Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[sojourner]

I hope you do not mind, but I was looking for an answer from the person that I posted to, unless that poster has given you permission to speak on her behalf as one of those you protec and care for

This is an open forum. If you wish to carry on a private conversation, take it to a PM. Otherwise, I'm free to comment. So, yes, I do, in fact, mind.

 

[sojourner]

I hope you do not mind, but I was looking for an answer from the person that I posted to, unless that poster has given you permission to speak on her behalf as one of those you protec and care for

This is an open forum. If you wish to carry on a private conversation, take it to a PM. Otherwise, I'm free to comment. So, yes, I do, in fact, mind.

 

[sojourner]

Which law states that they have to give children to prospective homosexual parents?

That's what we're trying to establish -- laws that make illegal the discrimination against homosexuals, based on their orientation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Catholic Charities USA (an affiliate of the Catholic Church) is a fully licensed Child Placing Agency.

You have been misinformed.

The National Conference of Catholic Charities (later named Catholic Charities USA) was formed in 1910 to better help impoverished Catholic immigrants from Europe. Approximately one half of Catholics in the U.S. at that time (~7.5 million) lived in poverty.

Before then each parish had their own independent charity programs which were unable to take on such an enormous task. This conference was held because they believed that if they united their efforts that they could do more for the people. They were right.

You have been misinformed.


Access to Catholic Charities USA adoption services requires no faith commitment.

You have been misinformed.



Adoption laws and restrictions are mostly decided by the State. Adoption agencies can reject prospective parents for a variety of reasons (depending on which State they are in) which can include the age of the prospective parents and if one or both of the prospective parents have a disability.

The U.S. Constitution does not provide a fundamental right to adopt. You should read up on the Lindley v. Sullivan case. It clarifies a lot about Adoption Law. I will quote a couple portions,

"Because of its statutory basis, adoption differs from natural procreation in a most important and striking way. See Smith, 431 U.S. at 846, 97 S.Ct. at 2110-11. Adoption always involves the weighing and balancing of many competing interests. The rights of a couple to adopt must be reconciled with the state's interest in protecting the existing rights of the natural parents, as well as in securing ultimately the welfare of the child."

"Among the factors a court must consider in determining whether the proposed adoption is in the child's best interest are the religious belief of the adopters and adoptee, as well as the physical and mental health of all individuals involved and the background, race, ethnic heritage, behavior, age and living arrangements of the adopters."

"Because the adoption process is entirely conditioned upon the combination of so many variables, we are constrained to conclude that there isno fundamental right to adopt. We also decline to find that the interest in adopting a child falls within the marital privacy right, since the statute requires adopters to submit their personal lives to intensive scrutiny before the adoption may be approved. Thus, we can find neither a fundamental right nor a privacy interest in adopting a child." (Italics and bold added)

http://openjurist.org/889/f2d/124/lindley-for-lindley-v-w-sullivan-md

You can argue that an adoption agency that rejects prospective homosexual parents is guilty of discrimination, but you would have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the sole reason for the rejection was based on the couple’s sexual orientation.

Considering that the adoption process is “entirely conditioned upon the combination of so many variables”, which includes the religious views of the birth parents and the child, it would be very difficult to prove that a homosexual couple was rejected based on their sexual orientation and not based on religious preferences.

Also, you would still need to consider the “child’s best interest” which is obviously vague in interpretation and depth, but would still need to include “the religious belief of the adopters and adoptee”.

Considering that the U.S. does not consider adoption to be a basic human right, I think it would be pretty hard for you or anyone to prove discrimination.

These situations are not as “cut and dry” as you propose.



You do not have the authority to declare that the Catholic Church’s (or anyone’s) beliefs are “outdated”.

You have also been placed in a contradiction because you claim that the Catholic Church can “hold” to their beliefs as long as they wish, but if their belief is the invalidity of “same-sex marriage”, then they would need to reject all those who have entered into a “same-sex marriage” as prospective parents.

Are they free to believe what they would and then “hold” to that belief or not?

Lastly, if someone is asking the Catholic Church to “recognize” a “same-sex marriage”, then that person is asking the Catholic Church to change their beliefs regarding marriage.

You just can’t get around that fact.



You said above that the Catholic Church was “not an adoption agency”, yet here you are confessing that it is a “registered adoption agency”.

Do you even have a proper grasp on your own opinion?

My first question to you would be – “What law?” Different States have different laws concerning adoption.

If the “law” you are referring to is the demand that the Catholic Church recognize “same-sex marriage”, then the Catholic Church cannot comply. It would be against their beliefs. It would be religious persecution if the Federal government required them to act against their beliefs.

Fortunately, marriage is not the sole determining factor in the adoption process.

Next, I would ask you – “Are all adoption agencies required to accept all prospective parents, despite the “combination of so many variables” that was mentioned above?”

No, depending on which State they are in, an adoption agency can reject prospective parents for a variety of reasons.

Then I would ask – “What if the birth parents were very religious and requested that the child they were putting up for adoption not be placed in a “same-sex marriage” household? What if the child was religious and believed homosexuality was a sin?”

When considering what is in the “best interest of the child” the religious beliefs of the birth parents and the child must be considered.

My last question - What if a same-sex couple was rejected after it was determined that they were wholly inadequate when it came to raising a child? Would you still consider it “discrimination”?

It does if you're adopting in Oregon, at least.

"What are some of the other requirements of Catholic Charities for prospective adoptive parents?

Families must be committed to an open adoption, be residents of the State of Oregon, have a faith commitment, have completed fertility treatments (if they have chosen to pursue fertility treatments), be married a minimum of 2 years, and comply with the other minimum State of Oregon requirements which include good physical health, a history of financial stability and a safe residence."

http://www.catholiccharitiesoregon.org/pregnancy_parent_faq.asp

 

[Serenity7855]

Eight studies that are touted by a Conservative Christian group. But there are far more studies that indicate otherwise.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...ht-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/homosexuality--choice-born-science_n_2003361.html

http://www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

Funny how I can pull from multiple sources that all have multiple studies, but what you posted is being heavily circulated throughout Conservatives sources - sources that make no mention to the other studies that are far more numerous than their eight that demonstrate they are wrong.

How very tiresome your persistence to be right is, or to make me wrong is. The article that I have posted is the most recent of many articles and TED lectures and Youtube videos conducted by formidable scientist showing that at this moment in time they have not found a gay gene. The typical tactics of discrediting the source is so predictable that it becomes repetitiously wearisome and expected. Now I am fully aware of the length people like you will go to in order to ruffle the feathers of Christians and criticize their beliefs, however, 8 major studies, throughout the world, say that gays are not born that way. Their findings, based on twins with identical genes, should show that if a gay gene exists then if one twin is gay so must be the other. No compromise just 2+2=4 reasoning. There finding shows that this just does not happen very much. I am not a scientist but this is not rocket science. Two exactly identical sets of genes should produce identical human being. They don't, therefore, genes are not responsible for making anyone gay. Anyone with an open mind and a modicum of reasoning ability would deduce that whether they wanted to or not. Only bigots hold on for grim death because they need to be right. I accept their findings and one day so will you. No fewer than eight major studies from around the world have found homosexuality is not a genetic condition. I believe them, you just carry on moving your goalposts and fooling yourself.

 

[sojourner]

How very tiresome your persistence to be right is, or to make me wrong is. The article that I have posted is the most recent of many articles and TED lectures and Youtube videos conducted by formidable scientist showing that at this moment in time they have not found a gay gene. The typical tactics of discrediting the source is so predictable that it becomes repetitiously wearisome and expected. Now I am fully aware of the length people like you will go to in order to ruffle the feathers of Christians and criticize their beliefs, however, 8 major studies, throughout the world, say that gays are not born that way. Their findings, based on twins with identical genes, should show that if a gay gene exists then if one twin is gay so must be the other. No compromise just 2+2=4 reasoning. There finding shows that this just does not happen very much. I am not a scientist but this is not rocket science. Two exactly identical sets of genes should produce identical human being. They don't, therefore, genes are not responsible for making anyone gay. Anyone with an open mind and a modicum of reasoning ability would deduce that whether they wanted to or not. Only bigots hold on for grim death because they need to be right. I accept their findings and one day so will you. No fewer than eight major studies from around the world have found homosexuality is not a genetic condition. I believe them, you just carry on moving your goalposts and fooling yourself.

That's just not good science. Because not all twins are even the same sex. Twins, while very similar, are not identical on a genetic level.

 

[McBell]

How very tiresome your persistence to be right is, or to make me wrong is. The article that I have posted is the most recent of many articles and TED lectures and Youtube videos conducted by formidable scientist showing that at this moment in time they have not found a gay gene. The typical tactics of discrediting the source is so predictable that it becomes repetitiously wearisome and expected. Now I am fully aware of the length people like you will go to in order to ruffle the feathers of Christians and criticize their beliefs, however, 8 major studies, throughout the world, say that gays are not born that way. Their findings, based on twins with identical genes, should show that if a gay gene exists then if one twin is gay so must be the other. No compromise just 2+2=4 reasoning. There finding shows that this just does not happen very much. I am not a scientist but this is not rocket science. Two exactly identical sets of genes should produce identical human being. They don't, therefore, genes are not responsible for making anyone gay. Anyone with an open mind and a modicum of reasoning ability would deduce that whether they wanted to or not. Only bigots hold on for grim death because they need to be right. I accept their findings and one day so will you. No fewer than eight major studies from around the world have found homosexuality is not a genetic condition. I believe them, you just carry on moving your goalposts and fooling yourself.

ROTFLMAO

Sad that you are clinging so desperately to your measly 8 studies even after having been presented more than 8 studies in contradiction...
Rather revealing don't you think?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

So yes, as long as the parent is still the parent, they can specify where the child goes. The relinquishing of their parental rights should be contingent on prior legal agreement that their wishes for the child will be met.

So parents who shake babies or something ought to dictate to the rest of us what a good moral upbringing means to them? The entire reason the kid is being tossed onto market is the parents are unwilling or unable to care for the children properly. I think that fact alone negates any desire we should have for their preferences.

Called by whom, man? Who are the church-at-large, men?

Okay, that one I agree with. There were plenty of prophets who were decidedly unchosen by the population and were really unpopular. All that matters is God choosing you. Whether people do is their affair.

Jesus demonstrated righteous indignation at those money changers, and quite rightly so.

And you can't go down a single strip mall without seeing some sort of store for Christian merchandise, so I guess no one got that memo ...

God has told me, in his Holy Bible, that sexual sin is unacceptable. It is an abomination and perverse. He has told me, in no uncertain terms, in both the Old and New Testament. I do not question God's words, as you so obviously do. You could be the recipient of His warning to those who were unprepared "

And this is where you lost me. "Abominations" also include wearing different types of fabrics, for God's sake. Such a ridiculous set of priorities should make us think, no? Did Jesus not tell you to judge a tree by its fruit? The only sexual "sins" we should count are the ones where someone is having sex with a living being unable or unwilling to give legal consent. I would think that's the primary issue with regards to how sex can be sinful. How can you say you are "prepared" when you are unable to "walk a mile in their shoes"? To be prepared for our judgements, we need to be able to assess things properly, not just do things unquestioningly. That's being a butt kisser, not a person who truly values the consequences of morality.

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?

God didn't write the bible. The majority of it was written by xenophobic homophobes (and studies show that homophobes go "ding" when watching gay porn) and every once in awhile, as if by sheer dumb luck, you have people writing who actually give a damn about the need for love and compassion towards all.

As far as Christianity is concerned, we have Adam and Eve as our role models of normality and anything else is abnormal to them.

A man made out of dirt never marries but screws his twin sister. Gotcha.

You will see Jesus knocking on a door with no handle. This is because it is up to us to open the door to Him, He will not just walk in.

Didn't Jesus say he will come like a thief in the night? Just bust the door down or sneak in through the window. It's not like they have ADT.

You have also said that homosexuals are not normal. That's a hateful thing to say.

It's also an inaccurate assessment of reality. I would think if we worship Truth, we would care what the actual Truth is. Bigots hate untrue things in life. They are delusional. The Hebrews, who experienced, per their own tales, horrible events, decided to make asinine rules that were irrelevant to morality instead of banning the crap that was immoral. Hell, they fled Egypt, a land where women had probably the most rights in the entire area, only to beat down the rights of their own women and children. Kings who held diplomatic relationships with other kingdoms were vilified, whereas kings who tried to act like Hitler were lauded as a kind of messiah. It's always the same ol', same ol': let's focus on something completely irrelevant to distract from the REAL immorality going on.

If a parent is a devout Christian, they believe that their child will be best off in a Christian home where they learn the principles of Christ. That's not selfishness. It's applying love according to their beliefs.

How well did being devout help them in keeping their child?

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.

More accurately, it allowed Christianity to avoid persecution while gaining the ability to do it to everyone else.

No, but it was found in Solomon's Temple and is performed in LDS temple that are a similitude of Solomon;s temple.

Wasn't God not a big fan of temples? I distinctly remember Him having issues every time it was brought up. Temples, churches, synagogues, mosques ... they all strip God of His ever-presence and demand He only exist in one particular spot or can only be accessed in one particular spot (and I'm sure that priests/preachers/etc getting paid by the butts on the seat has nothing to do with such buildings at all). I mean, if we were going to be truer to the Church, we would skip the building and only meet up to do charity stuff.

I'm still not understanding why you resist allowing the parent to have a say.

They don't want or can't have their kids for whatever reason. Why DO they deserve a say?

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.

Would you trust the placement of your child via the church the Duggars go to?

Literally. So your thinking that God would only speak to those who are 'living as righteously as possible" is absolutely untrue.

Yes, as Jesus said, it's the sick who need the doctor, not the well (well, I mean, there is such a thing as preventative medicine, but ... LOL).

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?

The Church involved shouldn't claim credit for the man's transformation. Only God should. ANY denomination that thinks too highly of itself deserves humbling.

suspect, from reading other posts of hers, that she does, indeed, know about Christianity. She knows enough to know that, in Mark 9, the father said, "I believe, help my unbelief." She knows enough to know that Jesus accepted the thief's confession on the cross, that Jesus accepted and ate with sinners, that Jesus forgave the prostitute -- all of which were "swine" in the eyes of the "righteous." Just as homosexuals are "swine" before today's "righteous." Jesus would not only attend their weddings, he would turn their water into wine -- and that wine would be *FABULOUS!*

Forget the Good Samaritan. We need a Good Homosexual story.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says that these numerous, rigorous studies of identical twins have now made it impossible to argue that there is a "gay gene." If homosexuality were inborn and predetermined, then when one identical twin is homosexual, the other should be, as well.

This Family Research Council?

The article that I have posted is the most recent of many articles and TED lectures and Youtube videos conducted by formidable scientist showing that at this moment in time they have not found a gay gene.

You are not only born with your genes, but also any chemical influences in the womb present at the time.

 

[Serenity7855]

Here's my answer to you:

(IOW, abnormal)

Words in my mouth again and another sin by you for judging me.

(IOW, abnormal)

Words in my mouth again and another sin by you for judging me.

IOW, you're equating the act with the orientation -- an "abnormal" act equates to an "abnormal" orientation.

Words in my mouth again and another sin by you for judging me.

Apparently, since you're using this source to bolster your argument, you agree with it.

Words in my mouth again and another sin by you for judging me..

You, of course, realize that your statements are not only explicit, they're also implicit. By stating what you have stated about the bible and your allegiance to it, by citing these sources, you imply that you are saying what they're saying. Don't be picayune trying to defend yourself. You may fool yourself in saying, "I don't have a problem with homosexuals," but you're not fooling anyone else here, because everyone else here is reading between those lines, and picking out what you're implying.

Petty in defending myself? there is nothing petty in defending oneself. It is a basic human right. Oh no, posters here will now think less of me. The ones that are posting to me are all of the same ilk. I do not dance for any audience either. It is interesting how you assume leadership of the rest of the poster here and speak for them. Probably your clergy coming through. It is also a underhanded tactic to intimidate when you are losing the debate. My goodness, you call yourself a Christian and claim to be a clergy with an apostolic calling and you act so corrupt. It ios a new one for me. A Clergy Christian acting like a bitter atheist.

 

[McBell]

Words in my mouth again and another sin by you for judging me.
Words in my mouth again and another sin by you for judging me.
Words in my mouth again and another sin by you for judging me.
Words in my mouth again and another sin by you for judging me..

Now that is an awful lot of whining over being judged...

Petty in defending myself? there is nothing petty in defending oneself. It is a basic human right. Oh no, posters here will now think less of me. The ones that are posting to me are all of the same ilk. I do not dance for any audience either. It is interesting how you assume leadership of the rest of the poster here and speak for them. Probably your clergy coming through. It is also a underhanded tactic to intimidate when you are losing the debate. My goodness, you call yourself a Christian and claim to be a clergy with an apostolic calling and you act so corrupt. It ios a new one for me. A Clergy Christian acting like a bitter atheist.

.. Especially given all the judging being done by you...

I wonder if your chosen deity condones all that hypocrisy of yours?

 

[Serenity7855]

That's just not good science. Because not all twins are even the same sex. Twins, while very similar, are not identical on a genetic level.

Are you for real trying to tell these good people here that identical twins are not actually identical. These are not Fraternal twins they are identical twins. With identical twins, one egg from the mother is fertilized by one sperm from the father, and then very early in development the embryo splits and two fetuses grow. One egg and one sperm. Because identical twins develop from a single fertilized egg, they have the same genome. So any differences between twins are due to their environments, not genetics. There is no way that they can be any different as they clone themselves. Even my young grandchildren know that. There have been so many studies conducted by some pretty renowned scientist on identical twins because they know that they have identical genomes. One sperm and one egg one genome that are cloned. You are so bigoted blinker visioned that it wouldn't matter if God came down and gave you a science lesson showing you that genes are not responsible for sexual orientation, you would still try and excuse and lie about what you have been shown. It seems to me that you are gay which is why your defense is so hostile and angry. It also seems to me that you are dangerous to debate with as you are so bias that you resort to underhanded tactics and lies in order to get yourself out of a corner that you put yourself in. This has to be the biggest load of diatribe that you have written thus far.

 

[McBell]

Are you for real trying to tell these good people here that identical twins are not actually identical. These are not Fraternal twins they are identical twins. With identical twins, one egg from the mother is fertilized by one sperm from the father, and then very early in development the embryo splits and two fetuses grow. One egg and one sperm. Because identical twins develop from a single fertilized egg, they have the same genome. So any differences between twins are due to their environments, not genetics. There is no way that they can be any different as they clone themselves. Even my young grandchildren know that. There have been so many studies conducted by some pretty renowned scientist on identical twins because they know that they have identical genomes. One sperm and one egg one genome that are cloned. You are so bigoted blinker visioned that it wouldn't matter if God came down and gave you a science lesson showing you that genes are not responsible for sexual orientation, you would still try and excuse and lie about what you have been shown. It seems to me that you are gay which is why your defense is so hostile and angry. It also seems to me that you are dangerous to debate with as you are so bias that you resort to underhanded tactics and lies in order to get yourself out of a corner that you put yourself in. This has to be the biggest load of diatribe that you have written thus far.

wow.
The denial is strong is this one...

 

[Scott C.]

So parents who shake babies or something ought to dictate to the rest of us what a good moral upbringing means to them? The entire reason the kid is being tossed onto market is the parents are unwilling or unable to care for the children properly. I think that fact alone negates any desire we should have for their preferences.

They don't want or can't have their kids for whatever reason. Why DO they deserve a say?

Would you trust the placement of your child via the church the Duggars go to

Wow, very judgmental towards birth mothers who have a child out of wedlock and are too young or incapable to provide a strong home. "Tossed onto market." Seriously?? Humans make mistakes, regardless of religious affiliation. A very good person may get pregnant, as a teenager for example. That teenager will love their child more than you apparently realize. That teenager may decide that the best act of love is to give the baby up for adoption to an excellent couple. This can be an excruciatingly difficult decision.

What in the world does shaking a baby have to do with this? If you're talking about social services removing a child from the home, due to abuse, that is an entirely different subject. Good grief.

A mother doesn't "deserve" a say because she can't care for the child? Seriously?? Gee, why don't we just send the girl into hiding for nine months and then rip the child from her and give it away? "How dare you pretend to care about your child when you brought him into this world so irresponsibly?" What a loving, empathetic, forgiving and enlightened approach!

 

[sojourner]

Words in my mouth again and another sin by you for judging me.



Words in my mouth again and another sin by you for judging me.


Words in my mouth again and another sin by you for judging me.


Words in my mouth again and another sin by you for judging me..

Petty in defending myself? there is nothing petty in defending oneself. It is a basic human right. Oh no, posters here will now think less of me. The ones that are posting to me are all of the same ilk. I do not dance for any audience either. It is interesting how you assume leadership of the rest of the poster here and speak for them. Probably your clergy coming through. It is also a underhanded tactic to intimidate when you are losing the debate. My goodness, you call yourself a Christian and claim to be a clergy with an apostolic calling and you act so corrupt. It ios a new one for me. A Clergy Christian acting like a bitter atheist.[/QUOTE]<------ This is his, not mine. Apparently he missed a keystroke on setting the quote function.




Aaaaand here we have the Last Gasp of Defeat. Let go of it already, man! Can't you see your petty argument wants to die?

 

[sojourner]

Are you for real trying to tell these good people here that identical twins are not actually identical. These are not Fraternal twins they are identical twins. With identical twins, one egg from the mother is fertilized by one sperm from the father, and then very early in development the embryo splits and two fetuses grow. One egg and one sperm. Because identical twins develop from a single fertilized egg, they have the same genome. So any differences between twins are due to their environments, not genetics. There is no way that they can be any different as they clone themselves. Even my young grandchildren know that. There have been so many studies conducted by some pretty renowned scientist on identical twins because they know that they have identical genomes. One sperm and one egg one genome that are cloned. You are so bigoted blinker visioned that it wouldn't matter if God came down and gave you a science lesson showing you that genes are not responsible for sexual orientation, you would still try and excuse and lie about what you have been shown. It seems to me that you are gay which is why your defense is so hostile and angry. It also seems to me that you are dangerous to debate with as you are so bias that you resort to underhanded tactics and lies in order to get yourself out of a corner that you put yourself in. This has to be the biggest load of diatribe that you have written thus far.

I know several identical twins who are Not. Identical. Identical twins are Not. Clones.

Y'know, you're attempt to shame me by calling me gay is pathetic. I'd much, much, much rather be gay than be on the wrong side of this argument with you.

 

[Serenity7855]

I know several identical twins who are Not. Identical. Identical twins are Not. Clones.

Y'know, you're attempt to shame me by calling me gay is pathetic. I'd much, much, much rather be gay than be on the wrong side of this argument with you.

You are claiming that you know identical twins that are not identical and then tell me that I am on the wrong side of the argument? A little ironic. I guarantee you that you do not know identical twins that are not identical, it is a contradiction in terms. I credited you with more intelligence then that, I was obviously wrong. Hey, but at least you know how to use a thesaurus. You may know Fraternal twins that are not identical but all identical twins are carbon copies of each other and always the same sex. I didn't say that identical twins are clones, though they are, I said that the fertilized egg clones itself. It splits in two. Two identical parts from one part.

My attempt to shame you by calling you gay is pathetic? I said "It seems to me that you are gay". I did not say "You are gay". But why would that shame you? What is it about gays that would make you feel ashamed. You obviously believe that gays possess some kind attribute that you would be ashamed of if you were gay. What exactly is it.

 

[sojourner]

You are claiming that you know identical twins that are not identical and then tell me that I am on the wrong side of the argument? A little ironic. I guarantee you that you do not know identical twins that are not identical, it is a contradiction in terms. I credited you with more intelligence then that, I was obviously wrong. Hey, but at least you know how to use a thesaurus. You may know Fraternal twins that are not identical but all identical twins are carbon copies of each other and always the same sex. I didn't say that identical twins are clones, though they are, I said that the fertilized egg clones itself. It splits in two. Two identical parts from one part.

My attempt to shame you by calling you gay is pathetic? I said "It seems to me that you are gay". I did not say "You are gay". But why would that shame you? What is it about gays that would make you feel ashamed. You obviously believe that gays possess some kind attribute that you would be ashamed of if you were gay. What exactly is it.

Your use of the PeeWee Herman Fallacy is duly noted.

 

[Ingledsva]

Catholic Charities USA (an affiliate of the Catholic Church) is a fully licensed Child Placing Agency.

You have been misinformed.

Wow! Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I very specifically said, as a "licensed" agency they have to follow the rules of that agency, - and the LAW! They are discriminating against same-sex couples, atheists, and even people with religions they don't agree with.

The National Conference of Catholic Charities (later named Catholic Charities USA) was formed in 1910 to better help impoverished Catholic immigrants from Europe. Approximately one half of Catholics in the U.S. at that time (~7.5 million) lived in poverty.

Before then each parish had their own independent charity programs which were unable to take on such an enormous task. This conference was held because they believed that if they united their efforts that they could do more for the people. They were right.

You have been misinformed.

LOL! Again comprehension? I know this info - I was raised Catholic. And nothing I have said is a "misunderstanding" of this information. As well as the fact that the above information has no bearing on this discussion.

Access to Catholic Charities USA adoption services requires no faith commitment.

You have been misinformed.

LOL! BULL! Hear is the info from their Oregon page - http://catholiccharitiesoregon.org/pregnancy_parent_faq.asp

"What are some of the other requirements of Catholic Charities for prospective adoptive parents?

Families must be committed to an open adoption, be residents of the State of Oregon, have a faith commitment, have completed fertility treatments (if they have chosen to pursue fertility treatments), be married a minimum of 2 years, and comply with the other minimum State of Oregon requirements which include good physical health, a history of financial stability and a safe residence.

Adoption laws and restrictions are mostly decided by the State. Adoption agencies can reject prospective parents for a variety of reasons (depending on which State they are in) which can include the age of the prospective parents and if one or both of the prospective parents have a disability.

The U.S. Constitution does not provide a fundamental right to adopt. You should read up on the Lindley v. Sullivan case. It clarifies a lot about Adoption Law. I will quote a couple portions,

"Because of its statutory basis, adoption differs from natural procreation in a most important and striking way. See Smith, 431 U.S. at 846, 97 S.Ct. at 2110-11. Adoption always involves the weighing and balancing of many competing interests. The rights of a couple to adopt must be reconciled with the state's interest in protecting the existing rights of the natural parents, as well as in securing ultimately the welfare of the child."

"Among the factors a court must consider in determining whether the proposed adoption is in the child's best interest are the religious belief of the adopters and adoptee, as well as the physical and mental health of all individuals involved and the background, race, ethnic heritage, behavior, age and living arrangements of the adopters."

"Because the adoption process is entirely conditioned upon the combination of so many variables, we are constrained to conclude that there isno fundamental right to adopt. We also decline to find that the interest in adopting a child falls within the marital privacy right, since the statute requires adopters to submit their personal lives to intensive scrutiny before the adoption may be approved. Thus, we can find neither a fundamental right nor a privacy interest in adopting a child." (Italics and bold added)

http://openjurist.org/889/f2d/124/lindley-for-lindley-v-w-sullivan-md

You can argue that an adoption agency that rejects prospective homosexual parents is guilty of discrimination, but you would have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the sole reason for the rejection was based on the couple’s sexual orientation.

WOW! That is a lot of information that changes nothing I said.

The GOVERNMENT has said they are discriminating, - and because of this ruling, - Catholic Charities in some states have already chosen to close.

Considering that the adoption process is “entirely conditioned upon the combination of so many variables”, which includes the religious views of the birth parents and the child, it would be very difficult to prove that a homosexual couple was rejected based on their sexual orientation and not based on religious preferences.

Also, you would still need to consider the “child’s best interest” which is obviously vague in interpretation and depth, but would still need to include “the religious belief of the adopters and adoptee”.

Considering that the U.S. does not consider adoption to be a basic human right, I think it would be pretty hard for you or anyone to prove discrimination.

These situations are not as “cut and dry” as you propose.

You have already been shown information showing children of same-sex couples are just fine, and normal.

You do not have the authority to declare that the Catholic Church’s (or anyone’s) beliefs are “outdated”.

BULL! I can agree with science, and family studies, over a religion that believes in virgin births, the earth being a round pancake shape, with the heavens a tent above it, with YHVH sitting on top looking down, or homosexuality somehow being wrong, etc.

You have also been placed in a contradiction because you claim that the Catholic Church can “hold” to their beliefs as long as they wish, but if their belief is the invalidity of “same-sex marriage”, then they would need to reject all those who have entered into a “same-sex marriage” as prospective parents.

Are they free to believe what they would and then “hold” to that belief or not?

Comprehension again. There is no conflict. They can believe whatever they want. However, as a licensed agency they have signed-on-the-line to follow the rules of that licensing agency, and the law.

If they do not wish to comply with the agency rules, - or the law ,- then all they have to do is give up that license, and continue on in their beliefs.

Lastly, if someone is asking the Catholic Church to “recognize” a “same-sex marriage”, then that person is asking the Catholic Church to change their beliefs regarding marriage.

You just can’t get around that fact.

No one is forcing them to change their view on same-sex marriage. They are being asked to follow the law, or get out of the adoption business. They have a choice.

You said above that the Catholic Church was “not an adoption agency”, yet here you are confessing that it is a “registered adoption agency”.

Do you even have a proper grasp on your own opinion?

LOL! Read in context. The Catholic Church - IS A CHURCH. They decided to add on a "registered adoption agency" by signing-on-the-line to follow the adoption agency rules, and the law.

My first question to you would be – “What law?” Different States have different laws concerning adoption.

If the “law” you are referring to is the demand that the Catholic Church recognize “same-sex marriage”, then the Catholic Church cannot comply. It would be against their beliefs. It would be religious persecution if the Federal government required them to act against their beliefs.

Fortunately, marriage is not the sole determining factor in the adoption process.

Federal anti-discrimination laws trump state laws.

Next, I would ask you – “Are all adoption agencies required to accept all prospective parents, despite the “combination of so many variables” that was mentioned above?”

No, depending on which State they are in, an adoption agency can reject prospective parents for a variety of reasons.

Then I would ask – “What if the birth parents were very religious and requested that the child they were putting up for adoption not be placed in a “same-sex marriage” household? What if the child was religious and believed homosexuality was a sin?”

When considering what is in the “best interest of the child” the religious beliefs of the birth parents and the child must be considered.

My last question - What if a same-sex couple was rejected after it was determined that they were wholly inadequate when it came to raising a child? Would you still consider it “discrimination”?

You are repeating. Federal anti-discrimination laws trump state laws.

And that last question - AGAIN - same-sex parents have been found to be no different than hetero-couples, when it come to their social skills, or welfare of their adopted children.
*

 

[Ingledsva]

...

Homosexuality is not punishable by death, anal sex, being a sexual perversion, is. Homosexuality is not a sin, sexual perversion is. It would, therefore, be all to obviously, to the discerning mind, that I was referring to anal sex when I said "Homosexuality is a heinous abominable sin, punishable by death under the Mosaic law"

...

Actually anal-sex isn't punishable by death.

IDOLATRY - by sex with Sacred Sex Prostitutes of Baal, - is punishable by death, - according to the Bible.

*

 

[Serenity7855]

Eight studies that are touted by a Conservative Christian group. But there are far more studies that indicate otherwise.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...ht-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/homosexuality--choice-born-science_n_2003361.html

http://www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

Funny how I can pull from multiple sources that all have multiple studies, but what you posted is being heavily circulated throughout Conservatives sources - sources that make no mention to the other studies that are far more numerous than their eight that demonstrate they are wrong.

You are on one hell of a slippery slope when you have to resort to this kind of tactic. Only one of these sources have any credibility, and he is a lone researcher who states that genes are not the whole story. The rest are just story writer giving their opinion based on information that you and I could read up on the internet. It matters not how many opinions you post here, what counts is the science and the science is sound and so basic that most people can see that it is irrefutable.

The compelling part of the article that I posted was the statement that 8 major studies have been done on whether there is a gay gene, with all of them coming to the same conclusion. How do you intend to refute 8 major studies, that cost million, and was conducted independently of each other in various countries throughout the world. But more then that, how do you intend to refute the basic science that identical twins are rarely both gay. Just 6.5% of the them. How do you explain that identical twins are like two peas out of the same pod. Both share the exact same sperm and egg from the mother. That means that they will have the same eyes, hair color, shoe size etc etc. They will be identical in every way because they share the same genome. If one is gay then it follows, that without exception, the other will be gay. It is irrefutable and a fact based on scientific exploration. It does not happen though. Hardly any of the twins studied were both gay. This automatically rules out the hypothesis that says that there is a gay gene and that gays cannot help being what they are. The theory fails the standard scientific method in several ways.

So what do you do now, create some dirt on the article in order to discredit it, like who published it, because it matters not who published it was is important is the content and that appears to be sound. One thing is a certainty, there will be a come back making a goal post moving claim. There always is. There is no way that you are capable of graciously accepting that which is true.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

Michael Balter is a anthropology, archaeology, and animal cognition writer. He has no formal education and is not qualified to determine with gays are born or made. He is an accomplished writer. His job is to write sensational stories and that is what he did here. He wrote this article. He has just been sacked from Science Magazine for misconduct.


http://www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html

Tia Ghose is a science writer, the same as Michael Balter is. Her job is to write sensational stories and that is what he did here. She has no formal qualifications in science. She has never wrtitten and published any biology paper. This is an exert from that articleNo studies have found specific "gay genes" that reliably make someone gay.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/homosexuality--choice-born-science_n_2003361.html

This article is four years old. Much research has be carried out since its publication. The information that is publishes is out dated. One need only to give it a cursory browse to know that. Marcia Malory BA is yet another science writer who enjoys writing about the evolution of consciousness and intelligence. She writes for a number of science websites. With a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, She has no formal qualification in science.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ht-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it

The man has all the credentials and is more then qualified to speak on this subject. He states in this article that Genes are far from the whole story. Sex hormones in prenatal life play a role. Sadly, he has written this for a newpaper who sell newpapers. Qazi Rahman is an academic at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London. He studies the biology of sexual orientation and the implications for mental health