Sounds like they're putting their "religious beliefs" above helping others. They're being so legalistic that they would rather children suffer than keep their doors open and include gays. I don't think Jesus would have approved.

Way to blame the victims there, liveordie. It seems to be the golden aim of the left to make Christians do things against their beliefs. Oh well. Nero and Diocletian failed and so will the left.

"the religious liberty battle"

Gee, I wonder which side the author is on.

So under the guise of "religious liberty". this group believes it should accept tax money from the general populace, but only serve specific members of the public they choose.

The article is from the NY Times, danny boy. You can't even get an interview for a job there without being a fringe lefty. Nice try, though.

"The article is from the NY Times, danny boy."

How does that change what the group wants to do: take from all, to give back to only some.

So long as any organization is eligible to receive state support, and not just one single contracted group, I see no problem with them having their own adoption standards.

It's the same issue as a park with a cross- the cross itself is not a government endorsement, so long as all monuments are allowed.

And LoD, that argument goes two ways. How about "the government is being so politically correct that they'd rather close some of the currently operating adoption agencies rather than help encourage more."

Take from all, for only some? That sounds like affirmative action, but that type of discrimination is ok.

The article makes a deeper point, Adammm. Groups are not allowed to run a charity on their own without kowtowing to the state. So people are being denied charitable services because of the state.
Watch when Obamacare goes into full swing and Catholic health services close. Only then will some idiots on the left wake up.

"Groups are not allowed to run a charity on their own without kowtowing to the state. "

Bullshit. You don't have to kowtow to the state, just don't demand their money and then turn around and discriminate against some of the taxpayers.

"people are being denied charitable services because of the state."

What an awful bastardization of the truth.

Take public election financing- that is money taken from everyone, and given to groups who espouse very limited views. But so long as every candidate has to option of taking it, it's still considered fair.

Same principle here. Let the Catholics discriminate, so long as a gay adoption agency (which would likewise receive money from all, including religious bigots) can also receive state funds.

The whole "if you want money, you can't hold independent views" thing is just government control. "Kowtowing" is exactly the right word, Diablo.

Danny, read the article. The issue is not taking state money. They are willing to run the adoption services without that. The issue is same-sex adoption only. Are you really that dense or are you just faking it for the sake of polemics?

Also, plenty of the people that will say the Catholics here have no right to money, I'd venture to guess, have a very different standard when it comes to giving state money to Planned Parenthood. Half of Americans oppose abortion, but their money still goes to PP in some states. And often, it's a contract where PP is the sole provider- other groups aren't even eligible for funds.

"It's true that the church doesn't have a First Amendment right to have a government contract," he said, "but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs."

It's not their beliefs anybody is taking issue with, its their actions.

The issue is same-sex adoption only.

The issue is they want tolerance for their intolerance. Their faith clearly instructs them to turn the other cheek and not judge, but that doesn't stop them.

The Priest accidently put it best: "In the name of tolerance, we're not being tolerated,"

I am a proud bigot against bigots.

"Let the Catholics discriminate"

And still take tax money from the folks they're discriminating against? You're joking, right?

How about this instead: allow the gays to pay a lower tax rate? They're already shut out of the SS system equally. This is just one more example where folks want their tax dollars, and then deny equal treatment.

Turn the other cheek refers to anger, Kanrei, not condoning handing children over to gay couples.

"It's not their beliefs anybody is taking issue with, its their actions."

Errr the state is determining their actions because they take issue with ther beliefs. As usual...

Dan, are you not even reading? The point is that so long as ALL groups can receive money, discrimination does not matter. The public financing parallel is a perfect example.

"The point is that so long as ALL groups can receive money, discrimination does not matter."

You cannot be serious.

not condoning handing children over to gay couples

Judge not does however. As does "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Get your own family straight before telling others how to raise their kids. Until your kids are beyond perfect, you have no place to judge who can and can't be a parent.

A Republican can get tax money for a campaign, and use it to advocate religious views. But a Dem is also eligible for the money, and can talk about how free speech should be curbed if it hurts people's feelings.

The money comes from everyone, goes to a limited view, but everyone can access the money.

Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

"Half of Americans oppose abortion, but their money still goes to PP in some states."

You have it backwards. Every American could walk into Planned Parenthood. The organization doesn't discriminate.

Come on, Dan. You have to explain the failure in logic.

"Equal opportunity, not equal outcome."

You're not talking about discrimination against one group. Apples and oranges.

"You have to explain the failure in logic."

Well, your failure is you've missed the point completely. Campaign funds, vs taking tax money then used to discriminate, are two wildly different concepts.

The issue is not taking state money. They are willing to run the adoption services without that.

If they are tax exempt, then they are taking state money, period.

What if a gay adoption agency wanted to say "No Catholics." LET THEM, so long as the Catholics can also get money. In that system, you only get more and more people providing services.

This whole "If you want to help humanity, you have to abide by a PC law", as clearly demonstrated by this article, only LIMITS the help people will provide. Yes it sucks. But that is reality.

You'd rather see fewer kids adopted, so long as the agencies facilitating them are perfectly tolerant. That does not help anything.

What if a gay adoption agency wanted to say "No Catholics."

A Gay Adoption Agency would not be tax exempt, so it is not the same thing.

Alright, a Gay Jewish agency.

You'd rather see fewer kids adopted, so long as the agencies facilitating them are perfectly tolerant. That does not help anything.

And you would rather see no kids adopted, so long as the gays don't get equal rights. That helps nothing.

My GOD, that is not true, because EVERY AGENCY would be allowed money.

Alright, a Gay Jewish agency.

#29 | Posted by adammm at 2011-12-30 11:41 AM |

Let's not move goal posts, OK? A "Gay jewish" agency would have the exact same problems this Catholic agency has not adopting to gay people.

Remember this when Hollyforth is blabbing about gay rights...

""As CNET reported in December, Lamar Smith, a self-described former ranch manager whose congressional district encompasses the cropland and grazing land stretching between Austin and San Antonio, Texas, has become Hollywood's favorite Republican. The TV, movie, and music industries are the top donors to his 2012 campaign committee, and he's been feted by music and movie industry lobbyists at dinners and concerts. "

Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance.

You have ten agencies that provide adoption services, all receiving state funds- and all but one has a requirement about who can adopt. If you make every single one get rid of their requirements, even though they will close if you do so, you're left with one adoption agency. That does not help.

because EVERY AGENCY would be allowed money.

So a Satanic Adoption agency would get equal funding as a Catholic as a Muslim as an Athiest? Will we set up different agencies based on color, faith, and sexual orientation?

"Sorry, this is the Gay Black Muslims who are Left Handed branch. You need to go to the Dallas office of Gay Black Muslims who are Right Handed."

"they would rather children suffer than keep their doors open and include gays. I don't think Jesus would have approved."
#1 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

You mean 'they (tolerant Democrats) would rather put homosexuality first and try to force the Church to ignore religious freedom and change their beliefs even if it means the children suffer. I don't think Jesus would have approved'...Don't you?

You mean 'they (tolerant Democrats) would rather put homosexuality first and try to force the Church to ignore religious freedom and change their beliefs even if it means the children suffer.

Yes, he would. Adoption is a legal process and, as Jesus said: Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's.

#35, Yes. Because that is a hyperbolic example, which would never happen. But yes- a Jewish Agency, Catholic, Gay, whatever. That way people would be more willing. Make a Catholic go to an agency that allows gay adoptions, and they might decide against adopting. That's the world we live in. You limit choice, and demand goes down.

You can have your perfect, PC, tolerant rainbow world, but the actual consequences are that many people will just choose to not participate in what they once did.

No Christian colleges? Then they just won't attend college at all. No gay clubs in the city? Let's just stay home then. An adoption agency that doesn't follow my religious beliefs? Let's have our own kid instead.

If they want to stick by discriminatory beliefs, they shouldn't be eligible for public funds.

At the same time, a parent putting a kid up for adoption should be allowed to say they don't want the kid going to a same sex couple.

not condoning handing children over to gay couples

Judge not does however. As does "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Get your own family straight before telling others how to raise their kids. Until your kids are beyond perfect, you have no place to judge who can and can't be a parent.

#20 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-30 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

So we can't make judgements? Of course that is not what it means. The call is to think before you make judgements, make them fairly, properly, and with self reflection on your own actions.

John 7:24
"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

The "judge not lets ye be judged" with you are referring to is this:

Matthew 7:
"1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

You must realize there are problems with yourself, deal with them, and then make proper judgements. It is not that you cannot judge. It is a call of caution for your sake, that you should realize that you are going to be held by the same standards. Again, it does not mean that we are not to make judgements, just that we are to evaluate ourselves and the situation, then make sober, fair, and proper judgements.

Now, on the actual topic, I don't see why just because two people are homosexual that they should not be able to adopt a child. If they are not going to try to force the child to be homosexual, or force wrong things upon them, they are just as capable (potentially) as a heterosexual couple.

They should be evaluated on the same basis of heterosexual couples. If they are adequate parents and they meet the criteria, they should be allowed to adopt.

You can still disagree with homosexuality and allow them to adopt.

Somebody can, doesn't mean they will. Real world: there's racists, homophobes, religious fundamentalists, atheists, raging liberals, everything. If you make them do something they don't want to do- provide adoptions, adopt from an agency they disagree with, they won't. Simple as that.

And the kids are the ones that pay the price for this social PC engineering.

to make Christians do things against their beliefs

#2 | Posted by Diablo at 2011-12-30 11:04 AM

As the most holiest of Christians, I say that you are a cunt, a cum stain, and a fucking slut.

Way out of line Lod. You just lost major respect from me, if that counts for anything.

Way out of line Lod. You just lost major respect from me, if that counts for anything.

#46 | Posted by adammm at 2011-12-30 12:33 PM

(seriously, I opened with 'as the most holiest of Christians,' how can you possibly take that seriously)

If these charities don't want to follow state rules with state money, then let 'em close. Other charities can do the same job without excluding gays.

It's sad that a religious charity would rather see a kid go without an adoptive parent than get a gay one.

It is sad- just as sad to see a government that would see an agency close because they only helped out some parents and not all. If other charities can do the same job, why not just leave the Catholic one alone and have MORE, instead of fewer agencies?

"sad to see a government that would see an agency close"

The government isn't closing the agency. The agency is deciding itself to close, rather than treat all taxpayers equally while getting tax breaks from all taxpayers.

RCADE:

Actually there AREN'T alot more charities in Illinois. Catholic Charities is the major go-to Charity in this state. There's probably others... but they are forcing CC to shut down for no reason. It's just more dumbass crap from our state legislature. Are you really SOOO shocked that this is the move of the Catholic Church? They aren't going to be "tolerant". The State Legislature knew this would be what happens and they did it anyway. The Illinois State Legislature is, by in large, filled with a cess pool of corrupt and worthless trash.

The only thing I can think of is that someone from another charity paid off some officials to cram this rule through so they could take over the work CC was doing and get all that state money. It's bullshit. If gay couples want to adopt/foster kids they could go to a charity that works with them. There's others out there but they are smaller and don't have the reach that CC has.

Not just the kids will suffer for this. CC offices are where people go for help with their rent and utilities. They run food banks and soup kitchens. They do A LOT for people that are poor or homeless. This shit was a bill targeting them.

"That would SEE an agency close" does not equal "Close an agency" Dan.

The agency is deciding itself to close, rather than treat all taxpayers equally while getting tax breaks from all taxpayers.

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2011-12-30 12:42 PM

Think about how this story would have turned out if they had decided that finding homes for children was more important than maintaining their stance against gay couples.

""That would SEE an agency close" does not equal "Close an agency" Dan."

Damn straight: the agency is choosing to close. Don't blame anyone but the folks in their mirror.

The agency is deciding itself to close, rather than treat all taxpayers equally while getting tax breaks from all taxpayers.

Danforth it's a shame you don't know what yer talking about. The "tax breaks" that Catholic Charities get is nothing compared to what they put out. Weakening this institution will hurt kids, homeless, poor people and it will take quite a bit for the people of the state to recover from this.

Expecting a religious charity to just STOP following their own moral code is idiocy. They knew when they put the rule in that CC would not suddenly start interviewing gay parents for adoption. There's no way it would happen. SOmeone somewhere chose to ram this shit through and knew that CC would be hurt by it.

The question needs to be what public officals are cashing in on this.

Danforth it's a shame you don't know what yer talking about. The "tax breaks" that Catholic Charities get is nothing compared to what they put out. Weakening this institution will hurt kids, homeless, poor people and it will take quite a bit for the people of the state to recover from this.

#55 | Posted by captjimmyjames at 2011-12-30 12:49 PM

Expecting a religious charity to just STOP following their own moral code is idiocy. They knew when they put the rule in that CC would not suddenly start interviewing gay parents for adoption. There's no way it would happen. SOmeone somewhere chose to ram this shit through and knew that CC would be hurt by it.

#55 | Posted by captjimmyjames at 2011-12-30 12:49 PM

"The "tax breaks" that Catholic Charities get is nothing compared to what they put out."

So what? They do SOME good, so we should ignore the discrimination?

"Weakening this institution will hurt kids, homeless, poor people and it will take quite a bit for the people of the state to recover from this."

Then maybe they should rethink their position, if standing on dogma is going to hurt so many kids. And why do you expect the government to put the "kids" first, but not the charity?

"Expecting a religious charity to just STOP following their own moral code is idiocy."

Expecting bigotry to be tax-sudsidized is ludicrous.

"They knew when they put the rule in that CC would not suddenly start interviewing gay parents for adoption"

Well, I guess another charity will have to fill that void.

"ram this shit through"

Well there's the problem: you think equal rights is "shit".

Actually there AREN'T alot more charities in Illinois. Catholic Charities is the major go-to Charity in this state.

If the state continues to offer the money, there will be new charities or existing ones that will take it *and* not discriminate against gays.

It's not like the state is closing them. They chose to shut down.

They chose to shut down.

#58 | Posted by rcade at 2011-12-30 01:04 PM

Danforth and Rcade:

It's Illinois... if the rules were passed then someone is getting paid. No one in the legislature gives a shit about gay couples. They got paid to make this happen because someone paid for it.

I don't have anything against gay couples. My cousin and her partner just had a baby and I'm estatic for them. My problem is when people do something they know is an attack on an organization that does more than "SOME good" ... lol some... you don't even know... anyways they attack an organization and try to call it social progress. It was monitary progress, I promise you. End of story.

Looks like that in a refreshing change, the Catholic Church is taking the principled course.

But who needs private charities anyway in the age of Obama? The effete metrosexuals and gays running his Administration can take their same demonstrated expertise in high finance, automaking, home mortgage origination, mercenary war fighting against then for al Queda, and economy stimulation, and do the same mercurial work in adoption services. Watch for an appointment of a Queer Adoption Czar in the next few days.

My cousin and her partner just had a baby and I'm estatic for them.

* * * *

No, they didn't.

the Catholic Church is taking the principled course.

#61 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 01:13 PM

Yeah they did ... you don't have to frigging believe me. I could give a shit.

No one in the legislature gives a shit about gay couples.

I'm not interested in mind reading or assuming corruption. There are perfectly defensible reasons for passing a law to deny state money to charities that exclude on the basis of sexual orientation.

"No, they didn't."

Something he'd never claim of adoptive parents.

Yeah they did ... you don't have to frigging believe me. I could give a shit.

#64 | Posted by captjimmyjames

If her partner is a woman, and you believe the two of them had a baby, you must have failed biology.

Deciding that kids are better off on their own than with gay parents is not "taking the principled course."

#63 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

They said that they're not going to be a part of it. What's unprincipled about that? Oh--I get it. You think the principled thing would be to take the money, even though they believe it's wrong?

I see. As it happens, I agree with the church on this one. Children are better off being raised in a home with a mom and a dad. Liberals say as long as it's in a loving home. Fair enough. How about a loving, plural marriage home? Plenty of those around. You cool with that? How about a Muslim family that practices bigamy?

You guys think you can just pull up the drawbridge behind you, as suits your fancy. Doesn't work that way. Give it a few more years, and you'll have Somali men with multiple wives signing up to adopt, so they can get nice welfare checks. And you won't be able to say no, because he'll be using the same arguments you use, here.

Dan, are you not even reading? The point is that so long as ALL groups can receive money, discrimination does not matter. The public financing parallel is a perfect example.
#18 | Posted by adammm at 2011-12-30 11:32 AM

Your argument is distinctly detached from the human element.

This organization is infringing upon the rights of the children to be supported by eligible gay and lesbian couples.

Aren't there rules regarding human-peddling?

Seriously, there are obviously good pairings and the problem with the Catholic performing ostracization is that they know these actions are infringing upon their brethren. These couples are some of the best people, willing to share their lives with the most precious and underprivileged among us. Any lack of support proves opposition to what they represent, yet dollars to donuts 100% of those children denied access to gay homes are recently baptized.

I'm not touching on the "tax and subsidization" of this issue - that merely degrades the conversation and places the plight of these kids in the hands of a monstrous business.

Also, I can't open the story because it's on a SUBSCRIPTION-BASED site.

Just another reason for actual separation between church and state. Private churches should not be receiving government contracts for adoption services. Churches should not be running hospitals that receive government aid.

If you don't want to let gay people adopt, then stop sticking your fucking hand out and asking the government for money. Run an adoption service on your own terms, with your own money, and do whatever the fuck you want.

Oh, that's right - they no longer have that power to discriminate, and instead refuse all of the children. How adult..

Children are better off being raised in a home with a mom and a dad.

Where is your proof that children raised by a mom and dad are better off than those raised by two same-sex parents?

Where is your proof they're not?

It's not about the children anyway. Never was. The gays are a big grievance-rights bloc, and the Democrats and liberals are going to do anything to placate them.

Next in line: bigamists, Muslims, and bigamist Muslims. And you guys paved the way. Thanks! After all, where is the proof that children being raised by only two people are better off than those raised by 6? Where is the proof that children raised in evangelical/Baptist/Catholic/
atheist households are better off than those raised by Muslims?

You can't chuck a boulder into the lake and not have the ripples seen everywhere. But you'll try.

"Where is your proof they're not?"

And there you have it: "prove why we shouldn't discriminate against you" is the default position.

They said that they're not going to be a part of it. What's unprincipled about that? Oh--I get it. You think the principled thing would be to take the money, even though they believe it's wrong?

I see. As it happens, I agree with the church on this one. Children are better off being raised in a home with a mom and a dad. Liberals say as long as it's in a loving home. Fair enough. How about a loving, plural marriage home? Plenty of those around. You cool with that? How about a Muslim family that practices bigamy?

You guys think you can just pull up the drawbridge behind you, as suits your fancy. Doesn't work that way. Give it a few more years, and you'll have Somali men with multiple wives signing up to adopt, so they can get nice welfare checks. And you won't be able to say no, because he'll be using the same arguments you use, here.

#68 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 01:33 PM

I'm inclined to believe a male and female provide the optimal environment for raising a child, but it's kind of like a golf swing. While scientists were able to create a robot capable of swinging the perfect golf swing, no pro golf player has been able to recreate it. They have swings that take into account their biomechanical imperfections, and make due without being perfect.

A gay couple raising a child is the same. It may not be optimal, but neither is your typical heterosexual couple, and it's certainly a hell of a lot better than the kid growing up without any parents to speak of.

you must have failed biology.
Says the guy whose religion is founded on the belive in a one-way borth canal.

Children are better off being raised in a home with a mom and a dad.
Says the twice divorced single-parent of two.

Just because a few gays have slipped through the cracks to become pedophile priests doesn't mean the Catholic Church would or should intentionally expose the poor neglected children to that lifestyle.I cannot think of a fate crueler than to place a young child into a household that consists of two Daddies and two dozen uncle Ernie's.The potential for abuse would be astronomical, gays have already proved that morals don't matter.

I have four kids, actually.

But since you don't understand biology either, lemme help. See if I can remember this, from all the way back in sixth grade. Hmmmm. Here's how I remember it. In order to fertilize an egg, you need an egg and a sperm. No fertilized egg means no baby. Two eggs don't do it. Two sperm don't do it. Need one of each. Therefore, if a baby is conceived, one man provided the sperm, and one woman provided the egg. A DNA test can prove in no time flat which man and which woman did either one.

So in the event of a lesbian couple, three possibilities: one is the mother, the other is the mother, or neither is the mother. But I know the times we live in, and when I meet lesbians who pretend "they" had a baby, I wink and say, whatever.

It may not be optimal, but neither is your typical heterosexual couple, and it's certainly a hell of a lot better than the kid growing up without any parents to speak of.

#76 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Well, that's the fallacy of the false choice. You say on the one hand that one mom and one dad is optimal, so why not make our public policy as optimal as possible? There are millions of heterosexual couples waiting for adoptions. So should they be in line ahead of gay couples, or not?

Just because a few gays have slipped through the cracks to become pedophile priests doesn't mean the Catholic Church would or should intentionally expose the poor neglected children to that lifestyle.I cannot think of a fate crueler than to place a young child into a household that consists of two Daddies and two dozen uncle Ernie's.The potential for abuse would be astronomical, gays have already proved that morals don't matter.

#78 | Posted by eddyjames at 2011-12-30 01:55 PM | Flag: Most likely a dog owner who has 'sampled' the goods

Eddy,

Please don't project you personal perversion on others.

Closet queers like you are infinitly more prone to being deviant scum than openly gay people.

Well, that's the fallacy of the false choice. You say on the one hand that one mom and one dad is optimal, so why not make our public policy as optimal as possible? There are millions of heterosexual couples waiting for adoptions. So should they be in line ahead of gay couples, or not?

#80 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 01:58 PM

You're talking theory while I'm talking reality. Anyone willing to raise a kid, provide for them, and teach them how to become an adult is better than nothing, regardless of their flaws.

Ah. Another suggestion that anyone who isn't all-aboard on the gay rights bandwagon must be a closeted fag himself.

Never gets old. I have about ten thousand posts criticizing Islamists too. You think I go into my closet and bow toward Mecca five times a day? I'm also a racist Obamaphobe, apparently. But in your world, it must mean that I'm a black gang-banger who works for Acorn nights and weekends.

Sheez. Get a new schtick. That one's stupid.

#82 | Posted by axe at 2011-12-30 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Lives in a closet inside a closet; likes chick drinks; cat owner; drives a bug; active in local theatre; maintains an herb garden; aficionado of scented candles

""Can anyone seriously be this closeted?""

When they resort to the "Oh you must be gay too" argument, you know you've hit home.

Let's take a sampling of the admitted homosexuals here on the DR. Tell me, from what you know of them, whom you would be comfortable raising children?

Axe? Reinheit? Celisary? Dumpling? Those are just the ones that occur to me, off the top of my head. If you died and your children were to be raised by strangers, would you rather it be one of them? Or would you rather pick a name, at random, out of the friggin' phone book? They're crazy. Mentally unstable. Far more prone to fatal infectious disease. Why dance around all the obvious?

Answer the question: why is it more optimal to have a straight couple raise a kid, than a gay couple? What are the imperfections your robot golfer metaphor is referring to, with respect to the gays?

when did RIR become a religious nutbag?

You're talking theory while I'm talking reality. Anyone willing to raise a kid, provide for them, and teach them how to become an adult is better than nothing, regardless of their flaws.

#83 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

I'm talking reality too. Again, you've implied that a gay couple is sub-optimal in ways that a hetero couple is not. Therefore, should gay couples be able to jump the line, in front of the millions of hetero couples who want to adopt, right now? Or not?

When they resort to the "Oh you must be gay too" argument, you know you've hit home.

#86 | Posted by americanPLY at 2011-12-30 02:05 PM

Ummm, not to redirect the arguement so far, but I have to wonder how the Catholic faithful donating their money to the Church feel about it?? I know the Church doesn't really have to take their opinion into account, but I wonder how the numbers will look and if there will be a change in the amount in the envelope each week?

Again, you've implied that a gay couple is sub-optimal in ways that a hetero couple is not. Therefore, should gay couples be able to jump the line, in front of the millions of hetero couples who want to adopt, right now? Or not?
#89 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 02:09 PM

Try again.

When they object, you know they like it in the pooper.

#90 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Do you think there's anything wrong with being gay?

I'm inclined to believe a male and female provide the optimal environment for raising a child, but it's kind of like a golf swing.
#76 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2011-12-30 01:45 PM

* * *

So, a male and female do NOT provide the optimal environment now?

Do you think there's anything wrong with being gay?

#93 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 02:12 PM

So, a male and female do NOT provide the optimal environment now?

#94 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 02:14 PM

Your entire argument is retarded. We can twiddle our thumbs over whether or not an unwanted child is given the perfect environment to grow up in, all the while enjoying its time as an extra chromosome of the state, or we can put the kid in the loving home provided by a gay couple. Yeah, they might grow up with the few quirks; who gives a shit.

My argument is retarded? LMAO. A few posts up, you're making fag jokes. Know why?

They dont know RiR. This is a blanket psychological response of the mantra "equality for the protected." As usual this isnt what is good for the children. You can see the same problem in the blood donation debate. It has nothing to do with what is good for the whole, but what is good for this particular group, even if it is to the detriment to the whole, including the group.

Fair enough. How about a loving, plural marriage family from Nigeria? After all, we're not in a vacuum. That okay with you? Man, three wives, all Muslim? That good too?

Where is your proof they're not?

The numerous studies that show children raised by same-sex parents do as well or better than those raised by opposite-sex couples.

A few posts up, you're making fag jokes. Know why?

#96 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 02:28 PM

Seriously, you haven't yet provided a single substantial argument. Your entire meme on this site is that gays are somehow lesser humans. You won't get far with that kind of hatred in you.

Fair enough. How about a loving, plural marriage family from Nigeria? After all, we're not in a vacuum. That okay with you? Man, three wives, all Muslim? That good too?

#98 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 02:30 PM

Good grief, you are way more bigoted than I ever gave you credit for.

#97 | Posted by americanPLY at 2011-12-30 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Frequently found at the local truck stop; likes it sweaty, rough, and dirty

#102 | Posted by WHINE_OR_CRY

Methinks Whineorcry is huffing a bag of santorum today.

I seriously laughed out loud at #103.

Rex, you fucking fuck.

Good grief, you are way more bigoted than I ever gave you credit for.

#101 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Then you haven't been paying attention. I've been accused of being an Islamophobe, and homophobe, a racist (I think that's because I didn't vote for Obama, and I note that blacks commit a far disproportionate percentage of crimes), a Nazi, a fascist, a militarist, and a nationalist. I've also been called a natalist, which is a bend on the pro-life thing, or something.

You guys think you can give gays all these rights, and just stop with them. It won't work. If gays can get married, so can Muslims to multiple wives. After all, if the gender doesn't matter, why should the number? And suddenly we're back down the slippery slope of who-deserves-what when it comes to Social Security and pensions and tax allowances. And there is a lot bigger market for bigamy, than there ever will be for gay marriage, especially when there's a lot of money to be made on the other side.

So, thanks for being part of the problem. Soldier on. By the way, the reason you call other posters gay is because, deep down, you know there's something not quite right about it. That's why you showed your hand a little bit when you said the optimal relationship with a child is a loving man and woman to raise him, not a loving man and man. But whatever. You're PC, pretend otherwise, but it shines through in moments like this. Tell me. How many gay couples do you know, with whom you would like your children to grow up if anything happened to you? Two? Four? Or do you know of dozens and dozens of hetero couples you would rather see, first? Then you go off and criticize the Catholics for doing the same?

Because fag jokes are funny. I'd just prefer to make them in an environment where everyone is made fun of equally, so I don't feel bad about it.

* * *

And yet, the "rough and dirty" goes down at the truck stop, but not the titty bar. Nothing is more emasculating to a straight man, than to have someone think he's smoking another man's pole.

"Not that there's anything WRONG with that!" No. Of course not. Even the liberals make fag jokes, because, as you say, fags are funny. But hey. We're all open-minded enough to think that even though they have six times as many sexual partners and like to monopolize the public health program statistics boards (infectious diseases, STD's, suicide), none of those things should matter when it comes to putting kids in adoptive homes. Nothing to see here!

The numerous studies that show children raised by same-sex parents do as well or better than those raised by opposite-sex couples.

#99 | Posted by rcade at 2011-12-30 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well... in many of those studies it is found that children did the same or better with two mothers than with a heterosexual couple. They sometimes did the same or better with one mother. The fathers were found to be somewhat of a detriment... and thus two males in a homosexual relationship may possibly be disastrous for the children (according to the homosexual studies).

"and thus two males in a homosexual relationship may possibly be disastrous for the children"

What a steaming pile of bullshit.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I've been accused of being an Islamophobe, and homophobe, a racist (I think that's because I didn't vote for Obama, and I note that blacks commit a far disproportionate percentage of crimes), a Nazi, a fascist, a militarist, and a nationalist. I've also been called a natalist, which is a bend on the pro-life thing, or something.
#105 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 03:00 PM

You guys think you can give gays all these rights, and just stop with them.

By the way, the reason you call other posters gay is because, deep down, you know there's something not quite right about it.
#106 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 03:04 PM

Oh.

Don't get me wrong. I like fag jokes too. What's interesting is that the liberals who claim that it's a morally neutral lifestyle make the same jokes I do. If there's nothing about being a fag that's risible, why all the fag insults? What do gay people think, when they hear the people who pretend to support everything they want--liberals--insult other people by calling them gay? Weird. But funny. And I'm all too happy to keep them going.

And by the way, you never answered my question. How many gay couples do you know? And in the event anything happened to you, where would they rank, in order of where you would like your kids to grow up?

"Do you think there's anything wrong with being gay?
#93 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 02:12 PM"
No.
"So, a male and female do NOT provide the optimal environment now?
#94 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 02:14 PM"
My point was clear. In a vacuum, our biology would point toward a male and female being the optimal parents for a child, but we're not in a vacuum, and any pairing of male and female will be just as flawed as male and male or female and female.
Your entire argument is retarded. We can twiddle our thumbs over whether or not an unwanted child is given the perfect environment to grow up in, all the while enjoying its time as an extra chromosome of the state, or we can put the kid in the loving home provided by a gay couple. Yeah, they might grow up with the few quirks; who gives a shit.
#95 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2011-12-30 02:22 PM

I'm going to talk out my ass for a moment, so forgive. The psychology of sexuality appears first built around creating a social group. The purposes can often include procreation, but foremost companionship, thus we are a "social" animal. Our first friendships outside of our immediate family are generally children of our own gender and age who share our interests. That isn't sexual in terms of procreation, but interests and conforming to an evolving invented social hierarchy. Perhaps the realty show attraction is a vicarious extension of this, I dunno. In humans like all sexually differentiated species, we're capable of multiple pairing combinations to fulfill this construct, both sexually and not. Often these determinations are based on each others ideas of preferences/aesthetics which impose values of sexual attraction. So, imo sex is always been more about social control/appeal than procreation, sexual preference a predetermined means of socially fulfilling our individual complex requirements as a group. It's entirely natural for homosexuality to exist in proportion to heterosexuality based on our own biology predicting our evolutionary needs. Thus all evolving animals also have a percentage of homosexuals.

All evolving animals also have a percentage that are born blind. So what. It's a mutation.

There's nothing wrong with gay parents. I've heard people claim they were worried that the kid would be molested or some shit. That's rediculous. I've known many gay people and they are probably the most militant when it comes to protecting the innocence of a child.

I don't personally think that gay couples should be banned from adopting kids. They simpley need to be vetted just like straight couples are. I just don't think that forcing an organization to adopt to the gay couples when they are very clearly a religous organization is the right thing to do. Force one group to cave on their principles to make room for another groups principles. There are other organizations they can go to... but some people feel they have to go to the organization they know isn't going to want to help them just so they can start some shit rather than go ahead and go to a place that will welcome them with open arms. Why is that? Just to prove a point?

And by the way, you never answered my question. How many gay couples do you know? And in the event anything happened to you, where would they rank, in order of where you would like your kids to grow up?
#111 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 03:32 PM

You have a point, sick and twisted as it is. Putting children in a family that is discriminated against is always the risk where fundamentalists threaten people.

We've only been legal for a little in a few of the States for months now, and having grown up being a target of hate crimes where even police and employers commonly discriminate against you doesn't usually provide comfort in "coming out" as homosexual, coupled or not.

I can forgive, but it's impossible to ignore the mob mindset of you people.

Fair enough Jimmy. Same question. If you have children, and something happens to you, where do your gay couples rank among the heteros, when it comes to deciding where your kids will live upon your death?

I see a lot of wills, trusts, stuff like that. Hundreds of them. Courtesy of where I live, many of those are of liberals. Know something amazing? Don't know of a single one, where they said that the kids are going to live with a gay couple. Zero. Not to say such people aren't out there, I'm just wondering where. "Oh, if anything happens to us, they'll go live with my cousin and her husband down in Orlando."--people they haven't seen in three years. But they pretend to be very close to gay couples living in their neighborhood. Even in their own family.

Not one time, not even in the case of gay-marriage and gay-adoption activists. They know the same thing Live or Die knows, but doesn't feel like saying. In the abstract, put a kid with any loving couple, gay or not. But if it's their own flesh and blood, put them with my brother, or my cousin and her husband, or my friend and his wife down the street. Not once.

All evolving animals also have a percentage that are born blind. So what. It's a mutation.
#113 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 03:38 PM

There is a social evolutionary requirement for sexual differentiation, not necessarily blindness - and I don't regret not passing my shitty eye mutations on.

I can forgive, but it's impossible to ignore the mob mindset of you people.

#115 | Posted by redlightrobot

Yeah, whatever. At least you always know where neanderthals like me stand. What's gotta be more hurtful is the "mob mindset" of liberals like yourself. Every where and every time gay marriage is on the ballot, it loses. Even in ObamaVilles like California and New York. It takes a gay judge to take the will of the people and toss it out the window, even when those people are liberals who pretend to be your friends.

I feel sorry for you. I would never physically threaten or harm you unless you posed an immediate threat to my family or me, so you're mistaken about that. But you're asking us to make cultural judgment calls on issues that have stood the test of time for millennia, and when the chips are down, the open-minded liberals go into their private voting booths and pull the lever the same exact way I do. Tell you what. Sell your story to those guys, first. If every American who was open-minded enough to send the first black American to the White House felt the same way about you and your minority group, gay marriage would be legal in every major city in America. So, why ain't it?

There is a social evolutionary requirement for sexual differentiation, not necessarily blindness - and I don't regret not passing my shitty eye mutations on.

#117 | Posted by redlightrobot

If there's an evolutionary requirement for it, then you would think nature would have allowed for homosexuals to breed their own kind. After all, the most salient fact of evolutionary biology is strengthening the species through reproduction of the most viable and necessary beings.

Gays are people, 100% human, and deserve all protection under the laws. God loves every single one of them. But when gays try to make the biological and genetic arguments, they wander out on some very thin ice, particularly when they also tend to believe in "reproductive choice". Do you also favor testing for the gay-gene, inter utero? Because there would be only one reason that geneticists would offer such a test. Do you approve, or not?

"But when gays try to make the biological and genetic arguments, they wander out on some very thin ice"

Not to mention crowded, with all those adoptive parents already there.

RIR:

I only know one gay couple and that is my cousin. Where would my kid go? First person would be my best friend. Second - my wife's brother. Thrid - the oldest of my 3 sisters. Second - the youngest of my 3 sisters. Where is my cousin past that? Probably low. Is it because she's gay? No... it's because I don't really know her. My daughter has never met her and there is no family connection to her. I talk to her on facebook a lot but she lives in the city and I'm in tbe burbs so we don't see each other much.

If there was a gay couple in my family/friends that my daughter had a connection to and that I thought was very stable and would be together for the long haul, would treat her as their own and protect her as strongly as I would.... damn right I'd ask them to take her if something happened ot me. The idea that gay people are incapable of raising a child is idiocy. It's a very different life the child will have but it can't be any worse that the fucked up all hetero family I grew up in.

Same bullshit for the anti-gay marriage people... why the hell do you care? They have just as much right to be miserable as the rest of us.

I can forgive, but it's impossible to ignore the mob mindset of you people.
#115 | Posted by redlightrobot
Yeah, whatever. At least you always know where neanderthals like me stand. What's gotta be more hurtful is the "mob mindset" of liberals like yourself. Every where and every time gay marriage is on the ballot, it loses. Even in ObamaVilles like California and New York. It takes a gay judge to take the will of the people and toss it out the window, even when those people are liberals who pretend to be your friends.
I feel sorry for you. I would never physically threaten or harm you unless you posed an immediate threat to my family or me, so you're mistaken about that. But you're asking us to make cultural judgment calls on issues that have stood the test of time for millennia, and when the chips are down, the open-minded liberals go into their private voting booths and pull the lever the same exact way I do. Tell you what. Sell your story to those guys, first. If every American who was open-minded enough to send the first black American to the White House felt the same way about you and your minority group, gay marriage would be legal in every major city in America. So, why ain't it?
#118 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 03:51 PM

1. Don't insult Neanderthals, please.

2. You require 8 million from another fundamentalist organization to pass bigoted anti-gay "legislation". It's been successfully removed from the military with nothing but positive reactions. Your days are numbered.. in days.

3. Christian fundamentalists, just like Jew and Muslim, oppose gay marriage. Obama is one of those. He's basically a conservative Democrat, the best POTUS you fucks could have hoped for after the BushCo fiasco's, yet you still rail against him needlessly. You people are fools.

4. I accept your apology.

There is a social evolutionary requirement for sexual differentiation, not necessarily blindness - and I don't regret not passing my shitty eye mutations on.
#117 | Posted by redlightrobot
If there's an evolutionary requirement for it, then you would think nature would have allowed for homosexuals to breed their own kind. After all, the most salient fact of evolutionary biology is strengthening the species through reproduction of the most viable and necessary beings.
Gays are people, 100% human, and deserve all protection under the laws. God loves every single one of them. But when gays try to make the biological and genetic arguments, they wander out on some very thin ice, particularly when they also tend to believe in "reproductive choice". Do you also favor testing for the gay-gene, inter utero? Because there would be only one reason that geneticists would offer such a test. Do you approve, or not?
#119 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 03:56 PM

Dumbass, I'll put it quite simply - YOU have GAY genes.

There is a 10% chance that your firstborn male will be gay. It drops with second born, etc.

It's true for all species. GET OVER YOUR IGNORANCE OF NORMAL SEXUALITY.

LMAO. You don't even know about gay genetics. Researchers know that it's the last child, not the first, who runs a higher chance of being gay. Further, that the actual percentage is closer to 2%, as opposed to 10%. Across all mammals, that is. They haven't done enough studies on gay cockroaches or mollusks to be able to make generalizations the way you do, across the entire animal kingdom.

Godalmighty. You don't know anything.

I only know one gay couple and that is my cousin. Where would my kid go? First person would be my best friend. Second - my wife's brother. Thrid - the oldest of my 3 sisters. Second - the youngest of my 3 sisters. Where is my cousin past that? Probably low. Is it because she's gay? No... it's because I don't really know her. My daughter has never met her and there is no family connection to her. I talk to her on facebook a lot but she lives in the city and I'm in tbe burbs so we don't see each other much.

If there was a gay couple in my family/friends that my daughter had a connection to and that I thought was very stable and would be together for the long haul, would treat her as their own and protect her as strongly as I would.... damn right I'd ask them to take her if something happened ot me. The idea that gay people are incapable of raising a child is idiocy. It's a very different life the child will have but it can't be any worse that the fucked up all hetero family I grew up in.

Same bullshit for the anti-gay marriage people... why the hell do you care? They have just as much right to be miserable as the rest of us.

#121 | Posted by captjimmyjames

Oh. Well I apologize then, because from your post earlier, you kinda gave me the impression that you were close. At least you're close enough to be overjoyed over the fact that they had a baby. Well, kind of.

But whatever. I'm sure that if you had more gay friends, and you had any gay friends who were really stable, you would do the right thing and volunteer to have your daughter raised by them. Good thing for you you have all those other heteros in line first, just like all those liberal couples whose trust documents are in my office. Not a one of them--not one--is close enough to a gay couple so that is where the kids are heading. Not even the top 3.

But you're beating up on the Catholic Church, who sees the same thing? Okay . . . . real open-minded of you there. Ask your friends, then: how many of you have your kids going to live with gay couples if you die? I mean, everybody's more open minded on this stuff now, right? We all know gay people, have them as friends and relatives, Redlight says 1 male in 10 is gay. How come they're not godfathers?

It takes a gay judge to take the will of the people and toss it out the window, even when those people are liberals who pretend to be your friends.

The People are not always right which is why we don't actually live in a PURE Democracy.

It took the Supreme Court to take the will of the "people" and toss it out the window and correct centuries of Civil Rights abuses and declaring state segregation laws unconstitutional.

See Brown vs The Board of Education.

Congress and the Civil Rights Act did more than all the SC cases put together with respects to that. But, point taken. It's amusing to me when gay rights advocates use the history of civil rights to advance their cause. It drives the blacks absolutely crazy, the idea that school segregation and "separate but equal" is the same fight as gays who want to get married. You liberals should try to figure out a way to keep blacks from voting on the gay marriage issue. That would help your numbers in a big way.

LMAO. You don't even know about gay genetics. Researchers know that it's the last child, not the first, who runs a higher chance of being gay. Further, that the actual percentage is closer to 2%, as opposed to 10%. Across all mammals, that is. They haven't done enough studies on gay cockroaches or mollusks to be able to make generalizations the way you do, across the entire animal kingdom.
Godalmighty. You don't know anything.
#124 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 04:10 PM

"gay-interested"? Come on man, that's just fucking stupid word games.

How does porn confirm anything?

Don't get me wrong. I like fag jokes too. What's interesting is that the liberals who claim that it's a morally neutral lifestyle make the same jokes I do. If there's nothing about being a fag that's risible, why all the fag insults? What do gay people think, when they hear the people who pretend to support everything they want--liberals--insult other people by calling them gay? Weird. But funny. And I'm all too happy to keep them going.

#110 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 03:30 PM

Way to avoid the argument altogether.

I am certainly not a dr left winger, just the opposite in fact. And....

I AM FIRMLY FOR ADOPTION BY GAY COUPLES.

One of my daughter's best friend was finally adopted by a couple of ladies here in Pa. and she had a wonderful upbringing....after several disaterous placements. Her parents gave her much love and affection and she's now a happy heterosexual young adult with a masters degree in micro biology from Univ of california.

I knew some fags and they are mostly good people. Doesn't surprise me that many are reluctant to accept them as their equals. most are, get over it

Congress and the Civil Rights Act did more than all the SC cases put together with respects to that. But, point taken. It's amusing to me when gay rights advocates use the history of civil rights to advance their cause. It drives the blacks absolutely crazy, the idea that school segregation and "separate but equal" is the same fight as gays who want to get married. You liberals should try to figure out a way to keep blacks from voting on the gay marriage issue. That would help your numbers in a big way.
#127 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 04:37 PM

[snottily looking down glasses] Your ambivalence toward serious debate is more boring than amusing, but I'll give you points for mentioning other civil rights causes as "people driven crazy", exposing your actual pathetic externalized view. But you are merely following your heroes example, obeying the corruption that has hijacked otherwise rational minds.

The persecution of gays by the BushCo was unnecessary and invented a great big gap in our intelligence operations. You guys suck at assessing actual threats or dealing with your own homosexual baggage - as we've seen time and again drug abuse and self-loathing sexual deviants are rich in your wrinkled fundamentalist, no-bid corporate and pseudo-political organizations.

You might scare segments of the Black population into believing your crazy bullshit, but voting against best interests is a Republican forte; tithing to the neocon platter is a WMD that needs to be defused!

Jeff "Bulldog" Gannon, a non-journalist and professional top was snuck inside of the White House after hours for what purpose? To help Cheney delete visitor records? Because heterosexuals like homosexual sex? Btw - did Cheney raise his child to be gay by choice? Shouldn't he blame himself for not being a better parent, possibly locking himself inside of a man-sized safe with a grenade?

You disgusting fucks are unbelievable, now give us your children!:]

"gay-interested"? Come on man, that's just fucking stupid word games.
How does porn confirm anything?
#129 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2011-12-30 05:47 PM

Yeah, it's a great argument, I know. So many people access that stuff and before it's too late everyone is gay-friendly in the non-Biblical-Biblical sense. Terrifying!:]

I appears that there is a pattern of handedness and birth order.

One of my daughter's best friend was finally adopted by a couple of ladies here in Pa. and she had a wonderful upbringing....after several disaterous placements. Her parents gave her much love and affection and she's now a happy heterosexual young adult with a masters degree in micro biology from Univ of california.
I knew some fags and they are mostly good people. Doesn't surprise me that many are reluctant to accept them as their equals. most are, get over it
#132 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2011-12-30 06:11 PM

A heartening read. Thanks.

Oh, and we also gravitate toward sciences, which means we always have a place on the family Trivial Pursuit team.:]

Redlight, you are insane. Completely.

Redlight, you are insane. Completely.
#137 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-30 06:54 P

Oh, come off it. We're worthy of providing children families, just as straight couples. That's the fact, and we should all celebrate that the bigotry and hypocrisy stopped with this one Catholic organization - there are others who are not at odds with reality that can help the children.

Thou shall not commit adultery, that is everyone whom is having sexual relations outside of marriage.
So you have a problem with homosexuality, you have the same punishment as straight people who commit adultery.
Gods said "only he who overcomes, will eat from the tree of life" and "your desires have taken you away"

"I just don't think that forcing an organization to adopt to the gay couples when they are very clearly a religous organization is the right thing to do."

No one is forcing them to adopt out to gay couples. They are simply being told they're not going to get any taxpayer funds if they don't want to serve all taxpayers equally.

And since it is more important to Catholic Charities to uphold their religious standards than it is to continue serving under a new set of rules, they're folding their tent.

Which I think is ridiculous. Come on - this is the Catholic Church we're talking about here. It ain't like they never heard of homosexuality.

For those who support homosexuals, here is a story for you.
www.huffingtonpost.com|main5|d
l1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%
3D124026
#140 | Posted by rick1234567890 at 2011-12-30 08:58 PM

Right before his arrest, she said, he allegedly sent her a text message that read "Turning myself into the law, my life is over. Take care. Always love you."

It's unclear why Smith chose to alert authorities of his behavior at this time, but court documents suggest he has a history of mental illness which includes a recent admission to Pine Rest Christian Mental Health Services for threatening suicide. According to Michigan Live, hospital records say that Smith is "sexually aroused by causing pain to females."

Sounds like they're putting their "religious beliefs" above helping others. They're being so legalistic that they would rather children suffer than keep their doors open and include gays. I don't think Jesus would have approved.

#1 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

No--the Catholic charities are not going to take state money any longer to run their services. So they can run the services that they see fit to run.

No strings attached when they are not taking state money.

Are there going to be less charities in Illinois? Yes.

But if they continued the first gay to sue would put them out of business--so the end justifies the means.

Because that is a hyperbolic example, which would never happen. But yes- a Jewish Agency, Catholic, Gay, whatever. That way people would be more willing. Make a Catholic go to an agency that allows gay adoptions, and they might decide against adopting.

And that's the state's fault because these people who are supposedly interested in helping a child are afraid he's got gay on him from the adoption agency?

How about this-people who oppose wars shouldn't have to pay taxes to support those wars? Atheists should be able to proclaim their homes non-religious institutions and get the same tax break as a church?

"How about this-people who oppose wars shouldn't have to pay taxes to support those wars? Atheists should be able to proclaim their homes non-religious institutions and get the same tax break as a church?"

Better yet: gays should be allowed to pay lower tax rates commensurate to their lower participation allowance.

The state said the Catholics would have to accept something their religion forbids or lose state money. Without state money, they had to shutter their doors. I'm not sure what the problem is here. Things are what they are, actions have consequences.

#125 RiR:

I can certainly be very happy for my cousin that she's living the life she wanted and it's working out for her and her partner and not be really close to her.

Would you write up your will to have your child go live with someone you've just started to get to know again? I hadn't seen her for 20+ years... but now I'm a hypocrit because I'm not ready to sign my kid over to her?

Here's a question.... how many of your Gay clients with kids are putting them with gay couples if something happens? How many are putting them with straight couples if somethig happens?

I don't have any close gay friends anymore. I used to ... and the ones I had heavily abused drugs and were with a new guy/girl every other week. I wouldn't give my child to a straight couple/person that lived a life like that either. I don't avoid gay people... I have just not been aquainted with a gay person, other than my current boss, since I moved away from Denver over 7 years ago.

So your accusatory situational really holds no water for me. I can not exclude my cousin as ever being the person I'd send my child to but why would I put her above my best friend who my child reffers to as "uncle" and who has grown up with and who I trust with my own life and that of my child. Suddenly I am a hypocrit or I'm unqualified to speak on this topic because I wouldn't choose my gay cousin who is no where near as close to me or my daughter as my best friend? Your logic is totally irrational and expects people to drop everyone else in their lives for "the gay friend/realtive".

"Judge not does however. As does "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Get your own family straight before telling others how to raise their kids."

The two most misused quotes of Jesus, Kanrei. The first is NOT a command to stop judging, but a caution as to HOW to judge. The words following are 'for by what standard you judge, so shall you be judged.' It is a reference to judging as Pilate did, to be judged well himself by the roaring crowd.
The second quote was also followed by the words 'go, and sin no more.' It hardly condones any behavior as okay.
Nice try, though. Happy new year!

"No--the Catholic charities are not going to take state money any longer to run their services. So they can run the services that they see fit to run. No strings attached when they are not taking state money."

Read the article, Murph. The money has nothing to do with it. State regulations forbid them to broker any adoptions whatsoever if they do not cater to gay couples. It's not the funding. It is the regulation that applies to any adoption agency whether it gets state support or not.

"State regulations forbid them to broker any adoptions whatsoever if they do not cater to all couples."

FTFY.

This just shows where the Catholic church's priorities lie.

Helping people has always been less important than propagating their antiquated superstitions.

So your accusatory situational really holds no water for me. I can not exclude my cousin as ever being the person I'd send my child to but why would I put her above my best friend who my child reffers to as "uncle" and who has grown up with and who I trust with my own life and that of my child. Suddenly I am a hypocrit or I'm unqualified to speak on this topic because I wouldn't choose my gay cousin who is no where near as close to me or my daughter as my best friend? Your logic is totally irrational and expects people to drop everyone else in their lives for "the gay friend/realtive".

#147 | Posted by captjimmyjames

I'm not saying you're a hypocrite. On the contrary, you're completely normal. Your cousin lives in the city, you in the suburbs, you haven't seen in each other in other 20 years except on Facebook, and you want to pretend it's because the two of you don't have wildly divergent lifestyles. Furthermore, you say you don't know any gay couples yourself, but still have no trouble weighing in on whether or not being raised in such an environment is healthy or not.

Nope. You're just typical. Gay rights for everyone! Let them adopt kids! Just not yours. Because you don't know any of them well enough to say that it would be a good idea. All those gays around. Millions of them. And the only one you're even remotely familiar with is your cousin you haven't seen since the first Bush administration.

So your accusatory situational really holds no water for me. I can not exclude my cousin as ever being the person I'd send my child to but why would I put her above my best friend who my child reffers to as "uncle" and who has grown up with and who I trust with my own life and that of my child. Suddenly I am a hypocrit or I'm unqualified to speak on this topic because I wouldn't choose my gay cousin who is no where near as close to me or my daughter as my best friend? Your logic is totally irrational and expects people to drop everyone else in their lives for "the gay friend/realtive".
#147 | Posted by captjimmyjames
I'm not saying you're a hypocrite. On the contrary, you're completely normal. Your cousin lives in the city, you in the suburbs, you haven't seen in each other in other 20 years except on Facebook, and you want to pretend it's because the two of you don't have wildly divergent lifestyles. Furthermore, you say you don't know any gay couples yourself, but still have no trouble weighing in on whether or not being raised in such an environment is healthy or not.
Nope. You're just typical. Gay rights for everyone! Let them adopt kids! Just not yours. Because you don't know any of them well enough to say that it would be a good idea. All those gays around. Millions of them. And the only one you're even remotely familiar with is your cousin you haven't seen since the first Bush administration.
#152 | Posted by rightisright at 2011-12-31 03:48 PM

So, you are stating that you know a gay couple? Personally?

Remember the difficult conversion - 1 in 10 is gay, making 10% couples gay. Therefore, you could simply consider every tenth house ineligible parents. That seems about as arbitrary as the reasoning you use.

We've only been permitted in public recently, as couples even more recently - as adoptive parents yet more recent still. It's still not legal for us to be couples in many States.

From what I understand, back in the day they used to refer to us as "confirmed bachelors", implying we spend our lifetime alone. Why is that? Would that be an acceptable way to treat anyone? Perhaps the persecution stigma of "homosexual" would a) lose your apartment, b) lose your friends and family, c) put you in jail, d) get you killed in an ugly way, e) all of the above. So, we've gotten nothing but the best treatment from ya'll, and make no mistake - we intend on stopping that cycle. There's your "gay agenda".

Oh, and let's hear your take on Jeff Gannon, since your such a softy for Bush.

Helping people has always been less important than propagating their antiquated superstitions.

#151 | Posted by Dr_Icepick

So what you're saying is that these charities only caters to catholics? Or perhaps they should have absolutely no concern for where and how the children in their care are placed? It might surprise you, but the Catholic Church's doctrine proscribes the homosexual lifestyle, despite the fact that a child is many times more likely to be molested by a Catholic Priest than his gay mom/dad. Maybe the Catholic Church in your opinion should pick and choose the consistency in which it complies with it's own doctrine?

The answer quite simply is that it is common sense for the Church to restrict its adoption process to heterosexual couples, because the view of the church is that homosexuality is contrary to God's design. There is nothing superstitious in morality. Because it is age-old doesnt make it outdated either.

I spoke with my grandmothers priest, and he was one of the most down to earth and logical people I have ever talked to on matters of religion. He has none of the hocus pocus and mystical nonsense that you would assume the Catholic Church espouses by reading a Dan Brown book or watching "The Exorcist." Im far from sympathetic to the Church, especially after the molestation scandals, but this is one area where the state is screwing up.

This is not only about homosexual adoptions. If Catholic adoption agencies agree to work with unmarried gay couples, then they have to work with unmarried straight couples. Catholic Charities does not do adoptions with unmarried couples, straight or gay. They work only with married opposite sex couples. Unmarried couples, straight or gay, are referred to other agencies.

There have been Catholic adoption agencies for more than a century. During that time -- and for hundreds of years before -- having a married father and mother in the home was almost universally regarded as the best situation for a child, as each gender offers a unique kind of life experience to the child. In other words, having a father and a mother is not the same as having two fathers or two mothers, and the absence of one gender is a loss to the child. In addition, the married relationship between opposite-sex parents provides a model for the child, who eventually will most likely be in the same kind of relationship.

Today, for those on the left that kind of thinking is intolerable, and the primary concern is not what's best for the child but what pleases the adults. And whether or not the church is right or wrong about what is best for the child, at least their concern IS what's best for the child. The concern for the left and the State is using the law to normalize homosexual relationships, to promote the idea that homosexual relationships are fundamentally not different from heterosexual relationships, and to make homosexuals feel good about themselves. And the left and the State are happy to employ children as unwitting research subjects in this grand social experiment.

This is not about bigotry against homosexuals. It's just that, all things being equal, a homosexual couple cannot provide the same quality of upbringing that a heterosexual couple can. That doesn't mean that homosexual couples can't make good parents; it just means that as a matter of policy, it makes moral and psychological sense for adoption agencies to work only with married heterosexual couples.

Helping people has always been less important than propagating their antiquated superstitions.
#151 | Posted by Dr_Icepick
So what you're saying is that these charities only caters to catholics? Or perhaps they should have absolutely no concern for where and how the children in their care are placed? It might surprise you, but the Catholic Church's doctrine proscribes the homosexual lifestyle, despite the fact that a child is many times more likely to be molested by a Catholic Priest than his gay mom/dad. Maybe the Catholic Church in your opinion should pick and choose the consistency in which it complies with it's own doctrine?
The answer quite simply is that it is common sense for the Church to restrict its adoption process to heterosexual couples, because the view of the church is that homosexuality is contrary to God's design. There is nothing superstitious in morality. Because it is age-old doesnt make it outdated either.
#155 | Posted by americanPLY at 2011-12-31 06:11 PM
I spoke with my grandmothers priest, and he was one of the most down to earth and logical people I have ever talked to on matters of religion. He has none of the hocus pocus and mystical nonsense that you would assume the Catholic Church espouses by reading a Dan Brown book or watching "The Exorcist." Im far from sympathetic to the Church, especially after the molestation scandals, but this is one area where the state is screwing up.
#156 | Posted by americanPLY at 2011-12-31 06:17 PM

So what was his reason? A design seen from one perspective alone.

The actual perfection is how adaptable humans are - and that no matter how White (capitalized as proxy for specific like-"nationality" to save time), straight and faithful does not measure how Godly one actually is. Psychological analysis and perhaps medical profiling could help identify the best candidates, but if you ignore that sexuality does include homosexuality - which 10% of these kids are, you could be placing gay kids in unloving, religiously persecutorial "homes". That should weigh heavy, but as I intimated, either one is or isn't.

It's the hypocrisy that really grates. Adults, religious or not should know this is unmitigated bigotry because it is plain to see. Catholics who believe in equality for all of us need to insist their houses of worship end the bigotry.

This is not only about homosexual adoptions. If Catholic adoption agencies agree to work with unmarried gay couples, then they have to work with unmarried straight couples. Catholic Charities does not do adoptions with unmarried couples, straight or gay. They work only with married opposite sex couples. Unmarried couples, straight or gay, are referred to other agencies.
There have been Catholic adoption agencies for more than a century. During that time -- and for hundreds of years before -- having a married father and mother in the home was almost universally regarded as the best situation for a child, as each gender offers a unique kind of life experience to the child. In other words, having a father and a mother is not the same as having two fathers or two mothers, and the absence of one gender is a loss to the child. In addition, the married relationship between opposite-sex parents provides a model for the child, who eventually will most likely be in the same kind of relationship.
Today, for those on the left that kind of thinking is intolerable, and the primary concern is not what's best for the child but what pleases the adults. And whether or not the church is right or wrong about what is best for the child, at least their concern IS what's best for the child. The concern for the left and the State is using the law to normalize homosexual relationships, to promote the idea that homosexual relationships are fundamentally not different from heterosexual relationships, and to make homosexuals feel good about themselves. And the left and the State are happy to employ children as unwitting research subjects in this grand social experiment.
This is not about bigotry against homosexuals. It's just that, all things being equal, a homosexual couple cannot provide the same quality of upbringing that a heterosexual couple can. That doesn't mean that homosexual couples can't make good parents; it just means that as a matter of policy, it makes moral and psychological sense for adoption agencies to work only with married heterosexual couples.
#157 | Posted by Big_Jim at 2011-12-31 08:48 PM

I was totally enjoying the read until you start in with "Libbies think this and that" bitching. It's stupid, and it looks like a cut and paste meme. I don't want your opinion if you haven't experienced something oppressive from a liberal. Be specific!

Homosexuals make good parents. Do you realize that homosexual parents were once homosexual children?

Also, because the majority of abandoned children are homosexual they are probably going to have a better chance with a caring family. One that doesn't consider them "defective".

You could just look at it this way - one out of ten humans is gay, and that magic ratio has been nearly consistent in every culture, every place, throughout time.

RedLight wites: "I was totally enjoying the read until you start in with "Libbies think this and that" bitching."

It's not bitching. It is what I have seen time and again. It is a particular worldview held by people who typically are on the left of the political spectrum. In this worldview all relationships -- married, unmarried, gay, straight -- are equally suited to child rearing. In this worldview the main concern is about the feelings and happiness of the adults, not about the welfare of the children. It is a worldview that I disagree with.

RedLight: "You could just look at it this way - one out of ten humans is gay, and that magic ratio has been nearly consistent in every culture, every place, throughout time."

I think it is more like 2 or 3 out of a hundred. Whatever it is, Catholic adoption agencies can refer couples to agencies that deal with same-sex or unmarried couples. There was no need for the State to try to force Catholic agencies into handling adoptions that they don't believe are in the best interests of the child.

Just like some people thought it was ok to only serve whites at certain restaurants. Separate but equal does not work. Equal rights for all.

RiR:

I'd keep going in circles like this with you but you make many assumptions on my part. Unfortunatly anything I say you'll turn into some kind of, "Yer a normal bigot" statement. And since I don't really feel like spilling my life story here to make sense of things I guess we'll stop here. :/

RedLight wites: "I was totally enjoying the read until you start in with "Libbies think this and that" bitching."
It's not bitching. It is what I have seen time and again. It is a particular worldview held by people who typically are on the left of the political spectrum. In this worldview all relationships -- married, unmarried, gay, straight -- are equally suited to child rearing. In this worldview the main concern is about the feelings and happiness of the adults, not about the welfare of the children. It is a worldview that I disagree with.

Haven't I been emphasizing the "match" part? That requires deeper consideration than simply "insert tab into slot A to proceed". I want to you appreciate that we're just as suitable as any other willing couple. Doesn't that justify Lefties as possibly more discriminating than Righties?

RedLight: "You could just look at it this way - one out of ten humans is gay, and that magic ratio has been nearly consistent in every culture, every place, throughout time."
I think it is more like 2 or 3 out of a hundred. Whatever it is, Catholic adoption agencies can refer couples to agencies that deal with same-sex or unmarried couples. There was no need for the State to try to force Catholic agencies into handling adoptions that they don't believe are in the best interests of the child.
#160 | Posted by Big_Jim at 2011-12-31 10:24 PM

So, they are quoting from scripture, restricting same-sex couples from adopting? Or, is it because gays are unworthy in general? Even when we're willing parents, we're still soulless monstrosities. That's great.

to make Christians do things against their beliefs

#2 | Posted by Diablo at 2011-12-30 11:04 AM

Christians are supposed to care about meeting the needs of others more than their stupid rules. You are what's wrong with Christianity, you put legalism above helping people. If you believe the stories, Jesus hung out with theives, prostitutes, and other unsavory types, because his legalism wasn't on his mind; his love of others and meeting their needs dominated his thoughts.

As the most holiest of Christians, I say that you are a cunt, a cum stain, and a fucking slut.

#45 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2011-12-30 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

LoD, you couldn't be more incorrect.

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. (where Christians get their beliefs.).

He that knows to do right, but does not do it; to him it is sin. (Christians must follow those beliefs.)

The soul that sins shall die. (The penalty for not following those beliefs.)

So, to compel Christians to violate their beliefs is to compel us to violate our new nature (every man in Christ is a new creature) and our relationship with God. Genuine Christians refuse to do this; many have been martyred throughout history for it.

We keep this in view: "11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. (Revelation 20)

Psychological analysis and perhaps medical profiling could help identify the best candidates, but if you ignore that sexuality does include homosexuality - which 10% of these kids are, you could be placing gay kids in unloving, religiously persecutorial "homes". That should weigh heavy, but as I intimated, either one is or isn't.

It's the hypocrisy that really grates. Adults, religious or not should know this is unmitigated bigotry because it is plain to see. Catholics who believe in equality for all of us need to insist their houses of worship end the bigotry.

#158 | Posted by redlightrobot

They are quite far from hypocritical in this regard, because they are being consistent in their approach. It has been the churches teaching to love the sinner and hate the sin. It is also a mistake to assume that this 10% figure is accurate. These children may or may not grow up to be homosexual, but to deal with them as though they may or may not live in a household that you assume doesnt meet their emotional needs is wrong. You assume that children shouldnt be taught to live a morally correct lifestyle. According to the church active homosexuals are not morally correct. It isnt bigotry to say that living an active gay lifestyle is immoral, it's common sense for the Catholic Church, because sexual immorality was on the list for things that Christ proscribed. Just because you feel that they are bigoted doesnt make them so, and they certainly arent hypocrites.

Raising children is more than showing them love. Raising children means teaching them right from wrong, and giving them a clear understanding of what it means to be a good person.

Active homosexuality is synonymous with sexual indiscretion. The Church (in support of Christ's teachings) states that we are to abstain from sex until we marry, (a person of the opposite gender) and then have sex only with her/him. By marrying, we earn the right to be sexual. If people followed this very basic teaching, an entire category of disease would be eliminated, and a great deal of anguish would be avoided. While I certainly cannot claim to have adhered to this, I understand the wisdom of it. I am not going to glorify a destructive practice. It certainly shouldnt be taught to young, impressionable children.

sexuality is synonymous with sexual indiscretion

Since the beginning of time.

If people followed this very basic teaching, an entire category of disease would be eliminated, and a great deal of anguish would be avoided.

If nobody cheated we could eliminate all STIs?

Well "eliminate" goes a bit far but it would certainly help to lower the infection rates for everybody.

I am not going to glorify a destructive practice. It certainly shouldnt be taught to young, impressionable children.

What destructive practice are you talking about?

If you said "sexual indiscretion" you'd be correct.

If you said "homosexuality" you'd be wrong.

Ya know what Spud considers an unacceptable destructive practice?

Teaching hate and intolerance to young impressionable children.

Be Well.

Where in this whole thing does teaching hate and intolerance to kids come into play? Answer is that it doesnt. Keeping a child's best interests in heart matter more than this insane idea that everyone everywhere is equal. There are lifestyles that simply are not compatible with certain activities. With the gay, it's raising kids. If you can't attract someone of the opposite sex, you have no business having kids. A law of nature.

...but before you accuse me of being bigoted understand that there are many lifestyles unsuitable for raising kids. Single women should not be having children (and excluding a father figure from their child's lives) irresponsible people should not be having children. Workaholics should not be having children. People in bad marriages should not be having children. It's only too simple and too correct to have children unless you first and foremost have a stabile home life and the competency to do it, I think that many people here agree with that. You also have to be able to provide a good example to that child, and give the child a normal household. Two mothers or two fathers is not normal. Just because the child doesnt grow up to be a serial killer or a drug dealer doesnt mean that he/she had an optimal upbringing.

#158 | Posted by redlightrobot
They are quite far from hypocritical in this regard, because they are being consistent in their approach. It has been the churches teaching to love the sinner and hate the sin. It is also a mistake to assume that this 10% figure is accurate. These children may or may not grow up to be homosexual, but to deal with them as though they may or may not live in a household that you assume doesnt meet their emotional needs is wrong. You assume that children shouldnt be taught to live a morally correct lifestyle. According to the church active homosexuals are not morally correct. It isnt bigotry to say that living an active gay lifestyle is immoral, it's common sense for the Catholic Church, because sexual immorality was on the list for things that Christ proscribed. Just because you feel that they are bigoted doesnt make them so, and they certainly arent hypocrites.
Raising children is more than showing them love. Raising children means teaching them right from wrong, and giving them a clear understanding of what it means to be a good person.
#165 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-01-01 04:34 PM
Active homosexuality is synonymous with sexual indiscretion. The Church (in support of Christ's teachings) states that we are to abstain from sex until we marry, (a person of the opposite gender) and then have sex only with her/him. By marrying, we earn the right to be sexual. If people followed this very basic teaching, an entire category of disease would be eliminated, and a great deal of anguish would be avoided. While I certainly cannot claim to have adhered to this, I understand the wisdom of it. I am not going to glorify a destructive practice. It certainly shouldnt be taught to young, impressionable children.
#166 | Posted by americanPLY at 2012-01-01 04:40 PM

The "most basic teaching" might equate that Adam would have had to have sex with his own daughters to procreate the human species, and so forth. It would appear that on occasion Biblical interpretation believed to be correct, moral and true are in fact perverted, unwholesome and retarded. Homosexual or heterosexual, the parents should be evaluated based on their ability to provide a good match.

One can only assume how difficult and perpetually embarrassing the pedophile priest issue is to deal with nation after nation, all across the fucking globe - these are adults, both sexualities from what it appears. It still leaves me with a sense of hypocrisy that an institution of obviously sexual adults condemns others for their sexuality.

Anyhow, this is a contributing factor why fundamentalism withers wherever society allows it's stranglehold to take - and another church shutters it's shame.

Moving on past the inherent contradictions in the Catholic church protesting against anything on moral grounds the church says it only has two options.

To accept the state's laws on discrimination and take the state's money to run their charities or, being unable to accept those laws on doctrinal grounds, close down the charities.

They have a third option which they may or may not have considered, keep the charities open using their own money and stick to their doctrinal beliefs.

They may not have the money to do so, of course, after so much of it has been used up in litigation on other matters of a non-doctrinal nature.