you stand by the constitution, and Ill stand for God. Its done got so bad that you cant do both

when human governments move against Gods laws Christians rather than being subject ought to resist. Scripture gives us ample case histories that we ought to obey God rather than men.

EVIL GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO BE RESISTED AND EVIL COMMANDMENTS MUST BE DISOBEYED..

I don't understand what laws, constitutional or otherwise, prevent YOU from practicing YOUR beliefs?

The Catholic adoption agency is not an individual, it is a business which serves certan needs of individual children. It's the state's job to make sure the interest of the children which the agancey serves are being met without infringemnt of the freedoms of the clients who have an intrest in the children.

The state changed it's rules to adjust what had been perceived a miscarriage of justice against homosexuals. The adoption agency felt that their particular religious believes limited their abilty to follow the law in that matter.

They had the freedom to choose to uphold their religious beliefs and that's what they did. It's been pointed out that they had the right to do so.

The argument I posed was not that they chose their religion, but that they chose their religion by turning their backs on children. There is something that tell me that Jesus would never walk away from children whom he had chosen to take care of.

Is there doubt that Jesus would have felt the need to place children with the best families of any of the Pharasees, Samaritans or Sadducees rather than to turn his back on them?

The Catholic Agency had accepted the job they were doing and part of that job was to take great pains to make sure the families could provide a good home, whether it was the home of Jews, Muslims, Catholics, or homosexuals.

They chose for themselves, it was not new rules, it was not the State, it was the choice of the Catholic church AND they used the freedom granted to them under the very laws that You say deny you this freedom.

I ask - what laws, constitutional or otherwise, prevent YOU from practicing YOUR beliefs?

the issue is what defines 'the best' family

how would jesus define that? would he overlook the spiritual 'laws' in that definition of what was 'best'?

was it not jesus that said,,


[29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mt. 18.9 · Mk. 9.47


Jesus did indeed make sacrifices which we cant fathom because of a faith that we can barely match


if the argument is that these children were somehow endangered or not placed in good homes, the uproar would be understandable to me

if the argument is that these children were placed in good homes but not good homosexual homes,, Im missing where the emphasis on the children went

As I said before, what constitutes 'good' homes is different to everyone

what needs children have are also arguable

as Im sure most adoption agencies would place children in homes where parents are WORKING (Even though non working parents can provide just as much love , which is what supposedly counts)

there is an image of 'stability' and structure that will always be arguably subjective, and the standard of the church was different than that the law dictated, so the choice was to break the laws of the land or break their spiritual conviction concerning what is 'stable' for children


I can practice my religion, everyone can, but I cant always practice its doctrines within the 'worlds' restrictions, pertaining to my job or my decisions in my job,, where I Am expected to seperate my values

there is no criminal consequence to my choice to practice, but my choice to apply that practice and the values it entails to my decisions in all walks of life, certainly carries circumstances.

None, I could care less what happens to me. God has got my back. I will tell my congregation that homosexuality is wrong in the precense of a gay man or woman. I dont care if it hurts their feelings.. The Truth hurts. But not all pastors are as blount about it as me. They fear that they will lose their tax exemption or go to jail or something by violating the gay mans civil rights.

discrimination is another word for complaining. It is not something christians practice. But the world will complain about whatever they dont like. Boo-hoo

The Truth does not discriminate it just tells it like is. They that have a problem with that can take it up with its Author...

Abortion is a violation of a commandment, Thou shalt not kill
Gambling is a violation of a commandment, thou shalt not covet
pornography is a violation of a commandment, thou shalt not commit adultry.
welfare is a violation of a commandment, thou shalt honor thy mother and father

thats just to name a few, but our government is involved in each and every one. Crime pays and believe you me the government is all for it. And at the same time against it.. Reaping a fortune.

you lost me,, how does welfare tie in with honoring mother and father again?

A social worker that is also a southern baptist preacher was fired because he violated state policy. A young lady who was struggling to regain custody of her children pleaded with the social worker to pray for her at one of her counseling sessions. For she knew he was a preacher. Anyways he was fired because he disregarded policy and prayed for her.

Im not complaining that happened to him. Praise God for he suffered for Christs sake.. Blessed are those who are persecuted for my names sake..

ok,,,,,,,,

I get that, he stood by God and lost his job,,,,

but Im still missing the connection to honoring thy mother and father

indeed. the constitution can actually be enforced.

it's not for jesus to define what's best for me. the constitution does that.

The law now reads that homoseuxual couples joined in legal union cannot be discriminated against. That law made homosexuality no longer a critera when they made unions between homosexuals legal. That did not prevent the Catholic agency from choosing a home based on all the same criteria they previously used except to discriminate agains a class of people.

THAT was the perceived injustice that was righted by the law which allowed homosexuals to form a family through legal unions. Religions people and agencies who do not agree with that law that force eqality in housing, jobs, education, pay, and legal unions WILL find themselves limited in some actions, but that is a choice.

I doubt that those who would like to revoke the freedom of Black Americans would get very far by saying that Black freedom infringes on religions freedom.

Do you think it should be any diffferent with any class or group of people. Should THE PEOPLE have the right to vote on which class can be discriminated against just because some religious dogma diminishes the humanity of that group in some way?

I don't think so and that's not what the Constitution thinks either.

So religious freedom will face some limitations, just like we ALL face in order to assure that we ALL keep the most freedom possible without denying the human rights of any group of poeple.

not a debate I Want to get into because its one that riles me up

but honestly, BLACK is not a lifestyle choice

it is not an activity

,,,if the ONLY reason for making a decision were ones hair color or 'race' , or even sexual preference, it would have nothing to do with HOW That person was living or in what environment

unlike an environment where adults are living a HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE,
where a choice is made for there to be either no mom or no dad in the home , when statistics show how much less RISKS Are involved for children who are raised with both,,,


I honestly dont understand the comparison, but maybe because I am black

I figure its the same confusion homosexuals feel when being compared to incestual relationships

but in any case, the point I was making, was that the children were placed in good homes, criteria were in place for what the 'best' homes for those children would be

criteria similarly in place for other 'groups' of people
like' the unemployed' , 'the underemployed', 'the previously convicted', 'single parents' etc,,,,

I understand noone has to agree with any of those criteria and the argument could be made in favor of allowing ANY of those other groups adoption as well, but as it stood, the church did stick to what they felt the criteria should be for placing children and when the law disagreed, on record, they refrained from placing children rather than refrain from sticking to their criteria,,,

not sure what your point is here. should there be a law requiring employers to allow practice their religious doctrines on the job? yes, you do have a right to practice your religion but your fellow employees have a right to not be exposed to your religious doctrines and the employer has the right and even the responsibility to curb such practices if it affects productivity which only he/she can decide.

There are two perspectives through which we view the Constitution; individual and social. The social aspect is the agreement that of individuals to uphold the values within the Constitution. This can be thought of as the social contract.

Why would we enter into such a contract? Because there are values within it that are of great benefit to everyone who abides by the contract. It offers the greatest amount of liberty to groups and individuals to pursue all those things that are necessary for individuals to survive, grow, and thrive.

The liberty guaranteed in the Constitution does not give individuals freedom without responsibility, there is a price we pay to make sure that everyone is afforded those liberties.

Nations, states, cultures and societies change as knowledge, technology, communication, and scientific advancement develop. We can’t stop change and I don’t thing we want to. So we have to learn to adapt and the Constitution was created to be flexible to the needs of change.

That’s part of the social contract. In the past we were faced with a new culture.


That culture was the Black lifestyle. They were poor and uneducated. On top of that they were dirty and boy did they have some weird rituals. Some people believed that according to the bible they were evil and should be kept as servants. They tended to be criminals and would steal anything not nailed down.
Why would we ever want to consider them equal????

I’ll leave it at that – and I defy anyone with any knowledge to tell me that was not how people felt and thought.

Today we see the continuing rise of homosexuals to claim their liberty.

What makes anyone thing that we can choose to discriminate because doing so support an individual belief.

We needed to be educated about Black people, just as many still need to be educated about homosexuals.
That does not mean we have the right to continue to discriminate until we are all educated.

When an injustice against our Constitutional values is perceived we have the responsibility to make the necessary corrections because our own individual liberties are at stake.

God is given as much regard in the Constitution as any other view of a superior or creative force that stems from individual beliefs.

Your beliefs - no one's beliefs deserves any greater consideration than any other.

So be happy that you feel well protected because YOU know how to act. So let your beliefs guide YOUR actions and let other have the liberty of persuing their own beliefs.

last couple posts very well said red.

my point reflected back to the statement made about standing by the constitution or standing by God

the constitution gives others the authority to restrict how I practice and when,,,there is no law that will incarcerate me, but there is a WORLD That is permitted to restrict me(if I choose to work, attend school,,etc,,,)

there is no education involved in what BLACK is

were newborns in nursery considered BLACK because they were poor and uneducated?

were the white babies who were poor and uneducated therefore considered BLACK

sorry, the definition of BLACK never had to do with a lifestyle, anymore than WHITE did, it had to do with ancestry and the color of ones skin

people can make bad decisions which leave them poor and uneducated,,,what decision was made in a child when they are born into a culture which defines them (at BIRTH) as 'black'

I will give you that people stereotype black people as being poor and uneducated, and still today some ignorant people consider white people who 'act' a certain way to be acting black

but there is where the comparison stops

because racial discrimination wasnt about how anyone ACTED, even if they were ACTING properly they were seen and defined as BLACK by the culture

because people can be discriminated against for behaving in certain ways (whether we call those ways 'ignorant', 'aggressive', 'black' or whatever)

those are cases where people are making a decision based upon how someone acts, which is at least somewhat understandable

it is no ASSUMPTION That a homosexual lifestyle will involve TWO SAME SEX LOVERS,, period

that means its no assumption that there will be either no MOTHER model in the home or no FATHER model in the home

a LIFESTYLE is how one CHOOSES to live their life,, its not something a child is born into with no choices,, its not on the same par with a RACE or a GENDER,,,,

IM not digging into what peoples personal emotions are, that is between them and their conscience

Im speaking about what people DO, what the ENVIRONMENT for a child will be based upon what people DO, not what people are

,,,,I will leave it at that, similar to the reaction many homosexuals have when compared to incestuous relationships

this comparison kind of boils my kettle,,,

I agree. Which I thought was the whole point of the statement made about choosing GOD over the constitution.

The argument raised about adopting to homosexual couples is that a male or female role model would be missing. Can you give any evidence that this would be the case except your assumption?

Let me turn the heat up under that kettle.

I know of a lesbian couple together for almost 18 years. The Uncle of one of them was on disability and he was alone so when the couple bought their house they invited the uncle to live with them. A great arrangement, they all love it and the uncle cooks and cleans and does housework to the best of his abilities. The women are both professionals and make a good living. After they were altogether for several years they decided to adopt a child. They went out of country because of the obvious issues here. Eventually they ended with 3 children, all doing well, all happy and the uncle made them promise never to make him leave and they never would.

There ya go a male role model. I suppose some might think that the uncle is not a macho enough role model? What do you think?

Lesbian and gay couples don’t live in a vacuum. Those who meet the criteria have supportive families, close friendships and believe it or not they have a lot of heterosexual friends. Do you think those children will honestly lack for role models?

NOW – contrast that with the number of children growing up in a one parent household. Do you believe there are no role models there?

There is a difference between envisioning an ideal and dreaming of a lofty goal; in either case if the ideal or dream can’t be proven to be a better way then both the ideal, and the lofty goal, can be no reason for discrimination.

All the evidence available today indicates that the genders of family heads of households do not significantly impact the children in those household.



So what you are suggesting is that becasue homosexuality is not something that has an obvious distinctive visable quality that it doesn't exist.

So if all homosexuals were born with a rainbow birthmark in the middle of their forhead, then homosexuality would no longer be a lifestyle, it would be on par with race and gender.
Correct?

Then would you agree that they should be able to get married and adopt children?

Do you think transgendered individuals choose to be the way they are? They wouldn't necessailty have an 'obvious' feature to tell you they are transgendered either.




I don’t understand the above. What people do? What is it that homosexual couples DO that heterosexual couples DON’T DO? or vise versa?

A person is Black, a person is white, a person is homosexual this is what they are. What do all those people DO that is different from the others? One Obvious thing is that homosexuals are same-sex oriented so what they DO is fall in love with someone of the same gender. But the only reason you consider that different is because we don't have a birthmark to prove our ligitamacy as equal humans.

Well, we are still human, and nurturing is part of the human experience that we feel calling to us. In effect we are choosing the same lifestyles of heterosexuals but some want to refuse it to us. This is the first time I've ever considered that part of the problem was that we lack an obvious physical feature to legitimize our humanity.

Well what we do is fall in love with someone of the same sex, and that’s no more a lifestyle choice than being Black or being born female or male.