Have I mentioned how much I love you lately dear one?? Kiss kiss
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage
- Thread starter gsa
- Start date
- Status
1. I am a woman
2. It absolutely WAS judging me. "You did when you said you that WERE a Christian."...in response to me saying "who said I have turned my back on God?" You are saying here that I turned my back on God and unless you have a direct line to God and can prove that to me, you are speaking here FOR God and that is judging.
You did not qualify that with adding Christian God to your statement. You simply said God which means the universal God of all faiths, including G*d for Jews, Jehovah, Allah (PBUH), etc. Go back and read your posts. You will see.
You are trying to define a faith based on particular rituals that supposedly are a part of that faith? Wow. I know many Christians who accept being gay as a part of God's religion. And so what if a Muslim chooses to eat pork? Do you really think God is going to reach down and smite then for one simple act? I find that a very strange means of defining a faith.
What you say in your first remark is unfortunately true, however, I don't believe that a person is stepping away from their faith by one simple act conferred by man. Its seem ludicrous to think that God would kill a person for hating gays or excluding them or for eating a particular kind of food. Those are all humankinds way of trying to keep the masses in line.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
I made my comment about Catholic Charities USA being a fully licensed Child Placing Agency in response to your claim that,
"The Catholic Church is a church, not an adoption agency."
Catholic Charities is a faith-based organization affiliated with the Catholic Church and it is, for all intents and purposes, an adoption agency.
You made your comment about Catholic Charities USA being a "licensed" agency later on in your post and I even mentioned that fact when I said in post #1294,
“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?”
I do not feel that you or anyone has grounds to declare that the Catholic Church is discriminating against anyone.
First and foremost, as I said in my last post, the U.S. Constitution does not provide a fundamental right to adopt.
Second, it is the birth parents that decide who can adopt their unborn child, not Catholic Charities USA.
Third, the term “best interest of the child” is subjective and can be interpreted any number of ways.
Fourth, in the “Charitable Choice” provision of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act it clearly states that the “religious character” of any FBO that offers government funded services is protected by allowing them to retain control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of their religious beliefs.
Therefore, if they believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman, they “retain control” over that definition. If a “secular alternative” is offered, then there is no grounds for discrimination.
Lastly, whether Catholic Charities USA is discriminating or not does not change the fact that they are a fully licensed adoption agency.
No, I do not. You, on the other hand, seem to be unable to collect your thoughts and you react in a very irrational manner.
You tried to misdirect a response that I had made to your erroneous claim that the Catholic Church (or rather Catholic Charities USA) is not an adoption agency to another comment you made later on in your post.
You don't get to decide which of your comments I am responding to. I do.
My comment about the formation of the National Conference of Catholic Charities was in response to your claim that,
"They (Catholic Charities USA) took on that roll (offering adoption and other services) to add to their rolls."
The National Conference of Catholic Charities was formed to better assist the increasing number of Catholic immigrants from Europe. Approximately half of which lived in poverty.
Your claim that the Catholic Church in the U.S. started offering adoption and other services simply because they wanted to "add to their rolls" is incorrect.
You have a misunderstanding concerning the history of the Catholic Church in the U.S. and possibly of the Industrial era of the U.S.
You seem unable to comprehend not only what I have shared, but what you yourself have claimed as well.
This is very distressing.
First, I want to clarify that when you claimed that Catholic Charities required a “faith commitment”, I thought you meant that they required people to be Catholic. I understand that that is not what you meant now.
But, just to keep it clear, Catholic Charities USA has stated that there is no religious requirement needed for someone to receive their services. On the FAQ page of their official website it reads,
“Catholic Charities has no religious requirements.”
http://www.catholiccharities-md.org/adoptions/faq.html
Even on the web page you supplied above it answers the question “Do we have to be Catholic?” thusly,
“No. Catholic Charities welcomes and actively recruits families of any faith background. We desire diversity, including different educational levels, ethnic backgrounds, family size, personalities and interests, in our pool of waiting families to better meet the needs of our pregnant clients considering adoption.”
Now, before we can fully address your “faith commitment” concern, I am going to go over a few crucial things that you need to understand. I am doubting your ability to process information accurately, so I am going to explain this something with great detail.
I feel that the first thing to understand is what adoption services Catholic Charities USA is offering.
All adoptions made by Catholic Charities are called “open adoptions”. On that web page you supplied above they explain what they mean by “open adoption”,
“At Catholic Charities, the birthmother carefully chooses an adoptive family from albums that contain photographs and non-identifying information about each of our couples. We only show her albums of families who fit with the needs of the birthmother and baby. After choosing one or two couples that she believes may be the best match for her child, the birth mother (and perhaps the birth father) meets with them in an initial interview. The birthmother will decide which family she thinks is the best fit. The potential adoptive family is also given the opportunity to decide if they feel it is the best fit for them. Once the decision is made and both agree to the match they all begin to develop a trusting life-long relationship that often resembles extended family or close friends. This relationship is built through the quality time spent together while getting to know one another. The amount of contact between birth families and adoptive families is unique to each adoption plan but typically includes ongoing letters, pictures and six to twelve visits a year.”
So, unlike adoption agencies that offer only “closed adoptions”, Catholic Charities USA believes that an “open adoption”, where the birth parents are more involved, is healthier and “truly honors” all the participants in the adoption.
Now we will get to the question that led to your claim, “What are some of the other requirements of Catholic Charities for prospective adoptive parents?”
The third answer was the one you have an issue with, “have a faith commitment.” What does that mean? It takes a little reading to find out. On the same website they define certain “criteria” and they explain that,
“Catholic Charities views adoption and the prospective adoptive parents as an invaluable resource to women coping with an unplanned pregnancy. We consider our "high-quality" adoptive parents to be the backbone of our program. Consequently, we seek couples not only capable of being excellent parents, but also willing to enter into a respectful and life-long relationship with the birth family. The success of such a relationship is contingent on the honesty, trust, and respect built by each of the parties. All the adoption triad members benefit from such a relationship, but most importantly the child, who not only has the love and devotion of adoptive parents, but important contact with his/her biological family. Although the birth family may not be in a position to raise him/her, they care about his/her welfare.
Because it is the birth parent(s) who choose the adoptive couple that they feel will be the best parents for their unborn child; an attempt will be made to have as much diversity as possible in our pool of families. However, because Catholic Charities' primary responsibility and dedication is to the child's well being, the following eligibility criteria will be followed.” (Bold and italics added)
In this list of criteria they included things such as Residency, Ethnicity, Housing, Infertility, Income, Marriage, Age and Health.
This is just a list of criteria. It is is not a list of requirements. All that this list is saying is that all of these things will be considered by the birth parents before they make their decision. The one criteria that will interest you is:
“Religion: Applicants shall have a faith commitment (i.e. attend a church or a synagogue) and a plan for the spiritual development and education of their children. They must provide traditional medical care as appropriate for their children.” (Bold and italics added)
Now, before we get into what all this means, remember that all of these criteria are reviewed by the birth parents and they are the ones who ultimately decide who will adopt their child.
Notice the difference in language between those two sentences. The first sentence, about having a “faith commitment” says that the applicant “shall” have one. The second sentence says that the applicant “must” provide traditional medical care.
From the language alone it is clear that it is not required for an applicant to have a “faith commitment”. Catholic Charities is merely pointing out that those who are seeking to adopt can have a faith commitment. They can attend a church or a synagogue. They can also plan on teaching and developing their adopted child based on that “faith commitment”. It is something they can plan to do.
Catholic Charities USA mentions this so that applicants will know that they will not be rejected for having a “faith commitment”. They also want applicants to know that the birth parents will take their “faith commitment” (or lack thereof) into consideration when deciding who can adopt their child.
Therefore, when Catholic Charities USA mentioned “faith commitment” as an answer to the question, “What are some of the other requirements of Catholic Charities for prospective adoptive parents?” They were not saying that applicants needed to have a faith commitment.
They were simply saying that a “faith commitment” may be a requirement because it will be one of the many things that the birth parents will consider before deciding who can adopt their child. Depending on the desires of the birth parents, they may want those who will adopt their child to have a “faith commitment”, therefore making a “faith commitment” a requirement for that particular set of birth parents.
No one needs a “faith commitment” to receive adoption services from Catholic Charities USA.
You have been operating under a misunderstanding.
Last edited:
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Proving that the U.S. Constitution does not provide a fundamental right to adopt is crucial to this topic.
Would you mind sharing where the “government” has claimed that the Catholic Church has discriminated against anyone?
You seem to be operating under another misunderstanding.
The ruling made in Obergefell v. Hodges did not provide anyone a fundamental right to adopt.
This ruling only redefined what is considered “marriage” in the U.S. to also include same-sex couples.
The Catholic Church defines marriage as only between one man and one woman. Catholic Charities USA requires that any couples applying for adoption be married at least two years. This could be evidence that the relationship is stable.
Since the Catholic Church does not recognize “same-sex marriage”, same-sex couples do not fit the two year requirement.
Now that the U.S. recognizes “same-sex marriage”, many Catholic Charities have stopped offering adoption services, to avoid violations of their First Amendment rights. These FBOs still offer other services, just none that would compromise their beliefs.
The facts remain that no one has the fundamental right to adopt, the Supreme Court ruling does not give anyone the right to adopt, the Catholic Church as the right to “retain control” over their definition of marriage according to the “Charitable Choice” provision, birth parents decide who is allowed to adopt their unborn children and rather than be placed into a compromising position many Catholic Charities have stopped offering adoption services.
No, I have not.
Besides, it would not be me you would want to convince, but the birth parents of children placed into Catholic Charities.
They are the ones who decide who will be allowed to adopt their children.
This is built on the false premise that science and family studies have somehow “proven” that Catholic beliefs are “outdated”.
Neither you, nor anyone, has the authority to declare such a thing.
You don’t know when you should apply imagery and symbolism to the scriptures.
You don’t know why Catholics or others believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Your ignorance of these things give me more reason to doubt your authority to declare anything.
You should come to know a little about a topic before discussing it, wouldn’t you agree?
You are the one who seems to lack comprehension.
The law only claims that same-sex couples are married now. The law does not claim that they have a right to adopt. They don’t. No one does.
The law also claimed that Catholic Charities had the right to “retain in control” the definition of their beliefs.
Since the Catholic Church does not recognize “same-sex marriage”, many of their charities have stopped offering adoption services.
The Jews in Nazi Germany also had a choice. That didn’t make it any less discriminatory.
No. They were begged to help the Federal government to offer these services and they were promised that doing so would not compromise their beliefs.
You also don’t seem to know much about the history of Catholicism. The Catholic Church has always built hospitals, orphanages, schools and other service-driven institutions.
Being a Catholic or “Christian” has always been more than simply believing in something and praying to someone. These beliefs have always led to action and helping the less fortunate.
Since “marriage” has been redefined, you think you have the authority to redefine “church” too?
Not recognizing “same-sex marriage” is not discrimination.
No. You are the one repeating yourself.
In Lindley v. Sullivan, the Courts concluded that “determining whether the proposed adoption is in the child's best interest are the religious belief of the adopters and adoptee”.
If someone is to determine what the “child’s best interest” is, they must consider the religious beliefs of those adopting, the birth parents and the adoptee (the child).
If the birth parents do not want their unborn child to be adopted out to a same-sex couple, it is not discrimination and it is not Catholic Charities making that choice.
Wow.
Are you saying that ALL homosexual couples are capable of raising a child?
Are you saying that NO homosexual couple should ever be denied to adopt a child?
You are saying that it is impossible for a homosexual couple to be inadequate? All homosexual couples are prepared to raise a child regardless of anything other than their sexual preference?
Really? Really? This is what you are saying?
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I couldn't agree more. I find it rather suspicious when god just so happens to conveniently hate the same things that this followers hate. Given cultural context I can understand some laws, such as pork consumption which can make people sick if not handled properly, but to call for the deaths of homosexuals and claiming their blood is on their hands, those are the words of men, not god. A truly wise god would know hellfire is not needed to scare people into obedience. Again, I see the words of men, not any sort of god.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You do know that my words are recorded here, on these pages, and that they can be viewed at any time, don't you? Can you now see how easy it is for me to assume that i am conversing with someone who is not the brightest tool in the shed. Of course you could be quite the opposite and intentionally lying in the hope that nobody notices.
This is what I actually said : "You left His flock and are now under threat from the ravenous wolves" Yes, that's right, I said, you left His flock. Guess what His flock refers to? Yes, His church, or in other words, Christianity. So, when you accused me of saying "that she turned her back on god" you were either lying or intentionally trivializing in another of your failed attempts to prove me wrong again, all very wily and cunning, that will make you look shifty.
I am a Christian. I try not to be so immoral. It is not him that I disagree with, he has been duped by his superiors who have told him that Apostolic succession is the method whereby the ministry of the Christian Church is held to be derived from the apostles by a continuous succession, which has usually been associated with a claim that the succession is through a series of bishops, It is the establishment who have created these super heroes in the Christian Church through their man-made ideas, especially the Catholic Church.
Yes, I can see how you would think that, however, I do have the facts, as do 2.2 billion other Christians. It is recorded in the Bible, or in this case, not.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
To debate with you is to debate with half of the membership who have your permission to speak for you, which is unfairly disproportionate and, therefore, unethical cyber-bullying. You maybe used to ganging up on others who do not believe as you do, like a pack of wolves, but that is because you cannot debate without having someone to back you, but I have learned that it is best to avoid such cunning and devious prejudiced entrapment, therefore, I will not be offering you a rebuttal at this time.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So then don't you think they should have to follow the rules and regulations that all adoption agencies are subject to, rather than making up their own rules?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I don't think you are, based on the criterion you gave us below:
You left the church, because the church is the assembly, IOW, those who gather together. Yet, your avatar states that you are not part of the assembly; therefore, not part of the church, and therefore, not a Christian.
The establishment was set up by the apostles, and it is pervasive throughout the church, whether that authority is through the bishopric or the church-at-large, so I guess you have a problem with the apostles now? But you claim you're a Christian? It doesn't work that way.
2.2 billion other Christians agree with me that the church has God-given authority. Looks as if you have duped yourself here.
If sexual orientation were a choice, when did you choose to be heterosexual? Was it hard to make up your mind?
Ciao
- viole
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
These sins are an abomination unto God, as adultery is and murder. They are not tangible objects to hate. They are inanimate objects. The whole structure and arrangement of the thoughts which occur in vers. 16-19 clearly show that this is not an independent section, but one closely allied to that which has just preceded. The object is to show that those evil qualities of deceit and malice which are disastrous to man are equally odious in the sight of Jehovah,. You are nit picking. I have said this about TV programs and music but I do not literally hate them. It is just an expression.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I did not say that is was a choice, I said that it is not the result of a gay gene. If you intend critiquing me at least use something I actually said. I did say Again, I would agree. Nobody knew that the Higgs Boson was there until they looked. There maybe something there, that cannot be seen using our current technology, that could be the answer to the question, "are gays born or made" I have given information on environmental conditioning and have posted articles on the part played by social conditioning. I have stipulated that I, personally, believe that there is a plethora of reason why gays are what they are. I think it highly possible that each case has its own reason and cause just because our social conditioning is unique to the individual. However, until we can get rid of the stigma that surround the possibility that gays are made that way through environmental factors we will never come to the full and honest truth. which demonstrates that I have no fixed views, other than there is no gay gene. But if you want to know when I chose to be heterosexual it was in August 1973 with the same person that I am with today. It was a very easy decision to make
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Yes, at that time, with those iniquitous people, I believe it was necessary otherwise it would have never been made. If it was introduced today then I would object/
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
In order for me to be insulted by you, I would first have to value your opinion. Sorry, I don't.
You don't know why I left the church., this is a baseless assertion.
Christianity is a lifestyle not a membership in a club.
That was the Church of Christ. Since then the priesthood has been taken from the earth.
Only a handful of the lords elect will recognize the masters voice, especially during the ensuing apostasy. Even Christ spoke of you and the other apostates when he said "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Lots of people smoke but that does not make smoking right. Not all 2.2 billion Christians agree with you, at least 14 million agree with me, the LDS Church. If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,…
Last edited:
- Status