Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

World Politics
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Politics : World Politics
Message Icon Topic: Its gay rights laws that are intolerant,(Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 11 Next >>
Author Message
ops154
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 12 February 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 525
bullet Posted: 19 April 2007 at 1:08pm
Originally posted by Angela

I do not believe that any religious organization should be forced to do something that is against their religion.  Doesn't matter what that is. 

Brigham Young University just got protested by the gay community for their "intolerance" of gay students.  Here's the kicker, BYU makes you sign a code of conduct saying you won't have sex outside of marriage.  If you are found in violation, you are expelled.  Thus, doesn't matter if your gay or not, you have to conform to the religious standards of the Church affiliated school.

I've always been hate the sin, not the sinner.  I'm tired of having other peoples beliefs (on both sides) shoved in my face.  Here in the US, there is a separation of Church and State.  Frankly, I don't want the State telling my Leaders that our Church must conform to their standards and I don't want My or any other faith pushing their beliefs on others.  I would protest if LDS Family Services was told that they couldn't just adopt to LDS Temple Worthy Families.  They don't get money from the state.  However, I would have a problem with Foster Care being told they could only adopt to White Christian families knowing how many non Christian or non White children are in the system.

Its the double standard that's hard for the faithful to walk.  The freedom that allows me to be LDS and Hayfa to be Muslim and follow our faiths, is the same freedom that grants people of "alternate" lifestyles freedom to be open about their lives. 

What do you do?  I don't want a society that's intolerant of humans of any ilk.  Hatred isn't good for anyone.  But I want to protect my children from things I feel are wrong, like abortion or homosexuality. 

I would love to encourage Muslim families to Foster orphans.  Foster Care is a wonderful way to take care of children who need a good home.  Its not adoption, its being a good person.  I'm sure the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) would prefer that a child be raised in a good home with loving adults caring for them, than on the street or in overcrowded orphanages.  And I'm quite sure, God never said that doing the bare minimum was doing enough when you could do more.

 

My point is that if you receive state funds then you should have to adopt to anyone that is legally allowed to adopt from the state. If you want to discrimate then so be it but not with state funds.

Get it through your heads that I don't support Bush or the Israeli's! Thank your lucky stars for America is here to stay!!!
IP IP Logged
Angela
 Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 July 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2555
bullet Posted: 19 April 2007 at 2:48pm

Ops,

No, they shouldn't.  Birthmothers (in most adoptions) CHOSE who does their adoptions.  Or don't you know how it works? 

Okay, here's how it works from the point of view from someone in the middle of adoption attempts.

MOST Adoptions:

Birth Mother Gets Pregnant and decides to give the baby up.

Birth Mother Contacts (Fill in the Black) Organization and gets required counselling.

Birth Mother decides placement is what she wants and that X Organization is the one she wants to handle the adoption.

Agency works to match child with parents that suit Birth Mother's desires (open vs closed, religious, secular, racial).

Parents pay fees, expenses and court costs.  Adoption is finalized with all involved agreeing to it.

 

Now, what you are talking about is STATE adoptions.

State adoptions are like this.

Child is taken by Children's Svcs from the parents or becomes ward of the state upon death of parents and lack of relatives to take child.

Parents rights are terminated and child is placed in Foster Care.

Children are placed into homes through Foster Care and then Foster Parents can adopt through the system.

Sometimes (sometimes) Parents are referred to foster care through independent agencies.

 

So, that being said...

If a birth mother choses to go through Catholic Adoption agencies because she wants a strong christian heterosexual couple to adopt her baby.  Why should the woman be worried that her child will be put to a gay couple?

Why should children suffer because these NON PROFIT agencies no longer have funding to help mother's place these children, leading to rising abortion rates, children in foster care (a financial burden on taxpayers) and underfunded non regulated agencies commiting crimes or mistakes in the adoption process.

The Funding goes to counseling the birthmothers, it goes to their healthcare and to the paperwork and labor that it goes into matching these babies with families.  It is not profit made by a corporation. 

There are plenty of secular adoption agencies that a gay couple could adopt from if the laws in their area permit those kind of adoptions.  Non-profit religious organizations should not be punished because they refuse to go against their beliefs.  Its not going to hurt someone's bottom line.  Its going to hurt the young girls coming to these places and the babies.

If you don't want discrimination, then there are alot of programs that should be reevaluated.  But, fact is, the government gives money to faith groups all the time, here and in England.  Abstinence Only Programs, church camps for troubled teens and drug and addiction treatment facilities. 

My point is, when does discrimination become reverse discrimination.  Why is it that I'm forced to deal with the "rules" of a liberal secular or even atheist society and they don't have to be sensitive to my wants and desires?

Why do I have to watch my tongue and they don't have to watch theirs?  Why do they get special protections, when I'm told that I'm not allowed to practice my faith?

I don't think that an adoption agency that is partially funded by the state and MOSTLY funded by a Church Group should be FORCED to go against their beliefs.  Perhaps, instead, they should have to fully disclose to all birth mothers that they do not adopt to Non-Christians or Non-Muslims or Non-Jewish families.  In the end, if the Birth Mother wants is, it should be available to her.

 



Edited by Angela
IP IP Logged
crasss
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 01 April 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 516
bullet Posted: 19 April 2007 at 11:18pm
Originally posted by Angela

Here in the US, there is a separation of Church and State.

Separation between Church and State just means that the State is now the Church.

What are the prerogatives of the Church:
(1) worship
(2) defining morality
(3) defining marriage and divorce

Separation between Church and State means that the politicians will now:
(2) define morality
(3) handle marriage and divorce

So, the State has become the  Church.

Is that better than before? No, because the last people anybody wants to see defining morality and regulating marriage and divorce, are the politicians.

IP IP Logged
ops154
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 12 February 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 525
bullet Posted: 20 April 2007 at 8:13am
Originally posted by Angela

Ops,

No, they shouldn't.  Birthmothers (in most adoptions) CHOSE who does their adoptions.  Or don't you know how it works? 

Okay, here's how it works from the point of view from someone in the middle of adoption attempts.

MOST Adoptions:

Birth Mother Gets Pregnant and decides to give the baby up.

Birth Mother Contacts (Fill in the Black) Organization and gets required counselling.

Birth Mother decides placement is what she wants and that X Organization is the one she wants to handle the adoption.

Agency works to match child with parents that suit Birth Mother's desires (open vs closed, religious, secular, racial).

Parents pay fees, expenses and court costs.  Adoption is finalized with all involved agreeing to it.

 

Now, what you are talking about is STATE adoptions.

State adoptions are like this.

Child is taken by Children's Svcs from the parents or becomes ward of the state upon death of parents and lack of relatives to take child.

Parents rights are terminated and child is placed in Foster Care.

Children are placed into homes through Foster Care and then Foster Parents can adopt through the system.

Sometimes (sometimes) Parents are referred to foster care through independent agencies.

 

So, that being said...

If a birth mother choses to go through Catholic Adoption agencies because she wants a strong christian heterosexual couple to adopt her baby.  Why should the woman be worried that her child will be put to a gay couple?

Why should children suffer because these NON PROFIT agencies no longer have funding to help mother's place these children, leading to rising abortion rates, children in foster care (a financial burden on taxpayers) and underfunded non regulated agencies commiting crimes or mistakes in the adoption process.

The Funding goes to counseling the birthmothers, it goes to their healthcare and to the paperwork and labor that it goes into matching these babies with families.  It is not profit made by a corporation. 

There are plenty of secular adoption agencies that a gay couple could adopt from if the laws in their area permit those kind of adoptions.  Non-profit religious organizations should not be punished because they refuse to go against their beliefs.  Its not going to hurt someone's bottom line.  Its going to hurt the young girls coming to these places and the babies.

If you don't want discrimination, then there are alot of programs that should be reevaluated.  But, fact is, the government gives money to faith groups all the time, here and in England.  Abstinence Only Programs, church camps for troubled teens and drug and addiction treatment facilities. 

My point is, when does discrimination become reverse discrimination.  Why is it that I'm forced to deal with the "rules" of a liberal secular or even atheist society and they don't have to be sensitive to my wants and desires?

Why do I have to watch my tongue and they don't have to watch theirs?  Why do they get special protections, when I'm told that I'm not allowed to practice my faith?

I don't think that an adoption agency that is partially funded by the state and MOSTLY funded by a Church Group should be FORCED to go against their beliefs.  Perhaps, instead, they should have to fully disclose to all birth mothers that they do not adopt to Non-Christians or Non-Muslims or Non-Jewish families.  In the end, if the Birth Mother wants is, it should be available to her.

 

I don't believe any person paying taxes would want that tax money going some place that will use it to discriminate against them for something they have no business asking about. People should have a right to privacy and if it harms no one else then it is no one elses business. I don't support what they do but I do support freedom of choice as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I'm sorry some people are homophobic and can't learn to accept that people are different and sometimes it doesn't fit their idea of what that person should be. I think if someone is in a position of putting their child up for adoption (by choice) then maybe they should worry more about keeping their legs closed then where the child they don't want goes. When a women or a man gives up their rights to a child then all rights should be given up. They should stop thinking about where the child will grow up and worry more about not getting pregnant again.

Exceptions should only be made for cases of rape and molestation.

 

Why do I have to watch my tongue and they don't have to watch theirs?  Why do they get special protections, when I'm told that I'm not allowed to practice my faith?

Where can you not talk about Jesus or Muhammad? What are these special protections and where have you been prevented from practicing your religion? What city and state said you couldn't build a church? Please show me some laws that only apply to gays and prevent you from having something they don't?

As someone who doesn't believe I can spend all day long listing laws that prevent the sale of alcohol on Sundays or prevent certain stores within so many feet of a church. How about "In God we trust" on our money? How about the phrase "under god" in our pledge? Do these phrases bother me? No, because it doesn't really affect my life in any real way. Even examples you used were perfect for my argument,  "Abstinence Only Programs, church camps for troubled teens and drug and addiction treatment facilities." Not all of these bad but it is more state funding going to churches.



Edited by ops154
Get it through your heads that I don't support Bush or the Israeli's! Thank your lucky stars for America is here to stay!!!
IP IP Logged
Angela
 Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 July 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2555
bullet Posted: 20 April 2007 at 9:55am
Originally posted by ops154

Where can you not talk about Jesus or Muhammad? What are these special protections and where have you been prevented from practicing your religion? What city and state said you couldn't build a church? Please show me some laws that only apply to gays and prevent you from having something they don't?

Obviously you don't know much about the early Mormon Church.  There were no anti-polygamous laws before the Federal Governments fight with us.  In Missouri, until 1974, it was legal to kill a Mormon on sight.  We were forced to stop Polygamy or face the loss of all our sacred site and once again have them defiled by outsiders.  Even now the ACLU is constantly suing the Church in courts for the right to for Street Preachers to PROTEST during general conference on the grouds (privately owned land) of the Salt Lake City Temple. 

Kevin Smith gets fined $10,000 by GLAAD for one line in Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back.  And yet, someone can call me all sorts of names as a Mormon and there's no recourse for me.  Even MORMON is technically a slur, but we can't do anything about it, so we just roll with it.

I think you're wrong when you think NO taxpayer would want their money going to faith groups that aid children.  Or their money wouldn't be going to these groups.  Face it Ops, secularists like yourself are a minority. 

I don't have a problem with allowing Gay couples to adopt, but I don't think that reverse discrimination should FORCE people to bend to them.  They are for a reason, the MINORITY.  Since when does the Minority rule in any society?  If they want to adopt they can go to a secular agency and adopt there, why would they want to go to an agency that is connected to a group that says they are commiting grave sins that will send them to Hell?  I really think its a bit of a moot point.  Its just a burden on the faith based adoption agencies.  Again, adoption doesn't work that way.  You don't just get to walk in and place your order like a pizza.  Even "traditional" couples are turned away for a variety of reasons.  Couples wait for years and years until a birth mother picks their profile.

Do you really think a young catholic girl who's gone to the Catholic Adoption Agency is going to pick the profile of a gay couple?  The couple's wasting their money ($1000s in application fees) by going to a place like that instead of a secular agency.

In the end, its about the few forcing the many.  I'm being discriminated against because I'm forced to accept something that I feel is wrong. 

IP IP Logged
Angela
 Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 July 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2555
bullet Posted: 20 April 2007 at 10:05am
Originally posted by ops154

I think if someone is in a position of putting their child up for adoption (by choice) then maybe they should worry more about keeping their legs closed then where the child they don't want goes. When a women or a man gives up their rights to a child then all rights should be given up. They should stop thinking about where the child will grow up and worry more about not getting pregnant again.

Exceptions should only be made for cases of rape and molestation.

I think you have a very screwed up idea about Birth Mothers.  Coming from a future Adoptive Mother, adoption is the hardest choice.  Abortion is easy, welfare is easy, but placement is a true act of love.  This girls have been down a tough road, had to make hard decisions.  They've had jerks promise them the world and then bail at the first sign of responsibility.  They've had to chose to give their child a better life.  They want to chose the best life for their child, they have EVERY right to say where their baby ends up.  Because ITS THEIR CHOICE IN ACTION.  This is the same as abortion.  ITS ABOUT CHOICE.  Its a woman's right.  No some couch commentator like yourself.  As a woman, my body is my choice.  I have religious choices and secular choices.  Noone can tell me that I can't say my children must go with people who will understand their racial needs or what kind of upbringing I want to give my baby.

My best friend was on this opposite side as a Birth Mother, she felt very strongly that she wanted Jesse to have a strong Christian family that could financially give him the things he needed.  She also felt that he needed to have a family who understoond the hardships of raising a biracial child.  Who's to say she doesn't get a choice in these matters, its her baby until the paperwork is signed?  She obviously has the right to say no to a couple and not sign the paperwork.

You're just as much a bigot as you claim others to be, or more likely a sexist.  Its men like you that keep me Pro-Choice even though I personally believe abortion is wrong.



Edited by Angela
IP IP Logged
ops154
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 12 February 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 525
bullet Posted: 20 April 2007 at 10:43am
Originally posted by Angela

Originally posted by ops154

Where can you not talk about Jesus or Muhammad? What are these special protections and where have you been prevented from practicing your religion? What city and state said you couldn't build a church? Please show me some laws that only apply to gays and prevent you from having something they don't?

Obviously you don't know much about the early Mormon Church.  There were no anti-polygamous laws before the Federal Governments fight with us.  In Missouri, until 1974, it was legal to kill a Mormon on sight.  We were forced to stop Polygamy or face the loss of all our sacred site and once again have them defiled by outsiders.  Even now the ACLU is constantly suing the Church in courts for the right to for Street Preachers to PROTEST during general conference on the grouds (privately owned land) of the Salt Lake City Temple. 

Kevin Smith gets fined $10,000 by GLAAD for one line in Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back.  And yet, someone can call me all sorts of names as a Mormon and there's no recourse for me.  Even MORMON is technically a slur, but we can't do anything about it, so we just roll with it.

I think you're wrong when you think NO taxpayer would want their money going to faith groups that aid children.  Or their money wouldn't be going to these groups.  Face it Ops, secularists like yourself are a minority. 

I don't have a problem with allowing Gay couples to adopt, but I don't think that reverse discrimination should FORCE people to bend to them.  They are for a reason, the MINORITY.  Since when does the Minority rule in any society?  If they want to adopt they can go to a secular agency and adopt there, why would they want to go to an agency that is connected to a group that says they are commiting grave sins that will send them to Hell?  I really think its a bit of a moot point.  Its just a burden on the faith based adoption agencies.  Again, adoption doesn't work that way.  You don't just get to walk in and place your order like a pizza.  Even "traditional" couples are turned away for a variety of reasons.  Couples wait for years and years until a birth mother picks their profile.

Do you really think a young catholic girl who's gone to the Catholic Adoption Agency is going to pick the profile of a gay couple?  The couple's wasting their money ($1000s in application fees) by going to a place like that instead of a secular agency.

In the end, its about the few forcing the many.  I'm being discriminated against because I'm forced to accept something that I feel is wrong. 

The church is basically taking money from them and then using it to discriminate against them. 

You keep referring to the mothers but I am talking about the churches. Even if one of these mothers said she would allow an adoption to a gay couple, the church wouldn't. That is why they should not be given tax money for adoptions. I do like how you tried to spin what I'm saying referring to the general aid of children by churches. I thought we were talking about churches using tax money to prevent gay parents from adopting a child. Even though I believe the mother shouldn't have any rights the law says different as you said so ok then, let the mothers choose. As long as the church holds a open policy of not allowing gays to adopt then they should be cut from government funds. Let the people who believe in those types of churches pay for them. The money could go to adoption agencies that don't discriminate and the mother could still choose whatever she wanted through them. What is the difference other than the discrimination?

In the end, the Constitution is there to protect the majority and minority. It's sad so many politicians and most others have forgotten that.

Get it through your heads that I don't support Bush or the Israeli's! Thank your lucky stars for America is here to stay!!!
IP IP Logged
Patty
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 September 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2382
bullet Posted: 20 April 2007 at 4:39pm

Sawtul posted this sentence:

"The western governments are trying to make the immoral moral and the moral immoral, and the simple reason why is that most Western politicians are Satanists."

Really?  Where did you get your information.  Could you please explain how you reached this decision?  How can you possibly paint an entire culture as Satanists?  I would expect you to post your source(s) on this subject.  Do you have any source???

 

Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 11 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com