Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[WorldWatcher]

>

I've seen a lot of crap typed by you Sil but to claim that 100% of lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals, and transgendered people support raping children is just to much.

Your post was reported.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Lots of people talk about adopting but few take the necessary steps to actually follow through. I provided the same information in a debate on abortion. People are under the impression that all of these people really, really, really are lining up to adopt kids and they aren't. Same sex couples make excellent parents.

Can you provide me with a single link to same-sex "parents" [redefining another word I see..] who have openly and publicly denounced gay pride parades or the veneration of Harvey Milk as an LGBT icon?

Silhouette's pet strawman. She must own a veritable warehouse of strawmen.

 

[Syriusly]

Can you provide me with a single link to same-sex "parents" [redefining another word I see..] who have openly and publicly denounced gay pride parades or the veneration of Harvey Milk as an LGBT icon?

I don't have to. You're just a troll that regurgitates the same shit even after having been proved wrong.

No, your assertion is that not all LGBTs approve of/promote gay pride parades or Harvey Milk: both phenomenons of which promote sex acts in front of or with children.

Your challenge is show where gay pride parades 'promote sex acts' in front of or with children.

It should be fairly simple- not just your stock photo's of nude men walking along- I will make it even easier for you

Here is the website for SF Pride- probably the best known Pride Parade in the U.S. San Francisco Pride Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Pride

Quote from the website where they promote sex acts in front of children or promote sex with children- both illegal activities.

Specific quotes- because you claim that they are 'promoting' sex acts in front of children.

That is your challenge.

Which I am sure will be met by your stock photo's rather than by actual content.

 

[Syriusly]

Lots of people talk about adopting but few take the necessary steps to actually follow through. I provided the same information in a debate on abortion. People are under the impression that all of these people really, really, really are lining up to adopt kids and they aren't. Same sex couples make excellent parents.

Can you provide me with a single link to same-sex "parents" [redefining another word I see..]

re-defining another word?

Adoptive parents are adoptive parents- even if you hate them for being homosexuals.

 

[Disir]

Can you provide me with a single link to same-sex "parents" [redefining another word I see..] who have openly and publicly denounced gay pride parades or the veneration of Harvey Milk as an LGBT icon?

I don't have to. You're just a troll that regurgitates the same shit even after having been proved wrong.

No, your assertion is that not all LGBTs approve of/promote gay pride parades or Harvey Milk: both phenomenons of which promote sex acts in front of or with children. Your challenge therefore, is to provide a link to this board to prove that less than 100% of the LGBT community approves of those things.

You got nothing. You didn't have anything before and you don't have anything now. You don't have a case


You just don't like it. That's fine. You don't have an argument outside of you don't like it.

 

[Silhouette]

You got nothing. You didn't have anything before and you don't have anything now. You don't have a case


You just don't like it. That's fine. You don't have an argument outside of you don't like it.

Repeating your position and hopes over and over is not an actual argument. You do realize that right? Do you have a compelling reason why kids should see "marriage" and "parents" as excluding the gender that they are? "Your gender is unnecessary in adult pairings for children [marriage]". The message the developing child internalizes is "your gender is unnecessary and society has agreed".

The example I gave of the two lesbians who were drugging their 11 year old son "so he can decide if he wants to be a girl later" is the extreme version of this "hate your gender" message. But it's there nevertheless.

I know your position is "adults first, kids second" with regards to marriage. My position is "kids first, adults second" with regards to marriage. It's the reason I hold fast to my position and you hold fast to yours. That's at the root of it. The very bottom of it. European courts have sided with children. We in this country are waiting for our courts to wake up and finally do the same.

 

[MaryL]

Gays are using children like a status symbol. Love? Really? Adoption should have limited to married straight folks. Now it's a gateway for pervs that use kids like human shields to pull that old reach around fakee and say they love, so its all equivocal...Not buying that, kids.

 

[Disir]

Gays are using children like a status symbol. Love? Really? Adoption should have limited to married straight folks. Now it's gateway for pervs that use kids like human shields to pull that old reach around fakee and say they love, so its all equivocal...Not buying that, kids.

No, they aren't.

 

[Disir]

You got nothing. You didn't have anything before and you don't have anything now. You don't have a case


You just don't like it. That's fine. You don't have an argument outside of you don't like it.

Repeating your position and hopes over and over is not an actual argument. You do realize that right? Do you have a compelling reason why kids should see "marriage" and "parents" as excluding the gender that they are? "Your gender is unnecessary in adult pairings for children [marriage]". The message the developing child internalizes is "your gender is unnecessary and society has agreed".

The example I gave of the two lesbians who were drugging their 11 year old son "so he can decide if he wants to be a girl later" is the extreme version of this "hate your gender" message. But it's there nevertheless.

I know your position is "adults first, kids second" with regards to marriage. My position is "kids first, adults second" with regards to marriage. It's the reason I hold fast to my position and you hold fast to yours. That's at the root of it. The very bottom of it. European courts have sided with children. We in this country are waiting for our courts to wake up and finally do the same.

What's your degree in?

 

[Inevitable]

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?"

Any church that places politics over children must be crushed.

The Catholic church doesn't own children and frankly they would be better off with parents that love them verses backward Catholic clergy that has been found guilty repeatedly through out it's own history of abuses up to slaughtering and dumping children in a septic tank.

My thoughts, fuck that church, they need to serve not rule.

Furthermore, Jude doesn't say anything about Homosexuals. What an utter perversion of the scripture to back up politics.

Is nothing sacred?

 

[Syriusly]

You got nothing. You didn't have anything before and you don't have anything now. You don't have a case


You just don't like it. That's fine. You don't have an argument outside of you don't like it.

Repeating your position and hopes over and over is not an actual argument. You do realize that right? .

You apparently have never understood it- and its quite ironic you accuse others of what you do in every thread.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays are using children like a status symbol. Love? Really? Adoption should have limited to married straight folks. Now it's a gateway for pervs that use kids like human shields to pull that old reach around fakee and say they love, so its all equivocal...Not buying that, kids.

Since I know gay parents raising adopted children- children abandoned by their heterosexual parents- and not adopted for years by any heterosexual parents. your claim is just ignorant, homophobic bigotry.

200,000 children a year are adoptable in the United States but are not adopted.

You would prefer those children languish in foster homes, and to be aged out of the system without any emotional or financial family support system- rather than let them be raised by homosexuals.

And that is just sick.

 

[Syriusly]

My position is "kids first, adults second" with regards to marriage. .

You have never shown any concern for children.

You would prefer children to be aged out of the system and homeless rather than be raised by a loving homosexual couple who will support them financially and emotionally.

And that is sick.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil self condemns when posting "Repeating your position and hopes over and over is not an actual argument. You do realize that right? "

 

[Inevitable]

My position is "kids first, adults second" with regards to marriage. .

You have never shown any concern for children.

You would prefer children to be aged out of the system and homeless rather than be raised by a loving homosexual couple who will support them financially and emotionally.

And that is sick.

His position is really politics first people can go to hell.

 

[Inevitable]

Gays are using children like a status symbol. Love? Really? Adoption should have limited to married straight folks. Now it's a gateway for pervs that use kids like human shields to pull that old reach around fakee and say they love, so its all equivocal...Not buying that, kids.

Married straight folks are the biggest population that perverts come from. Also baby killers, have they been 54million unborn babies killed by homosexuals?

 

[MaryL]

Gays hide behind lawyers and phony moral righteousness. Gays are a tiny percentage, for all the legal and moral scrutiny. For all that, My parents used to smoke cigarettes and died from lung cancer. The AMA used to endorse smoking as healthy. The Tobacco industry had money and bought out the whole industry, Hollywood portrayed smoking as glamorous. Well isn't that what GAYS are doing NOW?

 

[Inevitable]

Gays hide behind lawyers and phony moral righteousness. Gays are a tiny percentage, for all the legal and moral scrutiny. For all that, My parents used to smoke cigarettes and died from lung cancer. The AMA used to endorse smoking as healthy. The Tobacco industry had money and bought out the whole industry, Hollywood portrayed smoking as glamorous. Well isn't that what GAYS are doing NOW?

People keep saying they are a tiny percentage as if that was a valid point.

Hollywood doesn't portray homosexuals in a good way.

 

[MaryL]

The power Gays have now is equivocal to what the tobacco industry had years ago, with their lawyers and all that, twisting minds to fit their little agenda. The AMA even sold tobacco use as healthy, back then...Well, Homosexuality is obviously just another sexual dysfunction, a mental issue, not a social class. We all have the same rights in America. No less, no more.

 

[Inevitable]

The power Gays have now is equivocal to what the tobacco industry had years ago, with their lawyers and all that, twisting minds to fit their little agenda. The AMA even sold tobacco use as healthy, back then...Well, Homosexuality is obviously just another sexual dysfunction, a mental issue, not a social class. We all have the same rights in America. No less, no more.

Imaginary agendas? Do we also have a dragon, and know where Atlantis is?

It it is a mental issue for you, I hope you get it sorted out, but it isn't for most of us.

Aside from the imaginary agenda with dragons and Atlantis, I don't think we are trying to be a social class, and more rights for everybody would mean we still have the same rights, just more of them.