Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

sojourner · Apr 1, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
To debate with you is to debate with half of the membership who have your permission to speak for you, which is unfairly disproportionate and, therefore, unethical cyber-bullying

Did it ever occur to you that your position isn't that of the majority, and that most here can see what posts constitute bullying and which display bigotry, and which arguments are ad hominem?

Serenity7855 · Apr 1, 2016

sojourner said:
Did it ever occur to you that your position isn't that of the majority, and that most here can see what posts constitute bullying and which display bigotry, and which arguments are ad hominem?

Yes it did occur to me but my knowledge and intelligence soon dismissed it as a Logical fallacy. Did it not occur to you that it was a logical fallacy?
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held does not necessarily guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A fails, because, if opinion did determine truth, then there would be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small a percentage of those polled give an answer other than A, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

sojourner · Apr 1, 2016

Christianity is a lifestyle not a membership in a club.

But you said that she left the church and, therefore, the Christian God. You can't have it both ways. According to the criterion you set, you are not a Christian. If you want to change it to this criterion of lifestyle, then perhaps she is a Christian by lifestyle. Either way, you're wrong here.

Serenity7855 said:
That was the Church of Christ. Since then the priesthood has been taken from the earth.

Prove it. The Church (of which you, by definition, are not part, BTW) has not ever disappeared from the earth. It always has been, and continues to be, the a Church of Christ.

Serenity7855 said:
Not all 2.2 billion Christians agree with you, at least 14 million agree with me, the LDS Church.

1) You are not the LDS church. You yourself claim to have left that church.
3) You claimed the 2.2 billion agreed with you. Now you're claiming they don't. Move goalposts much?

sojourner · Apr 1, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
I did not say that is was a choice, I said that it is not the result of a gay gene. If you intend critiquing me at least use something I actually said. I did say Again, I would agree. Nobody knew that the Higgs Boson was there until they looked. There maybe something there, that cannot be seen using our current technology, that could be the answer to the question, "are gays born or made" I have given information on environmental conditioning and have posted articles on the part played by social conditioning. I have stipulated that I, personally, believe that there is a plethora of reason why gays are what they are. I think it highly possible that each case has its own reason and cause just because our social conditioning is unique to the individual. However, until we can get rid of the stigma that surround the possibility that gays are made that way through environmental factors we will never come to the full and honest truth. which demonstrates that I have no fixed views, other than a gay gene. But if you want to know when I chose to be heterosexual it was in August 1973 with the same person that I am with today. It was a very easy decision to make

[/QUOTE]
So you didn't like girls when you were a kid? I believe you're kidding yourself.

sojourner · Apr 1, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
Yes it did occur to me but my knowledge and intelligence soon dismissed it as a Logical fallacy. Did it not occur to you that it was a logical fallacy?
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held does not necessarily guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A fails, because, if opinion did determine truth, then there would be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small a percentage of those polled give an answer other than A, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I didn't use that appeal, though. I merely mentioned it as a reason why you perceive many "ganging up" on you.

You, however, used it when you mentioned the 2.2 billion (ref. Post #1391) and the 14 million.

sojourner · Apr 1, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
Yes, at that time, with those iniquitous people, I believe it was necessary otherwise it would have never been made. If it was introduced today then I would object/

But the whole thing against same-sex activity couldn't possibly be for one time and one people. Why not? (This should prove entertaining.)

Ingledsva · Apr 1, 2016

Prestor John said:
I made my comment about Catholic Charities USA being a fully licensed Child Placing Agency in response to your claim that,

"The Catholic Church is a church, not an adoption agency."

Catholic Charities is a faith-based organization affiliated with the Catholic Church and it is, for all intents and purposes, an adoption agency.

You made your comment about Catholic Charities USA being a "licensed" agency later on in your post and I even mentioned that fact when I said in post #1294,

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

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

I said to you - # 1138 -

Ingledsva said:
The Catholic Church - is a church, - and when becoming an adoption agency, - has to follow the same rules as all other adoption agencies.

If they discriminate against same-sex couples - then they SHOULD lose their license.

Prestor John said:
I do not feel that you or anyone has grounds to declare that the Catholic Church is discriminating against anyone.

First and foremost, as I said in my last post, the U.S. Constitution does not provide a fundamental right to adopt.

Actually another court ruling just the other day - found that as Same-sex marriage is legal, - it gives them the same rights as heterosexual couples, - to adoption. In other words - you can't discriminate.

Prestor John said:
Second, it is the birth parents that decide who can adopt their unborn child, not Catholic Charities USA.

Third, the term “best interest of the child” is subjective and can be interpreted any number of ways.

Fourth, in the “Charitable Choice” provision of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act it clearly states that the “religious character” of any FBO that offers government funded services is protected by allowing them to retain control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of their religious beliefs.

Therefore, if they believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman, they “retain control” over that definition. If a “secular alternative” is offered, then there is no grounds for discrimination.

That has no meaning to discrimination - under adoption rules. They can believe whatever they wish. As a licensed adoption agency they have to follow the rules, and the law. They can't discriminate.

Prestor John said:
Lastly, whether Catholic Charities USA is discriminating or not does not change the fact that they are a fully licensed adoption agency.

No, I do not. You, on the other hand, seem to be unable to collect your thoughts and you react in a very irrational manner.

You tried to misdirect a response that I had made to your erroneous claim that the Catholic Church (or rather Catholic Charities USA) is not an adoption agency to another comment you made later on in your post.

AGAIN - The Catholic CHURCH is a church, - they added-on - adoption agency, - by LICENSE, - and that LICENSE comes with rules and requirements. And then we add law on top of that.

Prestor John said:
You don't get to decide which of your comments I am responding to. I do.

My comment about the formation of the National Conference of Catholic Charities was in response to your claim that,

"They (Catholic Charities USA) took on that roll (offering adoption and other services) to add to their rolls."

The National Conference of Catholic Charities was formed to better assist the increasing number of Catholic immigrants from Europe. Approximately half of which lived in poverty.

Your claim that the Catholic Church in the U.S. started offering adoption and other services simply because they wanted to "add to their rolls" is incorrect.

You have a misunderstanding concerning the history of the Catholic Church in the U.S. and possibly of the Industrial era of the U.S.

You seem unable to comprehend not only what I have shared, but what you yourself have claimed as well.

This is very distressing.

Where did I say "to add to their rolls?" Not saying I didn't say that, but I can't find it. I want to see it in context. What was said to me - why did I reply as such?

And again - the history of how they eventually decided to acquire an Adoption License - has no bearing on our discussion of their discrimination under that License, and being outside the law.

Prestor John said:
First, I want to clarify that when you claimed that Catholic Charities required a “faith commitment”, I thought you meant that they required people to be Catholic. I understand that that is not what you meant now.

But, just to keep it clear, Catholic Charities USA has stated that there is no religious requirement needed for someone to receive their services. On the FAQ page of their official website it reads,

“Catholic Charities has no religious requirements.”

http://www.catholiccharities-md.org/adoptions/faq.html

Even on the web page you supplied above it answers the question “Do we have to be Catholic?” thusly,

“No. Catholic Charities welcomes and actively recruits families of any faith background. We desire diversity, including different educational levels, ethnic backgrounds, family size, personalities and interests, in our pool of waiting families to better meet the needs of our pregnant clients considering adoption.”

No bearing on what we are discussing - They HAVE a faith requirement for prospective parents. Which is discrimination, and against the law, and against the license agreements they signed.

SEE Part two - too long.

Ingledsva · Apr 1, 2016

Prestor John said:
*

PART TWO – It was over the word limit.

Prestor John said:
Now, before we can fully address your “faith commitment” concern, I am going to go over a few crucial things that you need to understand. I am doubting your ability to process information accurately, so I am going to explain this something with great detail.

I feel that the first thing to understand is what adoption services Catholic Charities USA is offering.

All adoptions made by Catholic Charities are called “open adoptions”. On that web page you supplied above they explain what they mean by “open adoption”,

“At Catholic Charities, the birthmother carefully chooses an adoptive family from albums that contain photographs and non-identifying information about each of our couples. We only show her albums of families who fit with the needs of the birthmother and baby. After choosing one or two couples that she believes may be the best match for her child, the birth mother (and perhaps the birth father) meets with them in an initial interview. The birthmother will decide which family she thinks is the best fit. The potential adoptive family is also given the opportunity to decide if they feel it is the best fit for them. Once the decision is made and both agree to the match they all begin to develop a trusting life-long relationship that often resembles extended family or close friends. This relationship is built through the quality time spent together while getting to know one another. The amount of contact between birth families and adoptive families is unique to each adoption plan but typically includes ongoing letters, pictures and six to twelve visits a year.”

So, unlike adoption agencies that offer only “closed adoptions”, Catholic Charities USA believes that an “open adoption”, where the birth parents are more involved, is healthier and “truly honors” all the participants in the adoption.

Now we will get to the question that led to your claim, “What are some of the other requirements of Catholic Charities for prospective adoptive parents?”

The third answer was the one you have an issue with, “have a faith commitment.” What does that mean? It takes a little reading to find out. On the same website they define certain “criteria” and they explain that,

“Catholic Charities views adoption and the prospective adoptive parents as an invaluable resource to women coping with an unplanned pregnancy. We consider our "high-quality" adoptive parents to be the backbone of our program. Consequently, we seek couples not only capable of being excellent parents, but also willing to enter into a respectful and life-long relationship with the birth family. The success of such a relationship is contingent on the honesty, trust, and respect built by each of the parties. All the adoption triad members benefit from such a relationship, but most importantly the child, who not only has the love and devotion of adoptive parents, but important contact with his/her biological family. Although the birth family may not be in a position to raise him/her, they care about his/her welfare.

Because it is the birth parent(s) who choose the adoptive couple that they feel will be the best parents for their unborn child; an attempt will be made to have as much diversity as possible in our pool of families. However, because Catholic Charities' primary responsibility and dedication is to the child's well being, the following eligibility criteria will be followed.” (Bold and italics added)

In this list of criteria they included things such as Residency, Ethnicity, Housing, Infertility, Income, Marriage, Age and Health.

This is just a list of criteria. It is is not a list of requirements. All that this list is saying is that all of these things will be considered by the birth parents before they make their decision. The one criteria that will interest you is:

“Religion: Applicants shall have a faith commitment (i.e. attend a church or a synagogue) and a plan for the spiritual development and education of their children. They must provide traditional medical care as appropriate for their children.” (Bold and italics added)

Now, before we get into what all this means, remember that all of these criteria are reviewed by the birth parents and they are the ones who ultimately decide who will adopt their child.

Notice the difference in language between those two sentences. The first sentence, about having a “faith commitment” says that the applicant “shall” have one. The second sentence says that the applicant “must” provide traditional medical care.

From the language alone it is clear that it is not required for an applicant to have a “faith commitment”. Catholic Charities is merely pointing out that those who are seeking to adopt can have a faith commitment. They can attend a church or a synagogue. They can also plan on teaching and developing their adopted child based on that “faith commitment”. It is something they can plan to do.

Catholic Charities USA mentions this so that applicants will know that they will not be rejected for having a “faith commitment”. They also want applicants to know that the birth parents will take their “faith commitment” (or lack thereof) into consideration when deciding who can adopt their child.

Therefore, when Catholic Charities USA mentioned “faith commitment” as an answer to the question, “What are some of the other requirements of Catholic Charities for prospective adoptive parents?” They were not saying that applicants needed to have a faith commitment.

They were simply saying that a “faith commitment” may be a requirement because it will be one of the many things that the birth parents will consider before deciding who can adopt their child. Depending on the desires of the birth parents, they may want those who will adopt their child to have a “faith commitment”, therefore making a “faith commitment” a requirement for that particular set of birth parents.

No one needs a “faith commitment” to receive adoption services from Catholic Charities USA.

You have been operating under a misunderstanding.

What a bunch of baloney. You add a faith commitment - when you want to insure the children are raised in a faith. And it is discrimination.

You seem to forget - that to openly "Choose" from prospective parents, and not discriminate, - they would have to show pictures of happy same-sex couples, along with pictures of heterosexual couples. Being against same-sex couples -they are not doing that. Thus the birth parents are NOT being given full access to choice.

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

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

It does not matter what you or I think. The law has spoken. It is discrimination to not allow adoption of children to same sex couples, or to require a faith.

*

Serenity7855 · Apr 1, 2016

sojourner said:
But you said that she left the church and, therefore, the Christian God. You can't have it both ways. According to the criterion you set, you are not a Christian. If you want to change it to this criterion of lifestyle, then perhaps she is a Christian by lifestyle. Either way, you're wrong here.

Why do I need to explain the obvious to you. Are you being intentionally Obfuscating Stupidity.

No, because she left Christianity for a completely alternative religion, Buddhism. This is why I know you use a thesaurus, because someone who has such an extensive vocabulary would not post this illogical nonsense, because they would know that it is fallacious.

Either way, you're wrong here.

That is your objective, that you have yet to achieve.

Prove it. The Church (of which you, by definition, are not part, BTW) has not ever disappeared from the earth. It always has been, and continues to be, the a Church of Christ.

The Apostasy

The ancient apostles and prophets warned that the Church of Christ would fall away from the simple truths Jesus had given it. The Bible, compiled after the beginnings of the Great Apostasy, recorded these predictions: Isaiah warned that "This people draw near me with their mouth" but their hearts were far from God. (Isa. 29: 10, 13.) and that spiritual darkness would cover the earth (Isa. 60: 2). Amos said there would be "a famine of hearing the words of the Lord." (Amos 8: 11) Jesus himself said there would "arise false Christs and false prophets" to oppose the true ones (Matt. 24: 24), but that you would recognize them by their fruits.

Paul said that after his departure that "grievous wolves shall enter in among you (Acts 20: 29). After preaching to the Galatians, he was astonished at how fast this process of apostasy had taken root among them. He wrote, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him" (Gal. 1: 6) Paul also sought to allay the anticipation of an immediate return of Christ when he wrote concerning the anxiety for this event to the Thessalonians. He told them that that day would not come until there had been a falling away first and that the "son of perdition" would be revealed first. (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

Paul also told Timothy that some church members would err concerning the truth about the time of the resurrection (2 Tim. 2: 18) and that even believers would be led astray, having "a form of godliness" but deny the power thereof, (2 Tim. 3: 5) Paul also told him that the time would come when the church itself would "not endure sound doctrine" and would turn away from the simple truths Jesus taught, following false teaches instead. (2 Tim. 4: 3-4)

Peter gave similar warnings to the church, saying that there would be false prophets and false teachers among the people (2 Pet. 2: 1). Jude tells us in present tense that there were certain men crept in who were leading the ancient saints astray. (Jude 1: 4).

John said that the leaders of some Christian congregations had rejected the apostles while they still lived and excommunicated those who stood up the ordained apostles of Jesus. (3 John 1:9-10) In the messages to the seven churches in Asia, John wrote that some men, claiming to be apostles, sought to lead the church astray. The church in Ephesus had tried them by ecclesiastical authority and found them to be liars. (Rev. 2: 2)

This Great Apostasy was well underway by the time John wrote his last words in the opening years of the second century. When the last of the apostles ceased to minister among men, the keys of the kingdom were withdrawn from mankind and the errant Church's demise accelerated. Here are some of the important historical mileposts that transpired.

The Bible clearly prophesies that the Church of the end times will be characterized by apostasy. Paul said that the Antichrist will not be revealed until “the apostasy comes first” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Jesus prophesied that “many will fall away” and “most people’s love will grow cold” (Matthew 24:10, 12).

In the book of Revelation, chapters 2 and 3, the Apostle John records seven letters of Jesus to seven churches in the area of modern day Turkey. Among other things, these letters present a panoramic prophetic survey of the Church in history. The last of the churches mentioned, the one that represents the Church of the end times, is the church at Laodicea. It is pictured as a church that is neither hot (healing) nor cold (refreshing), but rather is lukewarm or tepid (Revelation 3:15-16). In short, it is a church that is apathetic. Jesus also pictures it as a worldly church enamored with its wealth (Revelation 3:17). The Lord is so dissatisfied with this church that He declares, “Because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:16).

1) You are not the LDS church. You yourself claim to have left that church.

That is right

3) You claimed the 2.2 billion agreed with you. Now you're claiming they don't. Move goalposts much?

Why do you try and trip me up rather then present your opposing opinion for us to critique. Opinions that are thus far easy to dismiss because you keep misrepresenting me. You show your scriptural ignorance by denying that they apostasy took the priesthood from off the face of the earth. What I actually said was:

There are 2.2 billion christians in the world today. Many of them follow the false teaching of men, men who draw near to God with their mouth but are far from him in their hearts. Relatively speaking there is but a handful of that number who have been converted my the testimony of the Holy Ghost. Jesus said that only a handful of mine elect will recognise the masters voice.

This does not constitute me saying that 2.2 billion Christians do not agree with me. I have said, in this very thread, that I am in a minority group. So, as per usually, you have it all wrong again.

Serenity7855 · Apr 1, 2016

sojourner said:
But the whole thing against same-sex activity couldn't possibly be for one time and one people. Why not? (This should prove entertaining.)

I am not here to entertain you.

Ingledsva · Apr 1, 2016

Prestor John said:
*

I have no idea why it posted twice. LOL!

*

Ingledsva · Apr 1, 2016

Prestor John said:
Proving that the U.S. Constitution does not provide a fundamental right to adopt is crucial to this topic.

Would you mind sharing where the “government” has claimed that the Catholic Church has discriminated against anyone?

You seem to be operating under another misunderstanding.

The ruling made in Obergefell v. Hodges did not provide anyone a fundamental right to adopt.

This ruling only redefined what is considered “marriage” in the U.S. to also include same-sex couples.

The Catholic Church defines marriage as only between one man and one woman. Catholic Charities USA requires that any couples applying for adoption be married at least two years. This could be evidence that the relationship is stable.

Since the Catholic Church does not recognize “same-sex marriage”, same-sex couples do not fit the two year requirement.

Now that the U.S. recognizes “same-sex marriage”, many Catholic Charities have stopped offering adoption services, to avoid violations of their First Amendment rights. These FBOs still offer other services, just none that would compromise their beliefs.

The facts remain that no one has the fundamental right to adopt, the Supreme Court ruling does not give anyone the right to adopt, the Catholic Church as the right to “retain control” over their definition of marriage according to the “Charitable Choice” provision, birth parents decide who is allowed to adopt their unborn children and rather than be placed into a compromising position many Catholic Charities have stopped offering adoption services.

LOL! You are trying to skew the argument. "no fundamental right to adoption" has nothing to do with Catholic adoption agencies discriminating against same-sex couples, and the non-religious.

Prestor John said:
No, I have not.

You are reading this thread. Info and links giving information showing children of same-sex couples are just fine, and normal, - has been given.

Prestor John said:
Besides, it would not be me you would want to convince, but the birth parents of children placed into Catholic Charities.

They are the ones who decide who will be allowed to adopt their children.

See my answer in the last reply. Discrimination against same-sex couples, or non-religious couples - means the parents are NOT being given full choice when picking prospective parents for their children.

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

Prestor John said:
This is built on the false premise that science and family studies have somehow “proven” that Catholic beliefs are “outdated”.
Neither you, nor anyone, has the authority to declare such a thing.

LOL! Yes I can. You can't defend a pancake earth with a tent of stars. A whole lot of the Bible is outdated. Society is making the declaration, and putting in laws to prevent human rights abuses based on archaic misunderstand of science, or basic human rights.

Prestor John said:
You don’t know when you should apply imagery and symbolism to the scriptures.

You don’t know why Catholics or others believe that homosexuality is a sin.

Your ignorance of these things give me more reason to doubt your authority to declare anything.

You should come to know a little about a topic before discussing it, wouldn’t you agree?

Funny - you again forget that I was raised Catholic, and studied the Bible. They believe it is a sin because of a handful of ancient MISUNDERSTOOD - MISTRANSLATED verses, that we have been shown to be about IDOLATRY = Sacred Sex, - not homosexuals.

Prestor John said:
You are the one who seems to lack comprehension.

The law only claims that same-sex couples are married now. The law does not claim that they have a right to adopt. They don’t. No one does.

The law also claimed that Catholic Charities had the right to “retain in control” the definition of their beliefs.

Since the Catholic Church does not recognize “same-sex marriage”, many of their charities have stopped offering adoption services.

The Jews in Nazi Germany also had a choice. That didn’t make it any less discriminatory.

Same-Sex Couples Can Now Adopt Children In All 50 States http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mississippi-same-sex-adoption_us_56fdb1a3e4b083f5c607567f

This page contains a full copy of the court brief.

Prestor John said:
No. They were begged to help the Federal government to offer these services and they were promised that doing so would not compromise their beliefs.

You also don’t seem to know much about the history of Catholicism. The Catholic Church has always built hospitals, orphanages, schools and other service-driven institutions.

Being a Catholic or “Christian” has always been more than simply believing in something and praying to someone. These beliefs have always led to action and helping the less fortunate.

Since “marriage” has been redefined, you think you have the authority to redefine “church” too?

And you keep bring up their past - which has no bearing on the current debate. They are discriminating against same-sex couples and non-religious couples. The courts are finding discrimination.

Prestor John said:
Not recognizing “same-sex marriage” is not discrimination.

And again as stated over and over - they can hold any ancient ideas they wish to. They just can't use them to discriminate when they hold an adoption license.

Prestor John said:
No. You are the one repeating yourself.

In Lindley v. Sullivan, the Courts concluded that “determining whether the proposed adoption is in the child's best interest are the religious belief of the adopters and adoptee”.

If someone is to determine what the “child’s best interest” is, they must consider the religious beliefs of those adopting, the birth parents and the adoptee (the child).

If the birth parents do not want their unborn child to be adopted out to a same-sex couple, it is not discrimination and it is not Catholic Charities making that choice.

And AGAIN - they aren't being given the option - because of the church stance on same-sex marriage, and non-religious couples. That is definitely discrimination.

Prestor John said:
Wow.

Are you saying that ALL homosexual couples are capable of raising a child?

Are you saying that NO homosexual couple should ever be denied to adopt a child?

You are saying that it is impossible for a homosexual couple to be inadequate?

Really? Really? This is what you are saying?

I get a kick out of it when you try to twist in things having no bearing on what was said, or being discussed.

BOTH same-sex couples AND heterosexual couples - have some aren't capable of raising a child!

BOTH same-sex couples AND heterosexual couples - have some that should be denied!

BOTH same-sex couples AND heterosexual couples - have some that are inadequate!

And as BOTH have these - it is ridiculous to discriminate against one side for also having them.

Prestor John said:
All homosexual couples are prepared to raise a child regardless of anything other than their sexual preference?

What is that supposed to mean?

*

sojourner · Apr 1, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
Why do you try and trip me up rather then present your opposing opinion for us to critique. Opinions that are thus far easy to dismiss because you keep misrepresenting me. You show your scriptural ignorance by denying that they apostasy took the priesthood from off the face of the earth. What I actually said was:

There are 2.2 billion christians in the world today. Many of them follow the false teaching of men, men who draw near to God with their mouth but are far from him in their hearts. Relatively speaking there is but a handful of that number who have been converted my the testimony of the Holy Ghost. Jesus said that only a handful of mine elect will recognise the masters voice.

This does not constitute me saying that 2.2 billion Christians do not agree with me. I have said, in this very thread, that I am in a minority group. So, as per usually, you have it all wrong again

Nope. You said the following in post #1391:

Serenity7855 said:
I do have the facts, as do 2.2 billion other Christians

Epic fail on your part here.

I claimed that you were no longer a member of the Church (which, according to you is the only true church, due to the "apostasy," (which you will advocate in the next quote). You said:

Serenity7855 said:
That is right

So, after you say that you left the church, you condemn someone else for the same thing -- even though, according to you, she didn't leave the "real" church to begin with. To wit:

Serenity7855 said:
No, because she left Christianity for a completely alternative religion, Buddhism

So did you (see above). You left the company of believers -- the ekklesia for some weird, individualistic something-or-other.

Geez! Your double-standard justifications are all over the place!

Serenity7855 said:
That is your objective, that you have yet to achieve

Oh, I think I have.

Serenity7855 said:
The ancient apostles and prophets warned that the Church of Christ would fall away from the simple truths Jesus had given it. The Bible, compiled after the beginnings of the Great Apostasy, recorded these predictions

So, according to you, the bible was written by apostate Christians and, therefore, has no authority, yet you follow it. And the doublespeak goes on...

sojourner · Apr 1, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
I am not here to entertain you.

you're failing miserably at your purpose, because watching you back peddle to cover your tracks is quite entertaining. Answer the question (if you can).

sojourner · Apr 1, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
I was mimicking you.

No you weren't. More back peddling and macrame'. This is better than the circus!

Prestor John · Apr 2, 2016

Ingledsva said:
You are repeating with these huge texts. Please see my reply to you # 1318.

The history of how and why the Catholic Church, decided to acquire an adoption agency license, - has no bearing on our debate.

As to that last sentence.

The law says they can't discriminate against same-sex couples, and they obviously are.

*

Proving how and why the Catholic Church started offering government funded social services is critical to this debate because it refutes many ignorant claims you have made about the motivations of the Catholic Church to provide those services.

I would not be offering so much information if you knew anything about this topic. Since you have been offering nothing but your opinion about the Catholic Church, I felt the need to enlighten you.

How can the Catholic Church be guilty of discriminating against anyone in offering adoption services when the U.S. Constitution does not provide a fundamental right for anyone to adopt? how could anyone's "right" be denied them if there is no such "right"?

Also, how can the Catholic Church be guilty of discriminating against same-sex couples when the "Charitable Choice" provision claims that Catholic Charities retains the right to define their religious beliefs (such as marriage is only between a man and a woman) and that if anyone objects to their beliefs, a secular alternative should be offered, thus extending the same service to the offended individual?

Would you mind sharing this "law" that you keep referencing?

Serenity7855 · Apr 2, 2016

sojourner said:
No you weren't. More back peddling and macrame'. This is better than the circus!

Yes I was

Prestor John · Apr 2, 2016

Ingledsva said:
I said to you - # 1138 -.

I am aware that you have shared this opinion many times.

If you were actually reading my posts you would realize that I have addressed this opinion you have presented many times.

The fact remains that according to the “Charitable Choice” provision of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act the “religious character” of a faith-based provider is “protected” by allowing them to retain independence from Federal, State and local governments and also their control over the definition, practice, and expression of their religious beliefs.

If an individual objects to the religious character of a faith-based provider they are free to accept a secular alternative.

Ingledsva said:
Actually another court ruling just the other day - found that as Same-sex marriage is legal, - it gives them the same rights as heterosexual couples, - to adoption. In other words - you can't discriminate.

Would you mind sharing a link to this “court ruling just the other day”?

This ignorant comment is further proof that you are not reading my posts.

The U.S. Constitution does not provide a fundamental right to adopt.

In Lindley v. Sullivan (which I have mentioned a couple times) the Seventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled,

“Because the adoption process is entirely conditioned upon the combination of so many variables, we are constrained to conclude that there is no fundamental right to adopt.”

No one has the right to adopt. Neither marital status nor sexual orientation gives anyone the right to adopt.

No one, as in NO ONE, has the “right” to adopt.

Your claim that this “court ruling the other day” gave same-sex couples the “same rights” as heterosexual couples means that same-sex couples still do not have the “right” to adopt same as heterosexual couples.

Pay attention.

Ingledsva said:
That has no meaning to discrimination - under adoption rules. They can believe whatever they wish. As a licensed adoption agency they have to follow the rules, and the law. They can't discriminate.

I am waiting for you to quote this “law” you keep referencing.

I have provided evidence from the “Charitable Choice” that a FBO has the right to retain control over their beliefs. They do not have to compromise their beliefs to offer government funded social services.

I have also shared from Lindley v. Sullivan that no one has the right to adopt.

How can same-sex couples claim that their “right” to adopt has been violated when the U.S. Constitution does not provide any “right” to adopt and when The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act explains that if they object to the “religious character” of a FBO that they can seek a “secular alternative”?

Ingledsva said:
AGAIN - The Catholic CHURCH is a church, - they added-on - adoption agency, - by LICENSE, - and that LICENSE comes with rules and requirements. And then we add law on top of that.

Would you mind providing examples of these license “rules” and “requirements” that you claim prove that the Catholic Church is guilty of discrimination?

You have yet to share a single reference to support any of your claims.

Then I would ask you how these supposed “rules” and “requirements” somehow give anyone the right to adopt, when the U.S. Constitution does not provide that right, and how they disregard the “Charitable Choice” provision of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act?

Ingledsva said:
Where did I say "to add to their rolls?" Not saying I didn't say that, but I can't find it. I want to see it in context. What was said to me - why did I reply as such?

Of course. You said this in post #880 which can be found on page #44 of this thread.

Ingledsva said:
And again - the history of how they eventually decided to acquire an Adoption License - has no bearing on our discussion of their discrimination under that License, and being outside the law.

I felt that it was necessary to share this information about the Catholic Church because (based on your comments) it appeared that you were ignorant on the subject.

Also, knowing that the Catholic Church offered adoptions before ever receiving government funds shows that they are not reliant upon government funds to offer those services.

They have both the means and ability to offer adoption services without government funding.

This proves that the threat of losing government funding was not the deciding factor in their decision to discontinue to offer adoption services in various States.

Rather, their belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman was the reason for their decision to discontinue those services.

Also, knowing that it was the U.S. government that acknowledged the higher quality of services offered by the Catholic Church and other FBOs and that they begged these organizations to receive government funds so that they can help the needy more efficiently than local, State and Federal governments could, gives us some perspective.

It shows how it would not be the Catholic Church that would suffer if those government funds were to be withdrawn, but rather, many thousands upon thousands of U.S. citizens, who have come to rely on the services offered by these FBOs.

In their attempts to spurn faith-based organizations, those who believe that homosexuals are being discriminated against (even though no one has the “right” to adopt, the “Charitable Choice” provision protects FBOs religious beliefs and there are many more “secular alternatives” where same-sex couples could go to receive those services) are in fact only harming the poor and needy, not FBOs.

Ingledsva said:
No bearing on what we are discussing - They HAVE a faith requirementfor prospective parents. Which is discrimination, and against the law, and against the license agreements they signed.

Yeah…you should actually read my response before commenting.

How does my sharing a statement from the Catholic Charities USA official website that claims that they have no “religious requirement” have “no bearing” on what we are discussing?

Did you not claim that they require a “faith commitment”?

They do not have a “faith requirement” for prospective parents.

The list of criteria that the birth parents review includes the adopter’s religion.

Lindley v. Sullivan (the case that ruled that no one has the right to adopt) also claimed that, “Among the factors a court must consider in determining whether the proposed adoption is in the child's best interest are the religious belief of the adopters and adoptee…”

I am positive that you are not actually reading my posts now. That’s sad.

Prestor John · Apr 2, 2016

Ingledsva said:
What a bunch of baloney. You add a faith commitment - when you want to insure the children are raised in a faith. And it is discrimination. [/QUOTE]
The “faith commitment” was mentioned in the “other” possible requirements.

The website is very clear that prospective parenst “shall have” a faith commitment, not that they “must have” one.

Birth parents may want their unborn child to be raised only by prospective parents who faithfully adhere to a certain religion.

Are you saying that the birth parents do not have the right to decide who can adopt their unborn child?

Ingledsva said:

You seem to forget - that to openly "Choose" from prospective parents, and not discriminate, - they would have to show pictures of happy same-sex couples, along with pictures of heterosexual couples. Being against same-sex couples -they are not doing that. Thus the birth parents are NOT being given full access to choice. [/QUOTE]
Can you stop jumping around from one topic to another? How can you claim that I “seem to forget” anything when we have not yet spoken about that topic?

As I have said multiple times, the “Charitable Choice” provision ensures that a FBO is independent of the government and that they retain full control over how they define and express their faith.

Since the Catholic Church believes that only married couples should be able to adopt and they also do not recognize “same-sex marriage”, there is no reason for them to include pictures of homosexual couples.

If you or anyone else has an issue with that, there are many secular alternatives available.

You or anyone else being upset should not compromise their right to belief as they would, nor should it affect how they function.

Ingledsva said:

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

Families must be committed to an open adoption, be residents of the State of Oregon,have a faith commitment, have completed fertility treatments (if they have chosen to pursue fertility treatments), be married a minimum of 2 years, and comply with the other minimum State of Oregon requirements which include good physical health, a history of financial stability and a safe residence." [/QUOTE]
I have already addressed this concern in post #1388.

You are misinterpreting what Catholic Charities USA means by “faith commitment”.

They are not saying it is a requirement, only that it could be a requirement, depending on the needs of the birth parents.

Ingledsva said:

It does not matter what you or I think. [/QUOTE]
I wish you truly believed that. You seem to be unable to keep your personal opinion out of the equation.

Ingledsva said:

The law has spoken.[/QUOTE]
No law has been passed that provides a right for anyone to adopt.

Ingledsva said:

It is discrimination to not allow adoption of children to same sex couples, or to require a faith.[/QUOTE]
You have yet to provide any source for this “law” you keep mentioning.

As I have said many times already, the “Charitable Choice” provision of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act ensures that a FBO can retain control over how they define and express their faith and if anyone has an issue with that they can go to any “secular alternative.”

As I have undoubtedly proven, Catholic Charities USA has no “faith requirement”.

Since it is clear that you are not actually reading my posts at all, could you stop addressing me on this thread?
I don’t want to waste any more time on someone who seems to be incapable of participating in this discussion.

Thank you and God bless.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

sojourner · Apr 2, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
Yes, I can see how you would think that, however, I do have the facts, as do 2.2 billion other Christians. It is recorded in the Bible, or in this case, not.

Let me put you out of your misery, I was talking about the bible, 2.2 billion people do have the facts contained in the bible

Yet, those 2.2 billion people are all wrong, according to you.

Serenity7855 said:
Another of your underhanded tactics, to put words in my mouth. If I thought that the LDS were the true church, would I have left it

Yet, you seem to use its doctrines as fact readily enough. And, in fact, you did leave the church, which only proves my point. You left, yet you condemn someone else for doing the same.

Serenity7855 said:
There is no true church. Christianity is based on the individuals relationship with God

So all that biblical talk about gathering people together into community is just God lying to us, then?

Serenity7855 said:
The bible is a compilation of words selected and compiled into the Bible by God.

No it's not. The bible is a human invention, written and compiled by humans.

Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

HEATHEN ALASKAN

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

HEATHEN ALASKAN

HEATHEN ALASKAN

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006