Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[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.

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

Nope. And I will not comply with Astana soldiers.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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?

Probably married the way God intended not the sick delusion of gay.

 

[Silhouette]

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?

Probably married the way God intended not the sick delusion of gay.

Note the diversion. The desperation to avoid discussing that the LGBT icon Harvey Milk with a recently released postage stamp in his honor, who is celebrated by LGBTs "across the nation and the world" for his sexuality. The man who was sodomizing a minor teen boy while officiating as his father figure/guardian.

Yep. I'll bet you want to talk about me Jakey. Anything. Just anything but that...

Anyone would let a guy with this lurker-smile around their kids, right?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

From St. Joseph's adoption

What are the qualifications to adopt?
Families are as diverse as the children who are available for adoption. The parents may be single or married, they may or may not be the same race as the child, they do not have to be rich just financially stable, they do not have to own their home simply have enough room for another child.
The main qualification is that the parents be committed for the long haul and be willing to work with the child as they overcome their past traumas. Parents must understand that it will take a long time for the child to function well in their new family.

Would you prevent religious orphanages allowing gay couples to adopt?

 

[Syriusly]

Harvey Milk was also sodomizing a 16 year old minor while officiating as his "father figure/guardian".

Of course there is absolutely no evidence that any such thing ever happened.

Harvey Milk never said it happened.
No 16 year old ever said it happened.

Just a fictioned created by people who hate gays.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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."

It should come from the taxpayers. They are performing an incredibly valuable public service, but to make them go against one of their most fundamental beliefs is a violation of Freedom of Religion. The lawmakers can easily make an exception for the church.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

You know, I've believed in live and let live all my life.

But you fuckers are making me hate queers.

See the deal was, you do what you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.

You pissed on that deal. Queers are a bunch of anti-liberty thugs.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Churches that don't support gays will not adopt to gays and will shut down instead. By not giving the church an exemption, lawmakers are hurting the children far more than anyone. Lawmakers should keep the welfare of the children in mind above everything else.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Gays can still adopt, but which is more important, the rights of every last gay person or the most basic rights to Freedom of Religion?

 

[Silhouette]

From St. Joseph's adoption

What are the qualifications to adopt?
Families are as diverse as the children who are available for adoption. The parents may be single or married, they may or may not be the same race as the child, they do not have to be rich just financially stable, they do not have to own their home simply have enough room for another child.
The main qualification is that the parents be committed for the long haul and be willing to work with the child as they overcome their past traumas. Parents must understand that it will take a long time for the child to function well in their new family.

Would you prevent religious orphanages allowing gay couples to adopt?

Depending upon the religion, yes. If it means harm to the child is how I filter everything. I know that catholic orphanges, the most numerous of all, would not do so as a matter of their religious mandate to not assist the spread of a homosexual culture. Having "married gays" is a torpedo to the heart of those values.

They cannot exist in the same universe. If a satanist cult was trying to adopt kids out to gay "married couples", I'd object, yes.

 

[mdk]

Churches that don't support gays will not adopt to gays and will shut down instead. By not giving the church an exemption, lawmakers are hurting the children far more than anyone. Lawmakers should keep the welfare of the children in mind above everything else.

A private faith based adoption agency can place a child in any family unit they see fit, as it should be. The moment they accept money from the government then they must abide by the rules that come attached with the money. They can't willingly take money from the taxpayers and say, sorry, we don't place children with Southern Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Wiccans, etc because use it violates the tenants of our faith. Stop accepting the money from the state and they can place children with whomever they please. Instead, they want the money; that all the taxpayers pay into, and then tell certain taxpayers that they cannot use their services. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Silhouette]

A private faith based adoption agency can place a child in any family unit they see fit, as it should be. The moment they accept money from the government then they must abide by the rules that come attached with the money. They can't willingly take money from the taxpayers and say, sorry, we don't place children with Southern Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Wiccans, etc because use it violates the tenants of our faith. Stop accepting the money from the state and they can place children with whomever they please. Instead, they want the money; that all the taxpayers pay into, and then tell certain taxpayers that they cannot use their services. It doesn't work that way.

It's official now then...."LGBT" is a religion...well...more properly a cult.

Thanks for finally admitting that. You know one thing for sure at least. It's not a race.

Unfortunately the Catholic charities don't believe that placing children with your particular dogma is in their best interest.

Shall I post the gay pride parade pictures again or spare you the embarassment?

 

[AgentSparky]

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?"

I support gay couples adopting children if they meet the requirements to providing a good loving home for them. If this goes against the Church's religion in accomodating them, then who are we to force them to?

 

[bodecea]

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

Or simply, don't take the public money.

 

[mdk]

A private faith based adoption agency can place a child in any family unit they see fit, as it should be. The moment they accept money from the government then they must abide by the rules that come attached with the money. They can't willingly take money from the taxpayers and say, sorry, we don't place children with Southern Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Wiccans, etc because use it violates the tenants of our faith. Stop accepting the money from the state and they can place children with whomever they please. Instead, they want the money; that all the taxpayers pay into, and then tell certain taxpayers that they cannot use their services. It doesn't work that way.

It's official now then...."LGBT" is a religion...well...more properly a cult.

Thanks for finally admitting that. You know one thing for sure at least. It's not a race.

Unfortunately the Catholic charities don't believe that placing children with your particular dogma is in their best interest.

Shall I post the gay pride parade pictures again or spare you the embarassment?

I admitted no such thing, not that it matters to you of course. You have a knack for seeing whatever you want to see. You've proven that time and time again in my short time here.

Catholic Charities is free to place children in any family unit they wish so long as they don't accept taxpayer funds. The problem is that they want the money from the state and ability to discriminate. They can't have it both ways. Do you think CC is placing children with Jews or Muslims or Atheists or Wiccans? Those taxpayers do not align with their religious tenants either. Nobody is forcing them to take the money but if they do they have to follow the rules attached to the money. If they don't accept the money then they are free to place children with whomever they please. Problem solved.

I support private adoption placing children with any family they see for. If you use taxpayer funds you have to follow rules just like everyone else.

I am actually quite shocked you haven't posted those pictures yet. You post them in every thread. Why should this one be any different?

 

[bodecea]

This is like the BSA crying about losing the public money after going to all the trouble of getting themselves declared a private religious organization. Boo Hoo

 

[AgentSparky]

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..

How are those people any different from these people?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Churches that don't support gays will not adopt to gays and will shut down instead. By not giving the church an exemption, lawmakers are hurting the children far more than anyone. Lawmakers should keep the welfare of the children in mind above everything else.

A private faith based adoption agency can place a child in any family unit they see fit, as it should be. The moment they accept money from the government then they must abide by the rules that come attached with the money. They can't willingly take money from the taxpayers and say, sorry, we don't place children with Southern Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Wiccans, etc because use it violates the tenants of our faith. Stop accepting the money from the state and they can place children with whomever they please. Instead, they want the money; that all the taxpayers pay into, and then tell certain taxpayers that they cannot use their services. It doesn't work that way.

Except that, they are doing the taxpayers a favor and have no benefit to themselves other than spiritual and emotional.

 

[mdk]

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?"

I support gay couples adopting children if they meet the requirements to proving a good loving home for them. If this goes against the Church's religion in accomodating them, then who are we to force them to?

Agreed, but nobody is forcing them to accept public funds. If you accept those funds then you have to follow the rules like every other adoption agency.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The church needs to be accommodated if we the taxpayers are going to take advantage of their services.