension and honesty are not strong points for you.

You whined about homosexuality being a 'behavior'- and I pointed out that religion is a behavior. - here I will post it again

Religion is a behavior. Not very long ago Judaism was a behavior 'repugnant' to the majority- luckily we have a Constitution to protect minorities from the tyranny of majority rule.

Private sexual behavior is also a behavior- and that is protected by our right to privacy.

We also have a right to marriage.

And the tyranny of voters can't take that away from Americans.

No matter how much you cry

Everyone has a right to marry- no matter how much that you hate that.
 
Reading comprehension and honesty are not strong points for you.

You whined about homosexuality being a 'behavior'- and I pointed out that religion is a behavior.

Yes but so is compulsive stealing, "cleptomania". We deal with a whole range of human behaviors. Some of them weak, habitual, repugnant to the majority. Some of them sublime on the other end of the spectrum. Religion is held above those base behaviors. Until LGBT officially announces they are a church [instead of just a cult as they are now], they have not the same protections as religion.

If they did and were repugnant to the majority, how would we tell another behavior repugnant to the majority "no you can't"? When you have LGBT people doing lewd sex acts in front of kids on purpose in public, soberly, as a matter of pride...with 0% of their ranks coming out publicly to denounce that, you have a phenomenon that does not have expressed or implied access to kids via the loophole of "legal marriage". They may wind up with kids somehow, but we do not reward them with unfettered legal access to force adoption agencies to provide children to them.

20 years ago I would not have had to even explain this simple, logical concept. Now suddenly I do. That is the shift in the social fabric I've been talking about that is VERY dangerous when a cult gets overweening and starts scaring people. First it's with the legal system; and then other means later on as they gain ground exponentially. We are near that tipping point with LGBT.


Again, the fact that I even have to explain to people why it is bad to let people doing lewd sex acts on purpose in front of kids in public would be bad for children is de facto evidence of how deeply this cult has sunk its roots in the public psyche. It is a VERY bad sign of times to come.
 
Last edited:
I just think it is shocking, cruel, vicious, mean spirited, etc., for people to think that it's better for a kid to be raised in foster homes or group homes than to be adopted by a loving, stable gay couple. Absolute cruelty to think a child who may well otherwise spend life as an orphan, a foster child, be denied a good, secure, loving home. You people are monsters.
 
Reading comprehension and honesty are not strong points for you.

You whined about homosexuality being a 'behavior'- and I pointed out that religion is a behavior.


If they did and were repugnant to the majority, how would we tell another behavior repugnant to the majority "no you can't"? .

As I pointed out- the majority found Jewish and Mormon behavior repugnant- and I for one am glad that the Constitution protected them from the tyranny of the majority disapproval of their behavior.

As a society we can pass laws to prevent actual harm- not hurt feelings.

You may be offended if you see two gay men holding hands- but you are not actually harmed by their behavior.
You may be offended if you see an Orthodox Jew walking down the street in full regalia- but you are not actually harmed by his behavior.

What is the line? When there is actual- or potential actual harm.

Just yelling "Harvey Milk.....Harvey Milk" doesn't establish actual or potential harm.

But just like the bigots in the beginning of the 20th century used prejudice to enact legal discrimination against Chinese- claiming that they might be carrying disease or they might corrupt the children- bigots will yell 'think of the children' to rationalize discrimination against homosexuals today.
 
I just think it is shocking, cruel, vicious, mean spirited, etc., for people to think that it's better for a kid to be raised in foster homes or group homes than to be adopted by a loving, stable gay couple. Absolute cruelty to think a child who may well otherwise spend life as an orphan, a foster child, be denied a good, secure, loving home. You people are monsters.
Well fortunately there's a difference between what the layman like you 'thinks' vs what reality holds. At an orphange there is oversight. The children are treated well, they are subject to multiple public inspections by concerned people and psychologists trained at spotting neglect or abuse.

In the privacy of an LGBT home however this is not the case. And seeing what their membership gets 100% behind in public in front of kids [0% have come forward to publicly denouce them] in "gay pride parades", what they're "proud" of in public makes one shudder at what they're "proud" of behind closed doors where there's NO public oversight.

A child is better off in an orphanage than in the privacy of a home where the public has ample cause to believe they will be subjected to sexual abuse/exposure/inappropriate behaviors.
 
I just think it is shocking, cruel, vicious, mean spirited, etc., for people to think that it's better for a kid to be raised in foster homes or group homes than to be adopted by a loving, stable gay couple. Absolute cruelty to think a child who may well otherwise spend life as an orphan, a foster child, be denied a good, secure, loving home. You people are monsters.

Not only left in foster homes or group homes- but aged out of them.

What happens to kids who age out of the system? In most states, at 18 years old they are on their own. No safety net. No parents to live with if your room-mate steals all your money or you get mugged leaving work at 1 in the morning.

Contrast that with kids who are adopted- they have a family just like all of us who were raised in families- a family with parents, and often siblings and aunts and uncles and grandparents to support them emotionally, financially- to help them through the hard times.

Aging Out of Foster Care The Costs of Doing Nothing Affect Us All Gary Stangler

A study issued in May 2013 by the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative -- and illustrated in a new infographic -- shows that, on average, for every young person who ages out of foster care, taxpayers and communities pay $300,000 in social costs like public assistance, incarceration, and lost wages to a community over that person's lifetime. Do the math and you can conservatively estimate that this problem incurs almost $8 billion in social costs to the United States every year.
 
In answer to the poll....HELL NO and STOP shoving it down peoples throats from every direction!
 
In the privacy of an LGBT home however this is not the case.

In the 'privacy' of any adoption home- this is often not the case.

As I have pointed out before- the vast majority of child sexual abuse- and physical abuse is by men.

IF the concern was really about the safety of children, then no children would ever be adopted out to any household with men.

Instead- anti-homosexual activists just want children protected from homosexuals- gays and lesbians.

And don't care whether adoptive kids are abused by heterosexual parents.
 
Not only left in foster homes or group homes- but aged out of them.

What happens to kids who age out of the system? In most states, at 18 years old they are on their own. No safety net. No parents to live with if your room-mate steals all your money or you get mugged leaving work at 1 in the morning. .

No one is saying an orphanage is ideal. But at least there's oversight. You don't take a child from bad to worse by placing them in a home where the members therein support lewd public sex acts in front of kids as a matter of their collective "cultural pride"...or their silent assent by refusing to speak out against those acts.

You have a situation where it's bad or worse, you don't place the child in "worse". You seem to be advocating that two wrongs make a right.
 
Not only left in foster homes or group homes- but aged out of them.

What happens to kids who age out of the system? In most states, at 18 years old they are on their own. No safety net. No parents to live with if your room-mate steals all your money or you get mugged leaving work at 1 in the morning. .

No one is saying an orphanage is ideal. But at least there's oversight. You don't take a child from bad to worse by placing them in a home where the members /QUOTE]

You don't place children in a home that has not been vetted.

To you that means children can't go in a home with homosexuals- period.

Because you just don't care about what happens to children.

You don't care if children age out of the system and are left with no safety net.

You don't care if children are adopted out and abused by their heterosexuals parents.

All you care about is 'protecting children from gays'- which of course is not protecting children at all.
 
I just think it is shocking, cruel, vicious, mean spirited, etc., for people to think that it's better for a kid to be raised in foster homes or group homes than to be adopted by a loving, stable gay couple. Absolute cruelty to think a child who may well otherwise spend life as an orphan, a foster child, be denied a good, secure, loving home. You people are monsters.
Well fortunately there's a difference between what the layman like you 'thinks' vs what reality holds. At an orphange there is oversight. The children are treated well, they are subject to multiple public inspections by concerned people and psychologists trained at spotting neglect or abuse.

In the privacy of an LGBT home however this is not the case. And seeing what their membership gets 100% behind in public in front of kids [0% have come forward to publicly denouce them] in "gay pride parades", what they're "proud" of in public makes one shudder at what they're "proud" of behind closed doors where there's NO public oversight.

A child is better off in an orphanage than in the privacy of a home where the public has ample cause to believe they will be subjected to sexual abuse/exposure/inappropriate behaviors.
There are no orphanages. Orphanages were phased out about half a century ago. I dated a man who grew up in one of the last orphanages in the US, Boy's Town. He was very screwed up. The reason they were phased out is because of abuse and because it was an unhealthy atomosphere and environment for kids to grow up in.

There are only foster or group homes. Being raised under that kind of care is not good for kids, we see that over and over again. The best thing for a child is a stable home. To adopt, people are put through all kinds of checks and balances, far more than are foster parents or people who work in group homes. A home with gay parents is just as likely to be a stable, healthy environment as a home with heterosexual parents. There are fucked up hetero parents, they abuse, etc. It happens as often in that type of home as in homes with gay parents.

Your entire perspective is due to homophobia and nothing else. Stats do not support your position. And what's really funny is you consider me the 'lay person.' I'm a former foster parent you fool.
 
There are no orphanages. Orphanages were phased out about half a century ago. I dated a man who grew up in one of the last orphanages in the US, Boy's Town. He was very screwed up. The reason they were phased out is because of abuse and because it was an unhealthy atomosphere and environment for kids to grow up in.

There are only foster or group homes. Being raised under that kind of care is not good for kids, we see that over and over again. The best thing for a child is a stable home.

What's the precise difference between a "group home" and an orphanage? And in those situations, is or is not there public oversight on the conditions therein?
 
What happens to kids who age out of the system? In most states, at 18 years old they are on their own. No safety net. No parents to live with if your room-mate steals all your money or you get mugged leaving work at 1 in the morning.

Do you have any proof that any kids with Catholic Charities are being aged out of the system?
 

Forum List

Back
Top