Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Scott C.]

A birth parent has the right to seek out someone based on whatever criteria they want and privately arrange the adoption themselves. They don't have the right to involve a caseworker or adoption agency in religious discrimination.

I'm glad we agree that the birth parent has the right to choose and to use an attorney. But that takes us back to the rights of a church to be licensed to perform adoptions. The parent should be able to go to their church agency, so the church can help them in their search for qualified candidates of their faith.

 

[Scott C.]

Ok, how did this also turn into a discussion about Jesus and parenting?

Not sure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm glad we agree that the birth parent has the right to choose and to use an attorney. But that takes us back to the rights of a church to be licensed to perform adoptions. The parent should be able to go to their church agency, so the church can help them in their search for qualified candidates of their faith.

And I completely disagree with special treatment for churches in this regard. If a church (or church-affiliated agency) pursues licensing as an adoption agency, then they should meet all the same requirements and be held to the same standards as a secular adoption agency would. If they see helping society by finding homes for orphans as a "ministry" they want to pursue, fine... but if their primary goal is to "search for qualified candidates of their faith", then their primary goal is not to search for the best parents for the children they're responsible for, which should be the primary goal of any adoption agency.

 

[Scott C.]

And I completely disagree with special treatment for churches in this regard. If a church (or church-affiliated agency) pursues licensing as an adoption agency, then they should meet all the same requirements and be held to the same standards as a secular adoption agency would. If they see helping society by finding homes for orphans as a "ministry" they want to pursue, fine... but if their primary goal is to "search for qualified candidates of their faith", then their primary goal is not to search for the best parents for the children they're responsible for, which should be the primary goal of any adoption agency.

I don't know why you don't recognize that within any religious faith pool (unless the pool is too small), there are great candidates for parenthood. A placement professional can find many great parents, but it's not possible to identify the very best. There are too many factors in effective parenting that can't be measured through the vetting process. Only time will demonstrate the degree of love, time, attention and selflessness that a parent will provide the child. The professional can do a good job, but not that good.

 

[JoStories]

That is human behaviour not human rights. Our society have determined that homosexuals should have the same rights as anybody else, and I, for one, agree with that. If people then disobey that law then they should be reported. That people do not accept homosexuality is an indicator that it is still not considered to be normal. You cannot make people accept something if they feel it is unacceptable, even if the human rights act determines that you should.

There are still plenty of people who are serious racists and believe all African Americans should be sent back to Africa or sent back as food for the hungry. This is evinced by the presence of the KKK and NeoNazi movement here. And the later group also feels that all Jews should be placed in internment camps or placed in a gas chamber as Hitler and his idiots did. Are you fine with that too, because as you say, people who believe this "is an indicator that it is not considered to be normal". Is that fine with you as well? Or is your prejudice so specific as to be ONLY about the one group?

 

[JoStories]

1. In order to receive the testimony of the Holy Ghost one must be living as righteously as possible.

That is blatantly untrue. I know a few people who were lost and one man, who was a serious alcoholic and living on the street, stealing what he could. He came into a church I was a member of at that time, and yes, it was Christian. We did not turn him away and he approached the altar and was completely transformed. Literally. So your thinking that God would only speak to those who are 'living as righteously as possible" is absolutely untrue.

 

[JoStories]

You have to attain a certain level of righteousness in order for the Holy Ghost to communicate with you. It would seem obviously that you have never reached that level.

5. You have obviously never received the testimony of the Spirit of God, which makes you unqualified to past judgement.

Again, totally untrue. And speak of the absolute arrogance of you speaking on behalf of God. You need to reread that Bible of yours.

 

[JoStories]

The key is "when they sign off". Prior to sign off they have the right to specify where the child will go. The agency and the parent should come to an agreement. Then the parent "signs off" and turns the child over, in good faith that the agency will keep it's word.

No, actually, they do not. Once a woman makes the decision to relinquish her child, she has effectively terminated her rights to that child completely. She has NO right to know who the parents are, with the exception of an open adoption where the birth mother is involved in the child's life, and no rights to say how the child will be brought up, which race the child may go to or any other factor.

 

[JoStories]

Is it? Are you stating that homosexuals are born that way so they have no control of who they are. Are you suggesting that God created gays and then inserted a piece in the Bible making it a sin?

No, I suspect that sojourner is saying that man wrote the Bible and in that, he would be correct. And yes, gays are born gay. I know this from personal experience. If the Bible were truly the word of God, there would not be mistakes contained in it. And yet, there they are.

 

[JoStories]

Shall I go back and repost all the insulting things you've said to and about me? I believe I've done that before; it's all there for the public to see. And you lecture me about how Christians are "supposed to speak?" You're fooling no one here. Everyone who has kept up with the thread has seen your insulting remarks that you have brushed off and explained away.

You are, of course, correct in that dear one. He has insulted and been rude to many people here, including me. So I stand by you and have your back. Kiss Kiss

 

[Serenity7855]

There are still plenty of people who are serious racists and believe all African Americans should be sent back to Africa or sent back as food for the hungry. This is evinced by the presence of the KKK and NeoNazi movement here. And the later group also feels that all Jews should be placed in internment camps or placed in a gas chamber as Hitler and his idiots did. Are you fine with that too, because as you say, people who believe this "is an indicator that it is not considered to be normal". Is that fine with you as well? Or is your prejudice so specific as to be ONLY about the one group?

Why would you think I am fine with it. I have no prejudices. That is your opinion, tainted by your dislike for those who do not share the same opinion as you.

 

[Serenity7855]

You are, of course, correct in that dear one. He has insulted and been rude to many people here, including me. So I stand by you and have your back. Kiss Kiss

How strange is this? We used to gang up on kids we didn't like when we were kids.

 

[Serenity7855]

No, I suspect that sojourner is saying that man wrote the Bible and in that, he would be correct. And yes, gays are born gay. I know this from personal experience. If the Bible were truly the word of God, there would not be mistakes contained in it. And yet, there they are.

If you have evidence that gays are born that way you might want to give it to those scientist doing the research as they are still looking.

So, you think you were born gay, which explains your dislike of Christianity and your false allegation against me accusing me of insulting other poster, said without any remorse or guilt for your lies.

There are no mistakes in the Bible there are just those who do not read with the spirit or fail to interpret it right. You are obviously one of these people because you doubt that the Bible is the word of God, again, another indicator as to why you are no longer a Christian.

 

[Serenity7855]

Again, totally untrue. And speak of the absolute arrogance of you speaking on behalf of God. You need to reread that Bible of yours.

Right, I am now arrogant, OK. And you accuse me of insulting other posters thou hypocrite.

I am constantly reading the Bible. Were you not doing that as a Christian, that to would explain much

 

[Serenity7855]

That is blatantly untrue. I know a few people who were lost and one man, who was a serious alcoholic and living on the street, stealing what he could. He came into a church I was a member of at that time, and yes, it was Christian. We did not turn him away and he approached the altar and was completely transformed. Literally. So your thinking that God would only speak to those who are 'living as righteously as possible" is absolutely untrue.

If you knew anything about Christianity you would know that we do not cast our pearl before swine. You feed a baby with milk before meat. Unless you are fully prepared to receive the spirit of God, including your worthiness, then he will not fully manifest himself to you. I do not care who went up to the alter and what you think happened, I am talking about fundamental principles of the Gospel that you are trying to change. But what intrigues me is why you would leave the Christian faith after witnessing such an even?. If you think it untrue then why leave the faith? Tell me, are you lost because even after witnessing a miracle you still turned you back on God. How will you justify that on judgement day?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know why you don't recognize that within any religious faith pool (unless the pool is too small), there are great candidates for parenthood. A placement professional can find many great parents, but it's not possible to identify the very best. There are too many factors in effective parenting that can't be measured through the vetting process. Only time will demonstrate the degree of love, time, attention and selflessness that a parent will provide the child. The professional can do a good job, but not that good.

Assuring me that a discriminatory approach will allow the agency to find candidates that are "good enough".

You won't find me claiming that candidate screening and matching methods are perfect, but there's quite a gap between "not perfect" and "so unreliable we should just disregard the results."

Not only that, but having a set, rigorous process, even if it's imperfect, helps by reducing differences in subjective judgement and reducing opportunities for corruption in the process.

So... you're really talking about removing safeguards from the process and choosing parents who don't score as "best" (since any scoring system is too imprecise to rely upon), all to allow religious discrimination in the process.

... and you still think this is ethical?

 

[Scott C.]

No, actually, they do not. Once a woman makes the decision to relinquish her child, she has effectively terminated her rights to that child completely. She has NO right to know who the parents are, with the exception of an open adoption where the birth mother is involved in the child's life, and no rights to say how the child will be brought up, which race the child may go to or any other factor.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this. Regardless of what laws, practices, or policies are in place now, the birth mother should have a say in where the child is placed, if she wants.

 

[sojourner]

Look, I am not going to contend with you on this one.

Good! Then stop your insults, stop derailing the thread, and let's get back to the topic at hand.

I just knew that you were going to insult the Mormons. You cannot stop your hostility, can you?

YOU were the one who first insinuated that 1) I do not have an experience of Spirit, 2) my call is not valid, 3) my church is not real, 4) I don't know what I'm talking about with regard to the bible. If YOU hadn't done that, I wouldn't have retaliated in kind. I did so, not because I don't respect the LDS, but because I don't respect the embedded entitlement I find in that mind set that you so aptly parrot here:

Yes He gave them authority, which was taken from the earth at the death of the last Apostle. It was never conferred onto anybody else. The term apostasy means turning away from the truth. The Great Apostasy, as it is called now, was more than that. With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys, or the presiding priesthood authority, were taken from the earth. Without these watchmen—the Apostles who had kept the doctrines of the gospel pure and who maintained the order and standard of worthiness in the Church—the members faced serious challenges. Over time doctrines were corrupted and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances.

The Apostles were killed during a time when the entire Church was being persecuted. Nero, a Roman emperor, was the first to make laws to exterminate Christians, in about A.D. 65. Under his reign, thousands were cruelly killed. A second round of persecutions began in about A.D. 93 under Emperor Domitian. Succeeding emperors continued torturing and killing Christians. As a result of these persecutions, thousands of Christians were martyred. Many others apostatized.

In about A.D. 324 Constantine became the emperor of the Roman Empire. He made Christianity a legal religion, stopping centuries of persecution. His actions linked the church to the government, and corrupt church leaders began seeking power and the honors of the world.

Teachers within the church began to adopt false religious concepts from Greek philosophy and pagan religions. False ordinances and ceremonies were also introduced. Even though the church still taught some truth, the true Church of Christ and the priesthood were no longer on the earth. And as Christianity spread to various parts of the world—including to Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas—new churches were formed and grew. None of these churches, however, was the true Church, since the Lord had already taken priesthood authority and priesthood keys from the earth.

Whether you believe in a very exclusionary mutation of Christianity, the rest of us do not. We'd rather build up the body of Christ, serving and working together toward the betterment of creation and humanity.

Fact: I am a recognized, duly ordained member of the clergy, recognized by many denominations.
Fact: I am seminary trained, recognized and fully accredited. (That means that I can use big words here if I want to, and feel that they better convey my thoughts.)
Fact: As many (including LDS) members here will attest, I am extremely ecumenical, and have defended Mormonism many times.

If you don't recognize the authority by which I am who I am, that's your problem, not mine. I'm going to say "I'm sorry." Not to you, because, if you remain true to your posting history, you'd just throw it back in my face and turn it into something of sinister intent. No, I'm sorry that you sucked me in, causing me to behave as you do -- in a way that shames me. So, I shall, instead, apologize to the other members here, who've had to put up with this dreadful exchange.

 

[sojourner]

Wait....how does a thread about the mormon action on this turn into a post about Jesus and the christian god?

It doesn't. This is me being stoopid and getting sucked in by someone who's trolling. Apologies to you.

 

[sojourner]

The agency can do a background check and interviews to make sure that the couple doesn't have something that makes them unsuitable.

Gayness is not "unsuitable" for parenting -- no matter what one's prehistoric doctrine says.