Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[QuickHitCurepon]

Aren't the vast majority of states still funding church adoption agencies while allowing them to not adopt to gays? I know it was posted Illinois got rid of the exemption and Massachusetts also but that is just a few states.

 

[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.

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

Other adoption agencies are already picking up the slack. They were getting $30 million dollars a year from the State of Illinois. They don't get to take the money and then tell otherwise qualified couples (or singles) whether they be gay, Jews, atheists, or Wiccan to go elsewhere. They seem to have no problem taking their money but they have a problem placing children in their homes for adoption or foster care. They can't have it both ways. If they don't take the money they can kindly tell the state to butt out.

 

[mdk]

Aren't the vast majority of states still funding church adoption agencies while allowing them to not adopt to gays? I know it was posted Illinois got rid of the exemption and Massachusetts also but that is just a few states.

I am not sure actually. It's a good question though. If I get a bit more free time tonight I'll look into it. I am as curious as you are on the question.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"NO KIDS FOR QUEERS!!?"

Your ignorance, hate, and stupidity are noted.

 

[mdk]

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

A service that we the taxpayers all pay for I might add. If they don't accept those fund then they can place children with whomever they wish.

 

[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.

Other adoption agencies are already picking up the slack. They were getting $30 million dollars a year from the State of Illinois. They don't get to take the money and then tell otherwise qualified couples (or singles) whether they be gay, Jews, atheists, or Wiccan to go elsewhere. They seem to have no problem taking their money but they have a problem placing children in their homes for adoption or foster care. They can't have it both ways. If they don't take the money they can kindly tell the state to butt out.

Unless you can prove other agencies can replace everything the church was doing, I doubt it. Can the orphanages be replaced?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Yes....they don't have to close their doors...however, they can't suck at the public teat anymore if they don't comply with the public rules. They can go 100% private at anytime.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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

A service that we the taxpayers all pay for I might add. If they don't accept those fund then they can place children with whomever they wish.

The point is they are not going to do that and will close down. That is what you want then.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Well, I wonder if he has a legal marriage license.....how about you?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Nope. No sucking on the public teat if you go against established rules for distributing public money. They can use the same crying towel as the BSA.

 

[bodecea]

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

A service that we the taxpayers all pay for I might add. If they don't accept those fund then they can place children with whomever they wish.

The point is they are not going to do that and will close down. That is what you want then.

They've not closed down. Nice try.

 

[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

"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.

Why shouldn't the Churches accept public funding if they are using the money to provide food, shelter, clothing and schooling for the children?

 

[mdk]

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

A service that we the taxpayers all pay for I might add. If they don't accept those fund then they can place children with whomever they wish.

The point is they are not going to do that and will close down. That is what you want then.

My point is they are not required to take public money. They could just as easily go private but they want the public's money and ability to discriminate against people that don't follow their religious tenants.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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

A service that we the taxpayers all pay for I might add. If they don't accept those fund then they can place children with whomever they wish.

The point is they are not going to do that and will close down. That is what you want then.

They've not closed down. Nice try.

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

But now most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois are closing down rather than comply with a new requirement that says they can no longer receive state money if they turn away same-sex couples as potential foster care and adoptive parents.

Boston Catholic Charities Stop Adoptions Because of Gay Parent Law Fox News

The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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

A service that we the taxpayers all pay for I might add. If they don't accept those fund then they can place children with whomever they wish.

The point is they are not going to do that and will close down. That is what you want then.

My point is they are not required to take public money. They could just as easily go private but they want the public's money and ability to discriminate against people that don't follow their religious tenants.

The only people that really lose are the children. Remember Catholic Charities is a CHARITY, and they are not gaining but GIVING.

 

[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

"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.

Why shouldn't the Churches accept public funding if they are using the money to provide food, shelter, clothing and schooling for the children?

Why should they be exempt from the rules that every other public adoption agency has to follow? What is stopping other agencies from taking public funds and announcing the rules don't apply to them as well. Don't want to follow the rules then don't accept the money. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

 

[bodecea]

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

A service that we the taxpayers all pay for I might add. If they don't accept those fund then they can place children with whomever they wish.

The point is they are not going to do that and will close down. That is what you want then.

My point is they are not required to take public money. They could just as easily go private but they want the public's money and ability to discriminate against people that don't follow their religious tenants.

The only people that really lose are the children. Remember Catholic Charities is a CHARITY, and they are not gaining but GIVING.

That's fine. But if you are going to take public tax money, there are stipulations.


Just think of how much money they'd not need from the public if they weren't always paying out settlements on priest child molestation cases.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Nope. No sucking on the public teat if you go against establish
ed rules for distributing public money. They can use the same crying towel as the BSA.

Nope, they aren't. They are a charity.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

That's fine. But if you are going to take public tax money, there are stipulations.

The stipulations can be changed to accommodate the church and Religious Freedom.

 

[mdk]

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

A service that we the taxpayers all pay for I might add. If they don't accept those fund then they can place children with whomever they wish.

The point is they are not going to do that and will close down. That is what you want then.

My point is they are not required to take public money. They could just as easily go private but they want the public's money and ability to discriminate against people that don't follow their religious tenants.

The only people that really lose are the children. Remember Catholic Charities is a CHARITY, and they are not gaining but GIVING.

Why should every other public adoption agency have to follow the rules and yet they alone get an exemption? They can just as easily forsake the public funds and use their own money and donations. They have decided that they would rather close then place children in homes that do not share their religious tenants despite the fact every taxpayer funds it. That's not just gays mind you. That eliminates many taxpayers from the service that they pay for.

Don't get me wrong I have a great deal of respect for The Catholic Church. Catholic Charities is one the most noble organizations in the world. They do good work and despite the fact I disagree with them on some issues I still donate to them. Most of my family and all of my husband's family are Catholics. My problem is they are using funds provided by all the taxpayers and only providing adoption services to those that follow their faith. It's an issue I have been struggling with for some time because I can see both sides of the issue. If they accepted no public funds I wouldn't have an issue.