Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[QuickHitCurepon]

Members of a church want the best for a child.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

No, I thought this was America!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

From 2011:
Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Gay is evil, no business raising children.

What I hear you saying is that you don't have an argument.

Gays need to stop discriminating against Christians. The gays started this war, they can shut up.

 

[Disir]

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.

From 2011:
Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Gay is evil, no business raising children.

What I hear you saying is that you don't have an argument.

Gays need to stop discriminating against Christians. The gays started this war, they can shut up.

This allows you to circumvent law? I think not. Does your organization accept public funding? Comply. Simple.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

My younger son was in a day care with a girl that had two moms. The girl was sweet and very well-adjusted, the Mom's were attentive, friendly and nurturing, and the family was as stable as all get up.

She happened to be a biological offspring, but if she had been adopted, she would have been one lucky girl, indeed, to have such caring parents.

There are certainly a number of ignorant and fearful people in the world -- especially when they fear themselves -- but the sorts of gay people who want to raise children ARE NOT from that small percentage of men who act outrageous in public. I would think that would be pretty obvious, but I never underestimate people's inability to figure things out on their own.

I would think the simplest solution to the whole church thing is if a church wished to deny adoption for gay couples, that should be within their rights as long as they are strictly private. As soon as they cross into the public sector, they are subject to secular laws.

 

[Silhouette]

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?

Please define "get out" within the context of your previous sentence. BTW, I notice the 3 or 4 LGBT "regulars" have not voted on the poll above.

 

[Disir]

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?

Please define "get out" within the context of your previous sentence. BTW, I notice the 3 or 4 LGBT "regulars" have not voted on the poll above.

You understand perfectly what it means. I have no idea who the 3 or 4 LGBT "regulars" are. I am a perfectly happy heterosexual myself.

Now, do you have a legitimate argument or not? As it stands you have not provided one.

 

[Silhouette]

You understand perfectly what it means. I have no idea who the 3 or 4 LGBT "regulars" are. I am a perfectly happy heterosexual myself.

Now, do you have a legitimate argument or not? As it stands you have not provided one.

Nope, let's try again.

You said "no one is advocating that they close their doors." Then you followed that up immediately, without a pause with "It really is a situation of comply or get out".

So I'll ask again, what does "get out" mean with respect to "no one is advocating that they close their doors".

I'll wait for your answer.

 

[Disir]

You understand perfectly what it means. I have no idea who the 3 or 4 LGBT "regulars" are. I am a perfectly happy heterosexual myself.

Now, do you have a legitimate argument or not? As it stands you have not provided one.

Nope, let's try again.

You said "no one is advocating that they close their doors." Then you followed that up immediately, without a pause with "It really is a situation of comply or get out".

So I'll ask again, what does "get out" mean with respect to "no one is advocating that they close their doors".

I'll wait for your answer.

Go back and read the article that I posted. The agencies were not shut down. The agencies made the call. The regulations cannot be moved, therefore, the agency must.

Now, did you have a legitimate argument?

 

[Disir]

I'll wait.

 

[Disir]

I didn't think so.

 

[Silhouette]

Nope, let's try again.

You said "no one is advocating that they close their doors." Then you followed that up immediately, without a pause with "It really is a situation of comply or get out".

So I'll ask again, what does "get out" mean with respect to "no one is advocating that they close their doors".

I'll wait for your answer.

Let's try again Disir. I'm asking what YOU meant when YOU said "no one is advocating that they close their doors" [we aren't talking about stark legal terms here but who is advocating and what is being advocated]...followed by "It really is a situation of comply or get out". I offer that those two stances cannot exist in the known universe for they are diametrically opposed.

Again, define "get out" and make it come into alignment to "doors not closing".

It is the same as if you said "I like apple pie. And at the same time I hate apple pie". Or, "this water is cold and at the same time it is hot".

 

[Disir]

I have slowed it down as much as possible. It is, in fact, a legal argument. Now, did you have a legitimate argument? Right now, you don't have one. Your persecution complex has been duly noted.

 

[sameech]

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.

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.

 

[Silhouette]

I have slowed it down as much as possible. It is, in fact, a legal argument. Now, did you have a legitimate argument? Right now, you don't have one. Your persecution complex has been duly noted.

Then what you said was "lawyers are not advocating that churches shut down their adoption agencies. They simply will seek that churches either comply with adopting children to gays or they will have to shut down".

The end result of "no one is advocating that they shut down" is that they "have to shut down or go to hell for eternity". So you are advocating either they relinquish their religon at its core [Jude 1, Jesus' personal servant of the New Testament..1st generation eyewitness account of JC's teachings.. says any christian enabling the spread of a homosexual culture goes to hell for eternity], which is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights, or that they shut their doors to orphans.

All so you can have gay marriage. The children be damned. Literally in this case. Stuck between an LGBT cult-manufactured legal rock or a hard place.

 

[Silhouette]

My younger son was in a day care with a girl that had two moms. The girl was sweet and very well-adjusted, the Mom's were attentive, friendly and nurturing, and the family was as stable as all get up...

Did they go to or support gay pride parades? Or Harvey Milk as the LGBT icon? Then that child is at risk no matter how serene they appeared at the day care. What, did you expect them to be backhanding the little girl in public? Get real. Child abuse occurs behind closed doors. Though to their credit LGBTs are very open with the public about what they're proud of in front of closed doors in front of kids... [see pictures on the first page of this thread].

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silly sets a false standard that does not exist.

HM is nothing; he is dead.

The mothers are fine parents, apparently.

How is your parenting, Sil. Are you married?

 

[Silhouette]

My younger son was in a day care with a girl that had two moms. The girl was sweet and very well-adjusted, the Mom's were attentive, friendly and nurturing, and the family was as stable as all get up...

Did they go to or support gay pride parades? Or Harvey Milk as the LGBT icon? Then that child is at risk no matter how serene they appeared at the day care. What, did you expect them to be backhanding the little girl in public? Get real. Child abuse occurs behind closed doors. Though to their credit LGBTs are very open with the public about what they're proud of in front of closed doors in front of kids... [see pictures on the first page of this thread].

Plus, the real issues aren't going to present themselves so much at this age as they would as the child grows into an adolescent and learns where babies come from. "Where's my dad?" is going to be the question. And a test-tube dad explanation might just not cut it with this blooming adolescent. This isn't a hard choice "we had to get a test tube dad"...instead it was we wanted to get a test-tube dad. The crucial difference is the message "men really aren't necessary as parents" or vice versa, the surrogate mom with two gay guys is to the child "women aren't necessary as a parent". The damaging psychological message that sends to the child's view of those respective genders is "that person's gender is disposable/unnecessary to society".

None of this seems to occur to either judges or politicians. They neglect to remember their own mothers and fathers and what they meant to them.

 

[mdk]

I voted other, please explain. I did so because none of the other options represented my views.

Private church run adoption agencies can place children in any family unit they see fit. If your an adoption agency; faith based or otherwise, that accepts money from the government then you must abide by the rules set by the government. If these organizations want the ability to place children in only families that meets the tenants of their faith they are free do so by declining funds provided by the taxpayers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again. I want you other posters to keep asking until Sil answers.

Silly sets a false standard that does not exist.

HM is nothing; he is dead.

The mothers are fine parents, apparently.

How is your parenting, Sil. Are you married?