your channel name is "issue and justice" but i would suggest you have a second look at your bible on what the word justice meant. and who decides whats constitute justice, you OR God.
i am a christian myself, and i dont agree with gay marriage. but what baffles me is that many of my fellow chrisitans seem to hold bunch of other things against gays that are not backed up by scripture. I mean there are NO scriptures where Gods says gays are not allowed to become parents. So in another word, it has NOTHING to do with christian faith. Why chrisitans such yourself would insist gays be discriminated against in this particular area, and claims it is because of "christian" principles
you want to discriminate AND still operating. If you dont want to be closed down, then just DO the right thing and allows gays to adopt through christian agencies. The problems were never with the gays or the government, it has always been with Christians like yourself who chose to discriminate against gay community, yet trying to play the victim and blame everyone else for what you ARE doing wrong. Have you never heard of self resp?
what is so dishonest about this whole situation is that catholic church tried to misrepresent the whole case as persecution of their religion freedom, when in reality, like i have said, it is always about you cant want to take money from the state and not want to abide by it's rules. How dishonest! Further more , you are shifting resp to the gays where in reality no ones is against Christian adoption agency from operating, as long as they dont discriminate. However, Christian like you INSIST...
well, i am not too familiar with the situation you are talking about. but i do know with the recent case of Illinois, where Catholic adoptions agency cries foul, saying that state of Illinois discriminate against their freedom of religion by refuse gay adoption. where the issue really is the fact if they fund themselves, they can do whatever they likes. but they want to have their cake and eat it too. they want to continue take tax payers money, many of whom do not agree with their stance..
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
Guess you missed the part about separation of Church and State. A State has the right to make law and the legal obligation to make laws equal for all. If a religious organization wishes not to abide by the law, that is their choose, they can close down as some have done. To say there is a 'gay agenda' is incorrect; there is an equal right agenda, and as an American you should stand for equality.
Religion is wrong again it seems, as it has been so often in the past, take a quick look at history
Gay-fascism?! Really?! What about Christo-fascism?! Why do churches who perform a public function not have to follow state laws? Might I remind you that Christ said, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." Catholic Charities and other religious groups were more than happy to take money from the State of Massachuttes to run adoption programs as long as it was on their terms but the rules changed and they cry, "foul"?
0___0 why would someone want to close an adoption agency what about the kids i`m all agianst discrimination but isnt that going to far, if they did close them where would the kids go 0____0 i think both sides are bieng to extreme
Allowing LGBT adoption does not make children suffer due to less adoption agencies, what causes their suffering is the baseless decision of those adoption agencies to deny ss couple adoption.
The irony here is that by refusing to place children with SS couples, and therefore keeping them within the care-system, the catholic adoption agency is doing exactly the same thing as this lady is criticizing the government for (they are putting their own (disproven) prejudice beliefs above those of the children.
The only rights that are cosntrained are the rights to arbitrarily discriminate (not a right anybody should have).
The same thing would & should happen if Catholics denied adoption to black people.
If bullying / neglecting / treating your fellow citizen with indifference constitutes your "religious freedom" - you should reconsider what your religion is teaching you.
Its sad that although their charitable and good-hearted in some ways, their also too judgemental to see that two parents is better than no parents.
Your right, Christian based adoption agencies do deserve to have their voices heard. Once one minority group starts Lording it over another majority group, namely Christians, we just go back to the DARKages. When good Christian services are shut down over Gay rights to fabricate families then the voice of truth on this matter is shut down. Shut down this Gay movement that parades itself as a good alternative! They already have enough of their so-called rights! It's just a push for bad marriage..
@CrystalSeaTV No organisation deserves to oppress a group of individuals or obstruct them from doing a good thing. Christian fundies always seem to be trying to play the "poor me" card as if they are the victims of unrelated individuals trying to peruse their own happiness
Shut down the Christian church instead! they already have enough tax-exempt status! Its just a push for bad civilisation (in case you didn't know the DARK ages were enforced and perpetuated by the Catholic / Christian church)
People need to stop controlling other people's lives. Gay and lesbian can raise children with all the love in the world. Sex is just a gender. Love is so strong. Two people of the same-sex are perfectly capable of adopting a child. I'ts better to see a child with two loving same-sex parents, then have a child without a family. Most children seem happy with their same-sex parents anyway.
I too am appalled at the discrimination practiced by adoption agencies. I mean, since Heroine addicts don't have sex with children nearly as often as do homosexuals, then why are Heroine addicts discriminated against?
Oh yea, I just remembered, they might steal the baby's bottle! Ok, "my bad"... never mind... sorry!
Yes, because all these children are sooo much more healthy in the hands of a straight couple that it is absolutely necessary to not give them to a gay couple. Why? because genitalia somehow affects parenting skills and single parents are forbidden from adopting children because they can't have 2 different types of genetalia to show the child how each one is special. In conclusion, the religious people are saying: PLEASE, my ideas arent dumb!! they are taking away my right to descriminate!!!
{In conclusion, the religious people are saying: PLEASE, my ideas arent dumb!}
Well, since we're on the subject of ideas that aren't dumb & the ideas of homosexuals are very intelligent. Maybe, homosexuals ought to get the dumb idea of historically making the sacrifice of founding & operating orphanages. I mean, if its not difficult to deal with 2 or 3 children, therefor, it not being a sacrifice... never mind... homosexuals with orphanages truly is a dumb idea!
@Chuichupachichi If an openly gay person tried to found an orphanage, I doubt people would recieve it well. In fact, I bet there are orphanages that gay people have founded, but are either not talked about or the gay people are in the closet. Oh, and to your other comment, the majority of pedophiles are straight men ( not gays), so according to your logic, straight men should be banned from bieng able to adopt kids? Its obvious that these "adoption charities" are descriminating. How sickening
I think its OK to "constrain the rights or ordinary Americans" if the "right" you are constraining is discrimination. Adoption is not a religious act - it's a legal contract. If a religious organization is going to engage in any kind of business, they should be required to follow the same rules that protect individuals from non-discrimination that EVERY other business is required to.
@whiskeycricket Adoption is a private service for their members, not a public business. In this case it is operated by a non-profit religious group.
Just as there can be things like Christians schools. They do not have to accept non-Christians into their school. It is their choice how to run. It is part of freedom of religion and freedom of association.
Discrimination is not illegal unless it is against a protected class and in certain ways.
@IssuesAndJustice Private schools, country clubs and hospitals are not allowed to discriminate based on race or religion, although they do, something you think is OK. Hospitals are not allowed to turn patients away who aren't the "right" race. Christian schools can't say outright that they are denying entry because of a different religion, they usually find other legal reasons.
@IssuesAndJustice So then what you are saying is that they only adopt children to other Catholics? I don't think so. They are placing these children in homes of other religions that go against thier beliefs already. Why single out Gay and Lesbian couples?
I know many Gay couples who adopted children. The children did not turn out to be gay; not that that would be wrong, but it only goes to show that Gay Couples DO make good parents. Too many parent-less children need a loving home, and Gay Couples CAN and DO deliver this critical need in a child's life. Freedom in America is declining. Politicians are stripping us of liberty, unless "they" approve. We need change, and we need it now!
@IssuesAndJustice On paper maybe, but that's it. As far as being stripped of Liberty is concerned, you need to look at, or investigate the nature of recent legislative agendas. There's a lot of hidden deprivations embedded within. I'm from MA myself, and I've seen it first hand. Gays are being targeted more than you may realize, not so much in an obvious way, but collaterally.
@nikf1eld Sexual harassment like calling someone gay (unless they ask to be identified that way) is not permitted on the channel. You have been banned from this channel for hateful/abusive speech.
The rule talked about in this video has nothing to do with taxpayer money. Adoptions done with 100% donated church money in accordance with church principals are now banned. Do you see why people oppose the homosexual agenda? It isn't because they hate gays.
@IssuesAndJustice Banned...where? I wouldn't listen to a known liar like Maggie Gallagher if I were you. Mormon Adoption Agencies still operates out of Massachusetts with absolutely zero problems even though they do not allow same-sex couples to adopt. Catholic Charities could have turned down state money, they could have complied with state anti-discrimination laws, instead they chose to shut down.
According to this, it would be because they are being lied to.
And it's also important to note that these adoption agencies CHOSE to close rather than abide by government non-discrimination laws.
If the separation of church and state had been maintained, no churches would have been getting tax-payer money to perform state judicial functions and this would never have been an issue.
It's also interesting to note and contemplate that until very recently Catholic Services willingly and gladly placed many children with gay adoptive parents.
Even if you support discrimination against gays in adoption, you must recognize that it's a slippery slope for the government to give special dispensation to religious agencies to discriminate
If such was allowed, how could the government say no to an agency that said it didn't want to adopt to Jews on religious grounds? A Muslim agency that said it wouldn't adopt to women who didn't wear headscarves? It couldn't.
Adoption is a state judicial function and no discrimination is possible. Period
i see your point about how closing christian adoption agencies hurts those poor children waiting to be adopted. but people will be hurt in this battle for equal rights, there's no way around that. persecution begets persecution until... ?
Equity decides quality especially in Marriage,Family and Religous freedoms. The most important place of all
The family, The place of our birth, must remain Honourable, everybody has had a Father and a Mother the only only only possible way for anyone to be born.
Marriage, Family and Religious Freedom
All are instituted by God for his Glory not to our Shame.
you're just against gay people and the idea of gay people having children. Where does it say in the bible that a child's parents have to be a man and a woman? Nowhere... and these adoption agencies are just making excuses to not allow it. Just like you.
Everybody is free to interpret their faith in their own way. This means that if someone thinks that homosexuality is a sin then they can do that and if a faith-based adoption agency only wants to do adoptions for a particular faith group they serve then they should have that freedom. I don't think we should take away their freedom to operate as a religious organization. That is violating freedom of religion.
In fact, not everybody is free to interpret their religion in their own way. They can perform their religion AS LONG AS it doesn't interfere with the law or with someone's rights.
Yes they can interpret in their own way. To not be able to interpret would be to ban thought. Certain actions though can be banned.
Some faiths like some Native American faiths use drugs and that drug use has been upheld in court....same with the Catholic use of wine with minors. That said, there is a line where people's rights are violated.
That said, there is not and should not be a right to adopt from anyone
You're right. I should not have used the word "interpret". There is no way of banning thought.
There are other communities, like the Fundamental Latter Day Saints people that believe polygamy is the way to have a marriage. They are not allowed to do what they want because this violates people's rights. I guess the only way to solve this issue is by having those catholic agencies present their case in court (perhaps the supreme court). Until then, they should allow gays to adopt.
The question is not whether gays can adopt, but whether they can force a Christian non-profit to do adoptions that they believe are counter to their faith. As a non-profit, I say no. Parenting and sexual orientation are legitimate factors in considering adoption cases and considering the massive research about the short length of homosexual relationships, and the damage that parental breakup has on children that they should be able to use that as a factor. It is based on a legitimate interest.
There is research that shows evidence supporting both side's arguments on whether gay relationships are short or not. In my experience, yes gay relationships are short, but not those that involve children. And, with 60% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, how can we say as a society that gay relationships are less valid? Anyway, Sexual orientation was established by the law of that state to be a non-factor to determine someone's aptitude for parenting, and no org. should be above that.
"And, with 60% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce"
--That is false. The NY Times looked into this and it was only 43% at most. The stats are driven up by about 5% of the population that has many, many marriages.
GOOGLE: "Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think"
It is also interesting to note that in exit polling single people and divorced people were behind gay marriage and married people were the ones strongly against it.
"Sexual orientation was established by the law of that state to be a non-factor to determine someone's aptitude for parenting, and no org. should be above that."
--That is true that some places have done that and it is a mistake to. Is a sexual orientation towards animals or children a possible factor? Of course or at least they should be. Sexuality is a BEHAVIOR and behavior should be a factor. These ruling are limiting the freedom and conscience of American citizens.
If they are qualified, they should be legally able to adopt although faith-specific non-profits should be able to only do adoptions within their faith.
So, an atheist... someone who does not believe in god, and according to your faith would condemn those children to eternal damnation, is more qualified than a homosexual to raise children. That makes no sense.
Discriminating against people of another faith is legal. A Catholic church should be able to discriminate in who they hire. They should not be forced to hire a Baptist preacher and a Baptist church should not be forced to hire a Catholic priest. If the discrimination is for a tangible performance reason then it is allowed. We discriminate against murders and thieves all the time when we put them in jail.
I completely agree, but this isn't an issue of "performance", it's just prejudice. There are many laws in the US forbidden discrimination against a minority simply because they are part of that minority, why should people with religious beliefs be exempt as opposed to people with racist views, with different philosophies, or who believe in karma?
I don't have a problem with discrimination based on religion as long as there can be a tangible reason for it. You can't not sell a hamburger to someone because of their beliefs but you can choose to not rent a room to a Christian because they are going to pray in that room. While it is discrimination and I would generally consider it morally wrong and repulsive, it should not be illegal. It is not illegal to be a jerk although I hope that nobody ever is.
Patrick Henry (1736-1799) was an American Revolutionary leader and orator, who spoke the now famous phrase, Give me liberty or give me death! Patrick Henry boldly declared: It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionist, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
George Washington (1732-1799) was the first president of the United States and on June 1, 1774 as the Colonies were seeking Gods will as to whether they should break ties with England; George Washington made this entry in his diary: went to church and fasted all day.
On July 9, 1776, the Continental Congress authorized the Continental Army to provide chaplains for their troops. General George Washington then issued the general order to his troops, stating: The General hopes and trust that every officer and man will endeavor so to live, and act as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.
In July of 1789, in a letter to the Directors of the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the heathen, President Washington committed that government should: Co-operate, as far as the circumstances may conveniently admit, with the disinterested endeavors of your Society to Civilize and Christianize the savages of the Wilderness.
Let us unite, therefore, imploring the Supreme Ruler of nations, to spread his holy protection over these United States; to turn the machinations of the wicked to the conforming of our constitutions; to enable us to at all times to root out internal sedition, and put invasion to flight; to perpetuate to our country that prosperity, which his goodness has already conferred, and to verify the anticipation of this government being a safeguard to human rights.
On March 11, 1792 George Washington wrote I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the Unites States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is able to protect them.
What is "dangerous" about adopting to same sex couples? You are advocating fear here. It is WRONG for you to do that. This is exactly the reason I seriously wonder why you do not put your personal story out here in transparency to see. If David is an Evangelical Christian then everyone will know what his agenda is. If he couches his arguments as a secular person then he remains shielded through appearing unbiased.
Adoption itself is corrupt, and has been since at least the time of Georgia Tann. Don't take my word for it, read the well researched book on Tann, entitled The Baby Thief. It's wishful thinking (at best) to believe that adoption is only engaged in by the saintly.
Religious adoption organizations need to remain private in order to keep from adopting to same sex couples. If they step into the public sphere then they must adhere to the same rules as any secular organization.
We are not talking about public or state organizations. We are talking about private organizations. It seems to me that you are arguing that the parents that use private adoption agencies that don't do gay marriage should not have their adoptions subsidized...correct?
If we are talking about government subsidies yes. That's exactly what I'm talking about. When you step into the public sector you have to deal with equality. Come on you know as well as I do that the Catholic Church has billions of dollars. I don't think a religious organization that is as extremely wealthy as they are need to have government funding. That's called subsidizing the rich (government bailouts for churches) and that's plain wasteful.
"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. "
Gay marriages serve the state interest because gays can be recipients of children stolen by CPS.
Actually, participants of gay marriage enjoy many of the same health benefits associated with marriage in general. They are less promiscuous, engage in less risky sexual behaviors, enjoy better mental and physical health, etc. Marriage also supports a mutlibillion dollar wedding industry which would be further stimulated by the addition of same sex marriages. Society has much to gain by recognizing same sex marriage.
What most people don't realize, and chose not to learn about, is that adoption is rife with corruption, and has been since the days of Georgia Tann, the greedy, sadistic, child abusing baby thieving lesbian who popularized adoption in America.
According to the NASW code of ethics, no social worker can ethically discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If a licensed social worker were to go to work at one of these private organizations which have policies that refuse to adopt to people based on sexual orientation, which is not uncommonly the case, what about the social worker's obligation to the ethics of their profession?
I guess you would in effect force church groups that do adoptions to people in their church will have to be shut down. The code of ethics in this case is not ethical. It harms children and restricts religious freedom which wasn't there an ad about that with a storm recently.
How is it ethical to force professionals to go against their ethics? I would say that you are favoring a private organization's right to discriminate over private individual's right not to discriminate. The freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution are not organizational freedoms, they are individual freedoms.
As far as the NOM ad, it was a hilarious blunder on their part because they hired actors to pretend to be people hurt by gay rights, and the audition tapes got out. Google it.
IssuesAndJustice what if you are a Church that does not wish to adopt children out to atheist parents? Should you have the right to screen those people out? Maybe maybe not?
What should have happened if they refused to let a Muslim couple adopt? What if a Muslim adoption agency refused to let a Christian couple adopt? It should be the child's choice not that of the adoption agency they ended up in. This is no different than refusing to let people adopt based on religious beliefs
Did that in 3 years. No lie. Accounting degree. I then became a principal at a securities firm within 18 month and passed CFA level 1 on my first try with far less than sufficient study.
Also, I was in the top 1% of graduating business seniors according to the ETS exit exam I took. ETS is the people who run the SAT.
I am sorry that you like to define people without knowing them. That is low and unbecoming of someone who stand for any level of civility or decency.
Lousy logic. The reason the more educated support gay rights is that they are more indoctrinated. Gay rights are heavily pushed in every discipline. And now they are even being pushed in kindergarten. People are getting fed up. Get used to it.
Actually, people who didn't give a damn about gays before are getting pissed off now - all you'll get in the way of "rights" is whatever a totalitarian state and it's flunkies give you - if that makes you happy, then you haven't read, or aren't educated enough to understand, Ninety Eighty Four. Gays who are intelligent know that things have actually become worse for gays, because now only the militant bullies are in charge.
So to you gay Americans aren't citizens? The discrimination and heterosexual privilege of the churches trumps the basic civil rights of gay Americans?
I have to disagree with you. The same argument could be made for the earlier civil rights movement. That forced the integration of black and whites. While I encourage adoption no one and no business is above the law. Businesses should be use to the wind of change. I know I am. Several laws now being proposed will effect what I do for a living but as a businessman I will adapt and change to survive. Adoption agency are no different.
It's not enough for a fundie to not eat pork because of his beliefs. Now they think you shouldn't be allowed to either because it "offends" them. It's the same with gay marriage. They aren't content with believing that it's wrong. They want the government to VALIDATE their beliefs and force others to hate gays too. You have the right to believe gays are damned, women are property and the earth is 6,000 years old. Just don't force the rest of us to follow your beliefs.
"Now they think you shouldn't be allowed to either because it "offends" them. "
Can you cite anyone actually following this? It is my impression that you have no idea what people with other perspectives than yours are like. I suggest being open-minded and get outside of your own community sometime.
"They want the government to VALIDATE their beliefs and force others to hate gays too."
Can you cite where government hatred of gays is a goal of any pro-family, pro-marriage, etc group?
So, if I don't want to treat an AIDS patient because I believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality, should I be allowed to practice medicine in my state?
We've heard so many compaints from some conservatives about political correctness out of control.
Well guess what.
"Religious Freedom" has become the new Political Correctness. You are not allowed to do anything if it might "offend" somebody's religion.
"So, if I don't want to treat an AIDS patient because I believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality, should I be allowed to practice medicine in my state?"
Have you ever heard of any doctor ever stating that?
Not helping someone with an ailment does not have a basis in any faith practice that I know of. What faith would justify that?
""Religious Freedom" has become the new Political Correctness. "
This is so frustrating, it's the so called Christian groups that are the ones trying to deny equal treatment under the law to gay people, not the other way around. These are the same people that 60 years ago were fighting against interracial marriage. If Christian adoption agencies were denying adoptions to interracial or other minority couples we wouldn't even have this conversation. If a church's theology denies equal rights to a segment of society, then they shouldn't be endorsed.
Many faiths only allow men as priests or pastors. Should they be shut down by the government for discrimination? That is basically what you are saying.
"If Christian adoption agencies were denying adoptions to interracial or other minority couples we wouldn't even have this conversation."
Christian theology has no opposition to either of these things. Christianity does clearly have a position that homosexuality is sin and not God's plan for life.
That has nothing to do with what I said. If people choose a religion that treats women as less than worthy of the priesthood thats their business. All Gay people are denied equal rights whether they be Christian or not. And you're also wrong, all Christian sects are not opposed to homosexuality as against Gods plan. But if you knew your history, you would know the oppostion of the church in the south to interracial couples prior to the civil rights movement and federally mandated rights.
In the United States the founding fathers have established a separation of church and state, if a person wants to join a non-publicly funded relgion that discriminates against women more power them. Adoption is a different story, not only does Catholic Charities accept public funding, but adoption is a state regulated business. In state business, in Massachusetts, gay people rights can not be abridged.
"In state business, in Massachusetts, gay people rights can not be abridged."
-- Forcing others to give someone a gay adoption is not a right. Sexual behavior should not be a protected class. You have to first establish that before you can shut down highly successful adoption groups that operate by their faith convictions.
And this is the problem with your agrument and why time is not on your side and you will eventually loose. You see being gay as a "behavior" it is not, it is an orientation just as your (I assume) heterosexuality. People cannot have their "gayness" taken away just as you cannot have the white taken from your skin. That is why you are called a bigot, because you deny their inherent nature. It's sad really, but bigoted none the less.
Last time I checked, you could get syphilis, ghonnerea, climidea, HIV and whole host of bugs from heterosexual sex. I don't know where lower life expectancy or any of the ther come from. Seems like you hear alot more about men beating their wives and girlfriends then in homosexual relationships. You're kidding about lower marraige, right?
None of it is a joke. Particular look at the research out of nations with same-sex marriage in Europe. I am surprised how woefully under-informed the public is. As soon as I get my new HD camera in, I am going to need to make some more videos highlighting the studies and government statistics behind my claims.
There comes a time when society needs to look at the rhetoric these institutions spread due to their ignorance and hatred, and take a stand to change them. Christianity included.
You can not treat people with injustice and expect them to take it.
A religious belief should never be forced down society's throat. Religion is for the individual. Leave it at home. There's a whole world that has just as much right to believe something else entirely.
"A religious belief should never be forced down society's throat."
--And it isn't. Nobody is being forced to to use Catholic Adoption Charities.
"Religion is for the individual. Leave it at home."
Religion never has to be left at home. It should be able to be expressed freely just as if someone wants to broadcast their ideas on health care, their sexual behaviors, or favorite sports teams.
If an organization is expousing bigotted views it will be censored, and rightly so.
I would expect nothing less in a high minded society.
And in a high minded society, I would hope we would not espouse beliefs based upon invisible beings, and try to limit a population's lives and liberties based upon fairy tale stories.
If the tooth fairy said you must never marry or have a child would you obey such a command?
you sicken me. period. I have many "Gay" friends who have adopted otherwise "unadoptable" children and have given loving, caring, nourishing homes for them... you and your bigoted, hating religious boneheads would rather see these poor suffering children die in the streets rather than give them hope, love and life.... think about it you idiot. open your eyes! we're all in this together. peace and love...even to hating bigoted morons!
The point is the agencies shouldn't have to be forced to place needy children in good,solid, able to provide "gay" homes. Caring about the children...... that should be their first and foremost concern.
It is easy to blame the Gay agenda. All those terrible people that want to give a home to needy children. I would suggest we take a closer look at the "organizations/churches" that are digging their heels in the sand and causing all this drama. Who suffers? The children, of course.
As for all the Bible talk here, I don't think it is even neccessary to bring that document into the discussion to talk about the issue the youtuber brought up...It would be more interesting if we can debate the subject without saying "well the Bible says this" or "the Bible says that"....
Good job with the video and standing up for what you believe in...
Locations like this will never be good for solid discussion but in my view everyone hass a belief or point of view and you can bash a source for theie point of view all day, but in the end they are still entitled to their point of view and we should respect that even if we don't agree...
I am not going to play the "quote the bible" game with you. You know what it says, so don't act like you have trapped me in a corner with it. I grew up in a christian home just like you and most other americans and know the bible just as well as you do!
Man, u are starting to make no sense. All u have been doing is talking about "side issues"! Bringing up some random stats about European Divorce when I am talking about adoption. Talking about animals and incest when they have NOTHING to do with gay rights! You brought up the notion that not believing the bible word for word holds no weight with you and then you don't want to discuss it! Wow.
Forcing others to abandon their protected religious beliefs...now that's a solution. Let's just violate people's rights if people don't think how we like. Brilliant.
Actually i doubt that will be the results. Practically we have to ask ourselves, how does the adoption process work? It starts with parents who want to adopt. They get connected with an agency they want to use and then they find a matching child. If faith-based group have to abandon their ability to only work with people of that faith, then that will limit their ability to promote at churches, etc...which means less parents and less adoptions.
Well, if the homophobic nature of the churches were done away with, then more children would be adopted, and therein would lie the solution.
What's with the catholic church being anti-gay rights anyway? The priests are all fucking children anyway. Then again, it has been proven that homophobic hetero males are more sexually aroused to gay porn then non-bigoted heterosexual males.
"Well, if the homophobic nature of the churches were done away with, then more children would be adopted, and therein would lie the solution."
--All the major faiths teach that homosexuality is against nature and is in rebellion to God. Just because something things homosexuality is a sin doesn't make them homophobic. I don't know of any churches that doesn't welcome gay to attend.
"What's with the catholic church being anti-gay rights anyway?"
--I guess they are following their catholic faith.
"All the major faiths teach that homosexuality is against nature"
That's up for contention quite frankly and only applicable if you even believe in God. What about those of us who don't follow Christianity? Should we be punished because of what some men believe? How fair is it for me that I have to be denied rights based on a book I don't ascribe to?
Thomas Jefferson once said: "Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
"What about those of us who don't follow Christianity"
I didn't say you had to follow anything. I was just pointing out that the major faiths that I know of have core reasons for not sanctioning homosexuality and the reason they don't support homosexuality isn't because of homophobia.
"Should we be punished because of what some men believe?"
Just how are homosexuals punished?
"based on a book"
I can't speak for others but I base my thoughts on universal reasoning.
God, take my statements out of context much? In the context of my argument you stated that Homosexuality is against Nature because of what Religions state. And then I stated "What if I don't ascribe to that religion?" Why should I be judged based on a book that I don't care about?
"Just how are homosexuals punished?"
Massive bigotry for one. Unequal Rights.
I mean truly, if you aren't gay you wouldn't know.
--I don't think the church supports that. I know that I don't. I can't speak for someone elses actions but I am glad we agree that this is wrong.
"it has been proven that homophobic hetero males are more sexually aroused to gay porn then non-bigoted heterosexual males."
--Probably because it is more erotic to them. Maybe that means that homosexual arousal and behavior is a choice because if it was a gene then why would it impact straight guys?
"Maybe that means that homosexual arousal and behavior is a choice"
I think the original poster phrased it wrongly. The important part of his statement is Homophobic. Basically the people who protest too much are (In theory) homosexual themselves and are actually making a choice by going against their true nature.
"making a choice by going against their true nature."
--So because someone is aroused by gay porn that means it is natural? Can you explain that?
Maybe they protest because they know how dangerous and unhealthy it is.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if some forms of bestiality or child porn didn't cause arousal, I hardly would consider that natural or better yet as a standard good. Would be turned on by group sex mean cheating on one's wife is to be encouraged?
"So because someone is aroused by gay porn that means it is natural? Can you explain that?"
Let me tell you something, man. I can watch HOURS of straight porn and not get aroused, once. Pop in a lesbian video and I'll yawn for hours. Think on that.
"Maybe they protest because they know how dangerous and unhealthy it is."
I'm still waiting on this video to tell us how dangerous us gays and our "lifestyle" is. I'm a 33 year old gay man and I'm healthy and happy. How about you?
"I hardly would consider that natural or better yet as a standard good."
I love this argument. I see it all the time from the Fundamentalists (Are you sure you aren't a closet fundie?). If someone got turned on by bestiality or child porn it's not hurting anyone as long as they don't act on it.
What people like you don't understand is the ability to consent. Fido cannot consent... 5 year old Tommy can't consent. Hence it's wrong. 2 grown men CAN consent, hence it's right.
Of course your view is relevant! U can't say because a christian person favors gay marriage, they don't follow the bible and don't hold weight with u, then not back it up! I asked the question because I knew the answer. Nobody does, so do as the bible says and don't judge others. What makes anyone think that your views on the subject are relevant if u don't give your side?! Obviously u think they are and want them to be, otherwise, u wouldn't have posted this video or responded to any comments.
Can you quote where the Bible says that? I think you will be surprised.
"What makes anyone think that your views on the subject are relevant if u don't give your side?"
I like to have a discussion about the points I bring forward. Often people try to muddle the issue by discussing other topics. If someone can show the logical connection to a side issue then I am all ears.
Wait a minute. You can't define what a protected class is, yet you can state in your comments that homosexuality is not one? Come on. From your comments, you seem like a pretty smart guy and I am enjoying this conversation, but you have to stop thinking so much, break things down rationally and get out of your "religious freedom" talking points. If you know what protected class is, then you know in most states homosexuality is one! You can't discriminate no matter WHAT RELIGION YOU ARE!
"You can't define what a protected class is, yet you can state in your comments that homosexuality is not one? "
I don't think that sexual behavior should be a protected class...so that means homosexuality, hetro, etc isn't included. How do I not have a definition?
I know that a protected class is. The question is what classes should be make protected and that is where I think we differ. That said, I do have an exact definition.
If you knew a gay person personally, you would stop saying that being gay is a BEHAVIOR. If you met a caring, open responsible gay person, we wouldn't be having this conversation! You would know that gay people are just like you and you wouldn't compare their rights with animal rights. The next gay rights rally you go to, ask them these questions face to face and have a discussion. I am not trying to define you. I based what I have said off of your comments.
Any INDEPENDENTLY financed organization should be allowed to discriminate against any person/group for any reason they please, be it good, bad, moral, or immoral.
That said, any organization that gets even a red cent from the government should NOT be allowed to be discriminatory. Once you give up being entirely private, you can no longer walk to the beat of your own drum. My tax money shall not go toward any bigoted agendas.
Yes, if it's government money, it should not be discriminatory or show any favoritism toward any individual or group.
Personally, I fully support homosexual rights. I'm also a huge supporter of private organizations' rights, as well. I think if an organization refuses to adopt a child to a gay couple, it's disrespectful and idiotic, but as long as that organization is 100% privately funded, it has that right.
"I'm also a huge supporter of private organizations' rights, as well. "
So should a private organization be able to turn down hiring a transsexual?
"I think if an organization refuses to adopt a child to a gay couple, it's disrespectful and idiotic"
That isn't how adoptions work. They generally start with the couple and decide what child fits them. There would never be the case of a child and a gay couple matched up and then they are refused adoption.
Should a private organization be able to? Yes. They should also be able to turn down homosexuals, blacks, Mexicans, whites, women, and bald men. However, should they? No.
Even if they can't, that's not really the point. My point is that discrimination should be allowed in any form, but I think it's immoral and ridiculous.
"My point is that discrimination should be allowed in any form, but I think it's immoral..."
-Yeah. Discrimination can be a good thing...the question is what is being discriminated. I discriminate (fire) employees that would steal from me. I would discriminate (go out with) the pleasant, pretty girl over others. The question is whether there is a legitimate reason.
And you are right, just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral. There are tons of examples of that all around our world.
The bottom line is that each applicant should always be judged by the content of their character. There certainly are gay couples who would be terribly immature and neglectful parents. They should not be allowed to adopt. There are other gay couples who definitely are very responsible and have proven through years of responsibility (excellent stable jobs, experience, etc.) that they are up to adopting and raising kids. The same goes for hetero couples. Character is the core issue.
That is a good question. I favor expanded rights so that homosexuals can operate more efficiently inside our society. That said, as you know, I am concerned ab
your channel name is "issue and justice" but i would suggest you have a second look at your bible on what the word justice meant. and who decides whats constitute justice, you OR God.
koreanjennygirl 1 month ago
is beyond me. But if word of God is NOT on your side, then you have NO RIGHT to exclude anyone based on your PERSONAL opinion.
koreanjennygirl 1 month ago
i am a christian myself, and i dont agree with gay marriage. but what baffles me is that many of my fellow chrisitans seem to hold bunch of other things against gays that are not backed up by scripture. I mean there are NO scriptures where Gods says gays are not allowed to become parents. So in another word, it has NOTHING to do with christian faith. Why chrisitans such yourself would insist gays be discriminated against in this particular area, and claims it is because of "christian" principles
koreanjennygirl 1 month ago
you want to discriminate AND still operating. If you dont want to be closed down, then just DO the right thing and allows gays to adopt through christian agencies. The problems were never with the gays or the government, it has always been with Christians like yourself who chose to discriminate against gay community, yet trying to play the victim and blame everyone else for what you ARE doing wrong. Have you never heard of self resp?
koreanjennygirl 1 month ago
what is so dishonest about this whole situation is that catholic church tried to misrepresent the whole case as persecution of their religion freedom, when in reality, like i have said, it is always about you cant want to take money from the state and not want to abide by it's rules. How dishonest! Further more , you are shifting resp to the gays where in reality no ones is against Christian adoption agency from operating, as long as they dont discriminate. However, Christian like you INSIST...
koreanjennygirl 1 month ago
well, i am not too familiar with the situation you are talking about. but i do know with the recent case of Illinois, where Catholic adoptions agency cries foul, saying that state of Illinois discriminate against their freedom of religion by refuse gay adoption. where the issue really is the fact if they fund themselves, they can do whatever they likes. but they want to have their cake and eat it too. they want to continue take tax payers money, many of whom do not agree with their stance..
koreanjennygirl 1 month ago
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 month ago
Guess you missed the part about separation of Church and State. A State has the right to make law and the legal obligation to make laws equal for all. If a religious organization wishes not to abide by the law, that is their choose, they can close down as some have done. To say there is a 'gay agenda' is incorrect; there is an equal right agenda, and as an American you should stand for equality.
Religion is wrong again it seems, as it has been so often in the past, take a quick look at history
chicraig6421 5 months ago
"Freedom of religion" - my favourite oxymoron.
jontron111 6 months ago
I am against gay marriage, but gay adoption is fine, gay parents doesn't mean a gay kid.
VVV717 7 months ago
Gay-fascism?! Really?! What about Christo-fascism?! Why do churches who perform a public function not have to follow state laws? Might I remind you that Christ said, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." Catholic Charities and other religious groups were more than happy to take money from the State of Massachuttes to run adoption programs as long as it was on their terms but the rules changed and they cry, "foul"?
edgwaterprog 9 months ago
0___0 why would someone want to close an adoption agency what about the kids i`m all agianst discrimination but isnt that going to far, if they did close them where would the kids go 0____0 i think both sides are bieng to extreme
victoriafinlay23 9 months ago
Allowing LGBT adoption does not make children suffer due to less adoption agencies, what causes their suffering is the baseless decision of those adoption agencies to deny ss couple adoption.
Jamieishere1 1 year ago
The irony here is that by refusing to place children with SS couples, and therefore keeping them within the care-system, the catholic adoption agency is doing exactly the same thing as this lady is criticizing the government for (they are putting their own (disproven) prejudice beliefs above those of the children.
The only rights that are cosntrained are the rights to arbitrarily discriminate (not a right anybody should have).
Jamieishere1 1 year ago
The same thing would & should happen if Catholics denied adoption to black people.
If bullying / neglecting / treating your fellow citizen with indifference constitutes your "religious freedom" - you should reconsider what your religion is teaching you.
Its sad that although their charitable and good-hearted in some ways, their also too judgemental to see that two parents is better than no parents.
Cyphlix 1 year ago
Your right, Christian based adoption agencies do deserve to have their voices heard. Once one minority group starts Lording it over another majority group, namely Christians, we just go back to the DARKages. When good Christian services are shut down over Gay rights to fabricate families then the voice of truth on this matter is shut down. Shut down this Gay movement that parades itself as a good alternative! They already have enough of their so-called rights! It's just a push for bad marriage..
CrystalSeaTV 1 year ago
@CrystalSeaTV No organisation deserves to oppress a group of individuals or obstruct them from doing a good thing. Christian fundies always seem to be trying to play the "poor me" card as if they are the victims of unrelated individuals trying to peruse their own happiness
Shut down the Christian church instead! they already have enough tax-exempt status! Its just a push for bad civilisation (in case you didn't know the DARK ages were enforced and perpetuated by the Catholic / Christian church)
Cyphlix 1 year ago
People need to stop controlling other people's lives. Gay and lesbian can raise children with all the love in the world. Sex is just a gender. Love is so strong. Two people of the same-sex are perfectly capable of adopting a child. I'ts better to see a child with two loving same-sex parents, then have a child without a family. Most children seem happy with their same-sex parents anyway.
lykeomgz1987 1 year ago
I too am appalled at the discrimination practiced by adoption agencies. I mean, since Heroine addicts don't have sex with children nearly as often as do homosexuals, then why are Heroine addicts discriminated against?
Oh yea, I just remembered, they might steal the baby's bottle! Ok, "my bad"... never mind... sorry!
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Yes, because all these children are sooo much more healthy in the hands of a straight couple that it is absolutely necessary to not give them to a gay couple. Why? because genitalia somehow affects parenting skills and single parents are forbidden from adopting children because they can't have 2 different types of genetalia to show the child how each one is special. In conclusion, the religious people are saying: PLEASE, my ideas arent dumb!! they are taking away my right to descriminate!!!
Randomidable 1 year ago
@Randomidable
{In conclusion, the religious people are saying: PLEASE, my ideas arent dumb!}
Well, since we're on the subject of ideas that aren't dumb & the ideas of homosexuals are very intelligent. Maybe, homosexuals ought to get the dumb idea of historically making the sacrifice of founding & operating orphanages. I mean, if its not difficult to deal with 2 or 3 children, therefor, it not being a sacrifice... never mind... homosexuals with orphanages truly is a dumb idea!
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi If an openly gay person tried to found an orphanage, I doubt people would recieve it well. In fact, I bet there are orphanages that gay people have founded, but are either not talked about or the gay people are in the closet. Oh, and to your other comment, the majority of pedophiles are straight men ( not gays), so according to your logic, straight men should be banned from bieng able to adopt kids? Its obvious that these "adoption charities" are descriminating. How sickening
Randomidable 1 year ago
It's a blessing catholic adoption agencies have been closed - we all know what they ALL do to children.
JustB3NJI 1 year ago
This guy looks like a closet case-
ronaldshuman 1 year ago
I think its OK to "constrain the rights or ordinary Americans" if the "right" you are constraining is discrimination. Adoption is not a religious act - it's a legal contract. If a religious organization is going to engage in any kind of business, they should be required to follow the same rules that protect individuals from non-discrimination that EVERY other business is required to.
whiskeycricket 1 year ago 4
@whiskeycricket Adoption is a private service for their members, not a public business. In this case it is operated by a non-profit religious group.
Just as there can be things like Christians schools. They do not have to accept non-Christians into their school. It is their choice how to run. It is part of freedom of religion and freedom of association.
Discrimination is not illegal unless it is against a protected class and in certain ways.
IssuesAndJustice 1 year ago
@IssuesAndJustice Private schools, country clubs and hospitals are not allowed to discriminate based on race or religion, although they do, something you think is OK. Hospitals are not allowed to turn patients away who aren't the "right" race. Christian schools can't say outright that they are denying entry because of a different religion, they usually find other legal reasons.
whiskeycricket 1 year ago
@IssuesAndJustice So then what you are saying is that they only adopt children to other Catholics? I don't think so. They are placing these children in homes of other religions that go against thier beliefs already. Why single out Gay and Lesbian couples?
massageboy24 1 year ago
@IssuesAndJustice if these agencies are taking public tax dollars, they need to abide by rules. we are NOT talking about private services here.
notaniceguy34 8 months ago
I know many Gay couples who adopted children. The children did not turn out to be gay; not that that would be wrong, but it only goes to show that Gay Couples DO make good parents. Too many parent-less children need a loving home, and Gay Couples CAN and DO deliver this critical need in a child's life. Freedom in America is declining. Politicians are stripping us of liberty, unless "they" approve. We need change, and we need it now!
Soundman51 1 year ago
@Soundman51 Um gay people can adopt all over. Nobody is "stripping us of liberty".
IssuesAndJustice 1 year ago
@IssuesAndJustice On paper maybe, but that's it. As far as being stripped of Liberty is concerned, you need to look at, or investigate the nature of recent legislative agendas. There's a lot of hidden deprivations embedded within. I'm from MA myself, and I've seen it first hand. Gays are being targeted more than you may realize, not so much in an obvious way, but collaterally.
Soundman51 1 year ago
i think you're gay
nikf1eld 1 year ago
@nikf1eld Sexual harassment like calling someone gay (unless they ask to be identified that way) is not permitted on the channel. You have been banned from this channel for hateful/abusive speech.
IssuesAndJustice 1 year ago
If a "charity" takes tax payer money, then you have to follow the rules and laws.
What is wrong is the fact that you want to take gay people's money to help your "charity" but then treat them unfairly.
That my friend, it wrong.
sporto14 2 years ago 3
The rule talked about in this video has nothing to do with taxpayer money. Adoptions done with 100% donated church money in accordance with church principals are now banned. Do you see why people oppose the homosexual agenda? It isn't because they hate gays.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
@IssuesAndJustice Banned...where? I wouldn't listen to a known liar like Maggie Gallagher if I were you. Mormon Adoption Agencies still operates out of Massachusetts with absolutely zero problems even though they do not allow same-sex couples to adopt. Catholic Charities could have turned down state money, they could have complied with state anti-discrimination laws, instead they chose to shut down.
According to this, it would be because they are being lied to.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
And it's also important to note that these adoption agencies CHOSE to close rather than abide by government non-discrimination laws.
If the separation of church and state had been maintained, no churches would have been getting tax-payer money to perform state judicial functions and this would never have been an issue.
It's also interesting to note and contemplate that until very recently Catholic Services willingly and gladly placed many children with gay adoptive parents.
filmstocker 2 years ago
Even if you support discrimination against gays in adoption, you must recognize that it's a slippery slope for the government to give special dispensation to religious agencies to discriminate
If such was allowed, how could the government say no to an agency that said it didn't want to adopt to Jews on religious grounds? A Muslim agency that said it wouldn't adopt to women who didn't wear headscarves? It couldn't.
Adoption is a state judicial function and no discrimination is possible. Period
filmstocker 2 years ago 2
i see your point about how closing christian adoption agencies hurts those poor children waiting to be adopted. but people will be hurt in this battle for equal rights, there's no way around that. persecution begets persecution until... ?
dsdffdsfdsdsffsd 2 years ago
Equity decides quality especially in Marriage,Family and Religous freedoms. The most important place of all
The family, The place of our birth, must remain Honourable, everybody has had a Father and a Mother the only only only possible way for anyone to be born.
Marriage, Family and Religious Freedom
All are instituted by God for his Glory not to our Shame.
PastorStephenR 2 years ago
This is an excellent video. I have seen it posted on a number of Facebook accounts. Homosexual fascism is very much alive.
1000Patriot 2 years ago
you're just against gay people and the idea of gay people having children. Where does it say in the bible that a child's parents have to be a man and a woman? Nowhere... and these adoption agencies are just making excuses to not allow it. Just like you.
millos71 2 years ago
Everybody is free to interpret their faith in their own way. This means that if someone thinks that homosexuality is a sin then they can do that and if a faith-based adoption agency only wants to do adoptions for a particular faith group they serve then they should have that freedom. I don't think we should take away their freedom to operate as a religious organization. That is violating freedom of religion.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
In fact, not everybody is free to interpret their religion in their own way. They can perform their religion AS LONG AS it doesn't interfere with the law or with someone's rights.
millos71 2 years ago
"not everybody is free to interpret"
Yes they can interpret in their own way. To not be able to interpret would be to ban thought. Certain actions though can be banned.
Some faiths like some Native American faiths use drugs and that drug use has been upheld in court....same with the Catholic use of wine with minors. That said, there is a line where people's rights are violated.
That said, there is not and should not be a right to adopt from anyone
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
You're right. I should not have used the word "interpret". There is no way of banning thought.
There are other communities, like the Fundamental Latter Day Saints people that believe polygamy is the way to have a marriage. They are not allowed to do what they want because this violates people's rights. I guess the only way to solve this issue is by having those catholic agencies present their case in court (perhaps the supreme court). Until then, they should allow gays to adopt.
millos71 2 years ago
The question is not whether gays can adopt, but whether they can force a Christian non-profit to do adoptions that they believe are counter to their faith. As a non-profit, I say no. Parenting and sexual orientation are legitimate factors in considering adoption cases and considering the massive research about the short length of homosexual relationships, and the damage that parental breakup has on children that they should be able to use that as a factor. It is based on a legitimate interest.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
There is research that shows evidence supporting both side's arguments on whether gay relationships are short or not. In my experience, yes gay relationships are short, but not those that involve children. And, with 60% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, how can we say as a society that gay relationships are less valid? Anyway, Sexual orientation was established by the law of that state to be a non-factor to determine someone's aptitude for parenting, and no org. should be above that.
millos71 2 years ago
"And, with 60% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce"
--That is false. The NY Times looked into this and it was only 43% at most. The stats are driven up by about 5% of the population that has many, many marriages.
GOOGLE: "Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think"
It is also interesting to note that in exit polling single people and divorced people were behind gay marriage and married people were the ones strongly against it.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
"Sexual orientation was established by the law of that state to be a non-factor to determine someone's aptitude for parenting, and no org. should be above that."
--That is true that some places have done that and it is a mistake to. Is a sexual orientation towards animals or children a possible factor? Of course or at least they should be. Sexuality is a BEHAVIOR and behavior should be a factor. These ruling are limiting the freedom and conscience of American citizens.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Do you believe atheists should be able to adopt?
millos71 2 years ago 2
If they are qualified, they should be legally able to adopt although faith-specific non-profits should be able to only do adoptions within their faith.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
So, an atheist... someone who does not believe in god, and according to your faith would condemn those children to eternal damnation, is more qualified than a homosexual to raise children. That makes no sense.
millos71 2 years ago 2
I never said that. Where do you get that I think homosexuals should never be able to adopt children?
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
So you have just given arguments against gay people's aptitude for raising children and you're not against it? How's that?
millos71 2 years ago
I think there are dangerous in it but I do not think it should be illegal. I think the concerns are legitimate.
I think there are dangerous in single parenting but I do not think that single parent adoptions should be illegal.
Just because someone thinks something is not the best does not mean that they think it should be illegal.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
@IssuesAndJustice so u think a catholic adoption agency should be allowed to withhold their services from Jews? just asking
MamaMario13 8 months ago
The only "rights" at question are the rights of religious people to be above the law, and their right to discriminate.
rhysepoos 2 years ago
Discriminating against people of another faith is legal. A Catholic church should be able to discriminate in who they hire. They should not be forced to hire a Baptist preacher and a Baptist church should not be forced to hire a Catholic priest. If the discrimination is for a tangible performance reason then it is allowed. We discriminate against murders and thieves all the time when we put them in jail.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
I completely agree, but this isn't an issue of "performance", it's just prejudice. There are many laws in the US forbidden discrimination against a minority simply because they are part of that minority, why should people with religious beliefs be exempt as opposed to people with racist views, with different philosophies, or who believe in karma?
rhysepoos 2 years ago
I don't have a problem with discrimination based on religion as long as there can be a tangible reason for it. You can't not sell a hamburger to someone because of their beliefs but you can choose to not rent a room to a Christian because they are going to pray in that room. While it is discrimination and I would generally consider it morally wrong and repulsive, it should not be illegal. It is not illegal to be a jerk although I hope that nobody ever is.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Our nation was founded on Christianity
leafz15 2 years ago
@leafz15:
So? I'm a gay Christian, and I support the separation of church and state.
smettiuss 2 years ago
Patrick Henry (1736-1799) was an American Revolutionary leader and orator, who spoke the now famous phrase, Give me liberty or give me death! Patrick Henry boldly declared: It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionist, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
leafz15 2 years ago
George Washington (1732-1799) was the first president of the United States and on June 1, 1774 as the Colonies were seeking Gods will as to whether they should break ties with England; George Washington made this entry in his diary: went to church and fasted all day.
leafz15 2 years ago
On July 9, 1776, the Continental Congress authorized the Continental Army to provide chaplains for their troops. General George Washington then issued the general order to his troops, stating: The General hopes and trust that every officer and man will endeavor so to live, and act as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.
leafz15 2 years ago
In July of 1789, in a letter to the Directors of the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the heathen, President Washington committed that government should: Co-operate, as far as the circumstances may conveniently admit, with the disinterested endeavors of your Society to Civilize and Christianize the savages of the Wilderness.
leafz15 2 years ago
Let us unite, therefore, imploring the Supreme Ruler of nations, to spread his holy protection over these United States; to turn the machinations of the wicked to the conforming of our constitutions; to enable us to at all times to root out internal sedition, and put invasion to flight; to perpetuate to our country that prosperity, which his goodness has already conferred, and to verify the anticipation of this government being a safeguard to human rights.
leafz15 2 years ago
On March 11, 1792 George Washington wrote I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the Unites States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is able to protect them.
leafz15 2 years ago
LOL - az824 - You've pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Jacksonholenativ 2 years ago
What is "dangerous" about adopting to same sex couples? You are advocating fear here. It is WRONG for you to do that. This is exactly the reason I seriously wonder why you do not put your personal story out here in transparency to see. If David is an Evangelical Christian then everyone will know what his agenda is. If he couches his arguments as a secular person then he remains shielded through appearing unbiased.
Jacksonholenativ 2 years ago
Religious harassment is not permitted on this channel. Please stick to real issues and arguments.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
"Religious harassment is not permitted on this channel" Can you please explain to the jury here wherein you were harassed religiously?
Jacksonholenativ 2 years ago
Adoption itself is corrupt, and has been since at least the time of Georgia Tann. Don't take my word for it, read the well researched book on Tann, entitled The Baby Thief. It's wishful thinking (at best) to believe that adoption is only engaged in by the saintly.
CPSSucks 2 years ago
Religious adoption organizations need to remain private in order to keep from adopting to same sex couples. If they step into the public sphere then they must adhere to the same rules as any secular organization.
Jacksonholenativ 2 years ago 2
We are not talking about public or state organizations. We are talking about private organizations. It seems to me that you are arguing that the parents that use private adoption agencies that don't do gay marriage should not have their adoptions subsidized...correct?
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
If we are talking about government subsidies yes. That's exactly what I'm talking about. When you step into the public sector you have to deal with equality. Come on you know as well as I do that the Catholic Church has billions of dollars. I don't think a religious organization that is as extremely wealthy as they are need to have government funding. That's called subsidizing the rich (government bailouts for churches) and that's plain wasteful.
Jacksonholenativ 2 years ago
from the Secular Case Against Gay Marriage:
"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. "
Gay marriages serve the state interest because gays can be recipients of children stolen by CPS.
CPSSucks 2 years ago
Actually, participants of gay marriage enjoy many of the same health benefits associated with marriage in general. They are less promiscuous, engage in less risky sexual behaviors, enjoy better mental and physical health, etc. Marriage also supports a mutlibillion dollar wedding industry which would be further stimulated by the addition of same sex marriages. Society has much to gain by recognizing same sex marriage.
solandcb 2 years ago
Adoption is corrupt. Look at the history of it, and you'll understand. Start with Georgia Tann. Just by coincidence, she's a lesbian.
CPSSucks 2 years ago
What most people don't realize, and chose not to learn about, is that adoption is rife with corruption, and has been since the days of Georgia Tann, the greedy, sadistic, child abusing baby thieving lesbian who popularized adoption in America.
CPSSucks 2 years ago
According to the NASW code of ethics, no social worker can ethically discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If a licensed social worker were to go to work at one of these private organizations which have policies that refuse to adopt to people based on sexual orientation, which is not uncommonly the case, what about the social worker's obligation to the ethics of their profession?
solandcb 2 years ago
I guess you would in effect force church groups that do adoptions to people in their church will have to be shut down. The code of ethics in this case is not ethical. It harms children and restricts religious freedom which wasn't there an ad about that with a storm recently.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
How is it ethical to force professionals to go against their ethics? I would say that you are favoring a private organization's right to discriminate over private individual's right not to discriminate. The freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution are not organizational freedoms, they are individual freedoms.
As far as the NOM ad, it was a hilarious blunder on their part because they hired actors to pretend to be people hurt by gay rights, and the audition tapes got out. Google it.
solandcb 2 years ago
IssuesAndJustice what if you are a Church that does not wish to adopt children out to atheist parents? Should you have the right to screen those people out? Maybe maybe not?
Jacksonholenativ 2 years ago
Comment removed
MNICY 2 years ago
What should have happened if they refused to let a Muslim couple adopt? What if a Muslim adoption agency refused to let a Christian couple adopt? It should be the child's choice not that of the adoption agency they ended up in. This is no different than refusing to let people adopt based on religious beliefs
anarchopunk69 2 years ago
"It should be the child's choice not that of the adoption agency they ended up in."
The child is not there at the beginning of the adoption process. It almost always starts with the parents and works the other way.
"This is no different than refusing to let people adopt based on religious beliefs "
Exactly. I think one faith-based group should be able to do adoptions to just their faith.
"What if a Muslim adoption agency refused to let a Christian couple adopt?"
Cool with me.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Comment removed
HomophobeGetsSmacked 2 years ago
"Go to college. "
Did that in 3 years. No lie. Accounting degree. I then became a principal at a securities firm within 18 month and passed CFA level 1 on my first try with far less than sufficient study.
Also, I was in the top 1% of graduating business seniors according to the ETS exit exam I took. ETS is the people who run the SAT.
I am sorry that you like to define people without knowing them. That is low and unbecoming of someone who stand for any level of civility or decency.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Lousy logic. The reason the more educated support gay rights is that they are more indoctrinated. Gay rights are heavily pushed in every discipline. And now they are even being pushed in kindergarten. People are getting fed up. Get used to it.
CPSSucks 2 years ago
Comment removed
HomophobeGetsSmacked 2 years ago
Actually, people who didn't give a damn about gays before are getting pissed off now - all you'll get in the way of "rights" is whatever a totalitarian state and it's flunkies give you - if that makes you happy, then you haven't read, or aren't educated enough to understand, Ninety Eighty Four. Gays who are intelligent know that things have actually become worse for gays, because now only the militant bullies are in charge.
CPSSucks 2 years ago
Comment removed
countsoss 2 years ago
So to you gay Americans aren't citizens? The discrimination and heterosexual privilege of the churches trumps the basic civil rights of gay Americans?
matthewsmc 2 years ago 2
So if an adoption agency has a religious belief that it can't place children in Jewish homes that would be ok with you.
matthewsmc 2 years ago
I have to disagree with you. The same argument could be made for the earlier civil rights movement. That forced the integration of black and whites. While I encourage adoption no one and no business is above the law. Businesses should be use to the wind of change. I know I am. Several laws now being proposed will effect what I do for a living but as a businessman I will adapt and change to survive. Adoption agency are no different.
countsoss 2 years ago
It's not enough for a fundie to not eat pork because of his beliefs. Now they think you shouldn't be allowed to either because it "offends" them. It's the same with gay marriage. They aren't content with believing that it's wrong. They want the government to VALIDATE their beliefs and force others to hate gays too. You have the right to believe gays are damned, women are property and the earth is 6,000 years old. Just don't force the rest of us to follow your beliefs.
chrisehogan 2 years ago 2
"Now they think you shouldn't be allowed to either because it "offends" them. "
Can you cite anyone actually following this? It is my impression that you have no idea what people with other perspectives than yours are like. I suggest being open-minded and get outside of your own community sometime.
"They want the government to VALIDATE their beliefs and force others to hate gays too."
Can you cite where government hatred of gays is a goal of any pro-family, pro-marriage, etc group?
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
So, if I don't want to treat an AIDS patient because I believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality, should I be allowed to practice medicine in my state?
We've heard so many compaints from some conservatives about political correctness out of control.
Well guess what.
"Religious Freedom" has become the new Political Correctness. You are not allowed to do anything if it might "offend" somebody's religion.
chrisehogan 2 years ago
"So, if I don't want to treat an AIDS patient because I believe that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality, should I be allowed to practice medicine in my state?"
Have you ever heard of any doctor ever stating that?
Not helping someone with an ailment does not have a basis in any faith practice that I know of. What faith would justify that?
""Religious Freedom" has become the new Political Correctness. "
What are some examples of this?
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
This is so frustrating, it's the so called Christian groups that are the ones trying to deny equal treatment under the law to gay people, not the other way around. These are the same people that 60 years ago were fighting against interracial marriage. If Christian adoption agencies were denying adoptions to interracial or other minority couples we wouldn't even have this conversation. If a church's theology denies equal rights to a segment of society, then they shouldn't be endorsed.
Fightdog 2 years ago 3
Many faiths only allow men as priests or pastors. Should they be shut down by the government for discrimination? That is basically what you are saying.
"If Christian adoption agencies were denying adoptions to interracial or other minority couples we wouldn't even have this conversation."
Christian theology has no opposition to either of these things. Christianity does clearly have a position that homosexuality is sin and not God's plan for life.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
That has nothing to do with what I said. If people choose a religion that treats women as less than worthy of the priesthood thats their business. All Gay people are denied equal rights whether they be Christian or not. And you're also wrong, all Christian sects are not opposed to homosexuality as against Gods plan. But if you knew your history, you would know the oppostion of the church in the south to interracial couples prior to the civil rights movement and federally mandated rights.
Fightdog 2 years ago 3
"If people choose a religion that treats women as less than worthy of the priesthood thats their business."
So you only care about defending homosexuals and not women?
"Gay people are denied equal rights"
Polygamous people are denied equal rights too, right?
There is good reason for groups to not do homosexual adoptions. It is a less healthy life and it is also against the values of the groups involved.
Also, because of the way adoptions work, there isn't any less children being adopted.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
In the United States the founding fathers have established a separation of church and state, if a person wants to join a non-publicly funded relgion that discriminates against women more power them. Adoption is a different story, not only does Catholic Charities accept public funding, but adoption is a state regulated business. In state business, in Massachusetts, gay people rights can not be abridged.
Fightdog 2 years ago
"In state business, in Massachusetts, gay people rights can not be abridged."
-- Forcing others to give someone a gay adoption is not a right. Sexual behavior should not be a protected class. You have to first establish that before you can shut down highly successful adoption groups that operate by their faith convictions.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
And this is the problem with your agrument and why time is not on your side and you will eventually loose. You see being gay as a "behavior" it is not, it is an orientation just as your (I assume) heterosexuality. People cannot have their "gayness" taken away just as you cannot have the white taken from your skin. That is why you are called a bigot, because you deny their inherent nature. It's sad really, but bigoted none the less.
Fightdog 2 years ago 3
How is it less healthy?
saxm 2 years ago
"How is it less healthy? "
Higher rates of disease.
Lower life expectancy.
Higher drug abuse.
Higher abuse in relationship.
Higher alcoholism.
Lower rate of marriage.
Lower rate of long-term positives outcomes.
Lack of complimentary gender roles in raising children.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Last time I checked, you could get syphilis, ghonnerea, climidea, HIV and whole host of bugs from heterosexual sex. I don't know where lower life expectancy or any of the ther come from. Seems like you hear alot more about men beating their wives and girlfriends then in homosexual relationships. You're kidding about lower marraige, right?
saxm 2 years ago 2
None of it is a joke. Particular look at the research out of nations with same-sex marriage in Europe. I am surprised how woefully under-informed the public is. As soon as I get my new HD camera in, I am going to need to make some more videos highlighting the studies and government statistics behind my claims.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Your claims of what... and why?
Will you crusade against heterosexual adoption because of the rate of divorce among heterosexuals?
Why the crusade against gay adoption? What has it done to you that you feel moved to wage war against it?
saxm 2 years ago 3
"Will you crusade against heterosexual adoption because of the rate of divorce among heterosexuals?"
--Not if the children are being placed in qualified homes.
"Why the crusade against gay adoption?"
--Did I ever say that I opposed gay adoption? I think you fundamentally misunderstand me.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
And so did Adolf Hitler.
There comes a time when society needs to look at the rhetoric these institutions spread due to their ignorance and hatred, and take a stand to change them. Christianity included.
You can not treat people with injustice and expect them to take it.
A religious belief should never be forced down society's throat. Religion is for the individual. Leave it at home. There's a whole world that has just as much right to believe something else entirely.
saxm 2 years ago 2
"A religious belief should never be forced down society's throat."
--And it isn't. Nobody is being forced to to use Catholic Adoption Charities.
"Religion is for the individual. Leave it at home."
Religion never has to be left at home. It should be able to be expressed freely just as if someone wants to broadcast their ideas on health care, their sexual behaviors, or favorite sports teams.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
If an organization is expousing bigotted views it will be censored, and rightly so.
I would expect nothing less in a high minded society.
And in a high minded society, I would hope we would not espouse beliefs based upon invisible beings, and try to limit a population's lives and liberties based upon fairy tale stories.
If the tooth fairy said you must never marry or have a child would you obey such a command?
saxm 2 years ago
you sicken me. period. I have many "Gay" friends who have adopted otherwise "unadoptable" children and have given loving, caring, nourishing homes for them... you and your bigoted, hating religious boneheads would rather see these poor suffering children die in the streets rather than give them hope, love and life.... think about it you idiot. open your eyes! we're all in this together. peace and love...even to hating bigoted morons!
jduffm 2 years ago
Your hated blinds you. I am truly sorry.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Whose hatred? Theres the pot calling the kettle black.
Fightdog 2 years ago
The point is the agencies shouldn't have to be forced to place needy children in good,solid, able to provide "gay" homes. Caring about the children...... that should be their first and foremost concern.
It is easy to blame the Gay agenda. All those terrible people that want to give a home to needy children. I would suggest we take a closer look at the "organizations/churches" that are digging their heels in the sand and causing all this drama. Who suffers? The children, of course.
yescandles 2 years ago 2
Kids should never be used as pawns in any ones political attitudes
depfox 2 years ago
How about simply letting the adoption agencies follow the law?
IbnSheba 2 years ago 2
It's double hypocrisy.
NintendoJohnWii 2 years ago
As for all the Bible talk here, I don't think it is even neccessary to bring that document into the discussion to talk about the issue the youtuber brought up...It would be more interesting if we can debate the subject without saying "well the Bible says this" or "the Bible says that"....
jrc1883 2 years ago 2
Good job with the video and standing up for what you believe in...
Locations like this will never be good for solid discussion but in my view everyone hass a belief or point of view and you can bash a source for theie point of view all day, but in the end they are still entitled to their point of view and we should respect that even if we don't agree...
jrc1883 2 years ago
I am not going to play the "quote the bible" game with you. You know what it says, so don't act like you have trapped me in a corner with it. I grew up in a christian home just like you and most other americans and know the bible just as well as you do!
southernhottie 2 years ago
Man, u are starting to make no sense. All u have been doing is talking about "side issues"! Bringing up some random stats about European Divorce when I am talking about adoption. Talking about animals and incest when they have NOTHING to do with gay rights! You brought up the notion that not believing the bible word for word holds no weight with you and then you don't want to discuss it! Wow.
southernhottie 2 years ago
I HAVE AN IDEA
I HAVE AN IDEA
I HAVE AN IDEA
How about these agencies stop being bigots,
and then they will not be closed down!
Damn, I'm brilliant.
crazycrazycaleb 2 years ago 3
Forcing others to abandon their protected religious beliefs...now that's a solution. Let's just violate people's rights if people don't think how we like. Brilliant.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Yes.
More children will have loving homes.
What's the problem?
Some people's homophobia will cause them to cringe?
This is about the kids, and not religious ideologies.
crazycrazycaleb 2 years ago
"More children will have loving homes."
Actually i doubt that will be the results. Practically we have to ask ourselves, how does the adoption process work? It starts with parents who want to adopt. They get connected with an agency they want to use and then they find a matching child. If faith-based group have to abandon their ability to only work with people of that faith, then that will limit their ability to promote at churches, etc...which means less parents and less adoptions.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Well, if the homophobic nature of the churches were done away with, then more children would be adopted, and therein would lie the solution.
What's with the catholic church being anti-gay rights anyway? The priests are all fucking children anyway. Then again, it has been proven that homophobic hetero males are more sexually aroused to gay porn then non-bigoted heterosexual males.
crazycrazycaleb 2 years ago
"Well, if the homophobic nature of the churches were done away with, then more children would be adopted, and therein would lie the solution."
--All the major faiths teach that homosexuality is against nature and is in rebellion to God. Just because something things homosexuality is a sin doesn't make them homophobic. I don't know of any churches that doesn't welcome gay to attend.
"What's with the catholic church being anti-gay rights anyway?"
--I guess they are following their catholic faith.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
"All the major faiths teach that homosexuality is against nature"
That's up for contention quite frankly and only applicable if you even believe in God. What about those of us who don't follow Christianity? Should we be punished because of what some men believe? How fair is it for me that I have to be denied rights based on a book I don't ascribe to?
Zuul030 2 years ago
Thomas Jefferson once said: "Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Zuul030 2 years ago 2
"What about those of us who don't follow Christianity"
I didn't say you had to follow anything. I was just pointing out that the major faiths that I know of have core reasons for not sanctioning homosexuality and the reason they don't support homosexuality isn't because of homophobia.
"Should we be punished because of what some men believe?"
Just how are homosexuals punished?
"based on a book"
I can't speak for others but I base my thoughts on universal reasoning.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
"I didn't say you had to follow anything."
God, take my statements out of context much? In the context of my argument you stated that Homosexuality is against Nature because of what Religions state. And then I stated "What if I don't ascribe to that religion?" Why should I be judged based on a book that I don't care about?
"Just how are homosexuals punished?"
Massive bigotry for one. Unequal Rights.
I mean truly, if you aren't gay you wouldn't know.
Zuul030 2 years ago
"The priests are all fucking children anyway"
--I don't think the church supports that. I know that I don't. I can't speak for someone elses actions but I am glad we agree that this is wrong.
"it has been proven that homophobic hetero males are more sexually aroused to gay porn then non-bigoted heterosexual males."
--Probably because it is more erotic to them. Maybe that means that homosexual arousal and behavior is a choice because if it was a gene then why would it impact straight guys?
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
"Maybe that means that homosexual arousal and behavior is a choice"
I think the original poster phrased it wrongly. The important part of his statement is Homophobic. Basically the people who protest too much are (In theory) homosexual themselves and are actually making a choice by going against their true nature.
Zuul030 2 years ago
"making a choice by going against their true nature."
--So because someone is aroused by gay porn that means it is natural? Can you explain that?
Maybe they protest because they know how dangerous and unhealthy it is.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if some forms of bestiality or child porn didn't cause arousal, I hardly would consider that natural or better yet as a standard good. Would be turned on by group sex mean cheating on one's wife is to be encouraged?
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
"So because someone is aroused by gay porn that means it is natural? Can you explain that?"
Let me tell you something, man. I can watch HOURS of straight porn and not get aroused, once. Pop in a lesbian video and I'll yawn for hours. Think on that.
"Maybe they protest because they know how dangerous and unhealthy it is."
I'm still waiting on this video to tell us how dangerous us gays and our "lifestyle" is. I'm a 33 year old gay man and I'm healthy and happy. How about you?
Zuul030 2 years ago
"I hardly would consider that natural or better yet as a standard good."
I love this argument. I see it all the time from the Fundamentalists (Are you sure you aren't a closet fundie?). If someone got turned on by bestiality or child porn it's not hurting anyone as long as they don't act on it.
What people like you don't understand is the ability to consent. Fido cannot consent... 5 year old Tommy can't consent. Hence it's wrong. 2 grown men CAN consent, hence it's right.
Zuul030 2 years ago
"it has been proven that homophobic hetero males are more sexually aroused to gay porn then non-bigoted heterosexual males."
Proven by whom, gay scientists?
CPSSucks 2 years ago
Of course your view is relevant! U can't say because a christian person favors gay marriage, they don't follow the bible and don't hold weight with u, then not back it up! I asked the question because I knew the answer. Nobody does, so do as the bible says and don't judge others. What makes anyone think that your views on the subject are relevant if u don't give your side?! Obviously u think they are and want them to be, otherwise, u wouldn't have posted this video or responded to any comments.
southernhottie 2 years ago
"so do as the bible says and don't judge others"
Can you quote where the Bible says that? I think you will be surprised.
"What makes anyone think that your views on the subject are relevant if u don't give your side?"
I like to have a discussion about the points I bring forward. Often people try to muddle the issue by discussing other topics. If someone can show the logical connection to a side issue then I am all ears.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Wait a minute. You can't define what a protected class is, yet you can state in your comments that homosexuality is not one? Come on. From your comments, you seem like a pretty smart guy and I am enjoying this conversation, but you have to stop thinking so much, break things down rationally and get out of your "religious freedom" talking points. If you know what protected class is, then you know in most states homosexuality is one! You can't discriminate no matter WHAT RELIGION YOU ARE!
southernhottie 2 years ago 4
"You can't define what a protected class is, yet you can state in your comments that homosexuality is not one? "
I don't think that sexual behavior should be a protected class...so that means homosexuality, hetro, etc isn't included. How do I not have a definition?
I know that a protected class is. The question is what classes should be make protected and that is where I think we differ. That said, I do have an exact definition.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
If you knew a gay person personally, you would stop saying that being gay is a BEHAVIOR. If you met a caring, open responsible gay person, we wouldn't be having this conversation! You would know that gay people are just like you and you wouldn't compare their rights with animal rights. The next gay rights rally you go to, ask them these questions face to face and have a discussion. I am not trying to define you. I based what I have said off of your comments.
southernhottie 2 years ago 2
"gay people are just like you and you wouldn't compare their rights with animal rights. "
Where did I compare the rights of gay Americans to animals?
"If you knew a gay person personally, you would stop saying that being gay is a BEHAVIOR."
Gay is more than just a behavior that said, behavior is very much a part of what makes someone gay.
Does behavior make someone black, male, Asian, French, etc? No.
Behavior / beliefs about how to live do make people gay, Christian, Muslim, straight, etc.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Any INDEPENDENTLY financed organization should be allowed to discriminate against any person/group for any reason they please, be it good, bad, moral, or immoral.
That said, any organization that gets even a red cent from the government should NOT be allowed to be discriminatory. Once you give up being entirely private, you can no longer walk to the beat of your own drum. My tax money shall not go toward any bigoted agendas.
cheesesoda 2 years ago 2
So you would oppose the homosexual adoption ad campaign that California is doing because it is promoting something at the exclusion of everyone else?
What about quota and other government programs that discriminate based on race, you are against those too, correct?
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Government funding should not take any side except for the side of the American people.
cheesesoda 2 years ago
So in short you would oppose the funding of ads that encourage gay adoptions in California?
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Yes, if it's government money, it should not be discriminatory or show any favoritism toward any individual or group.
Personally, I fully support homosexual rights. I'm also a huge supporter of private organizations' rights, as well. I think if an organization refuses to adopt a child to a gay couple, it's disrespectful and idiotic, but as long as that organization is 100% privately funded, it has that right.
cheesesoda 2 years ago 3
"I'm also a huge supporter of private organizations' rights, as well. "
So should a private organization be able to turn down hiring a transsexual?
"I think if an organization refuses to adopt a child to a gay couple, it's disrespectful and idiotic"
That isn't how adoptions work. They generally start with the couple and decide what child fits them. There would never be the case of a child and a gay couple matched up and then they are refused adoption.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Should a private organization be able to? Yes. They should also be able to turn down homosexuals, blacks, Mexicans, whites, women, and bald men. However, should they? No.
Even if they can't, that's not really the point. My point is that discrimination should be allowed in any form, but I think it's immoral and ridiculous.
cheesesoda 2 years ago 2
"My point is that discrimination should be allowed in any form, but I think it's immoral..."
-Yeah. Discrimination can be a good thing...the question is what is being discriminated. I discriminate (fire) employees that would steal from me. I would discriminate (go out with) the pleasant, pretty girl over others. The question is whether there is a legitimate reason.
And you are right, just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral. There are tons of examples of that all around our world.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
I assumed you would understand what I meant by "discrimination" that it wasn't an all-encompassing usage of the term.
cheesesoda 2 years ago
The bottom line is that each applicant should always be judged by the content of their character. There certainly are gay couples who would be terribly immature and neglectful parents. They should not be allowed to adopt. There are other gay couples who definitely are very responsible and have proven through years of responsibility (excellent stable jobs, experience, etc.) that they are up to adopting and raising kids. The same goes for hetero couples. Character is the core issue.
Jacksonholenativ 2 years ago
That is a good question. I favor expanded rights so that homosexuals can operate more efficiently inside our society. That said, as you know, I am concerned ab