Christian couple denied right to adopt due to views on homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter AcolyteLector
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ronnie_bonigli said:
They don’t call it “Liberal fascism” for nothing. Conform . . . or else
Click to expand...
This is why we need Catholics and other Christians in positions of civic responsibility. You are right, Conform or else…

The persecution starts like this because the folks “in charge” of things like adoption and child welfare are often liberal. Once this culture concentrates, it is hard for anyone else to join - so then you have an unending cycle of depravity to the point of exclusion.

We need strong Catholics who are willing to “infiltrate” areas of liberal concentration and start doing God’s work and not man’s.
 
I do hope the decision is consistent regarding couples that believe polygamy and adult brother-sister marriages are immoral. Somehow I doubt it.
 
So Sad. I Pray That This Couple Is Allowed To Adopt And Raise Their Child According To God’s Truth.

I Agree----------------“Conform or Else.” And You Have Just Been Assimilated Into The Borg Collective. Resistance Is Futile. :rolleyes:

Pure Unadulterated Vile Satanic Obscenity. :eek:🤷
 
There is no gay gene! The human genome has been mapped out and there is no gay gene. Twins with identical genes have had one gay twin and one straight twin (if it was genetic, identical twins would be either both gay or both straight, not one of each). And recent studies have shown that same sex attraction is caused by environmental factors. Lesbians had abusive or neglectful fathers, and/or bad relationships with ex-boyfriends or other men in the past. Gay men some of the time also had bad relationships with their fathers, or no father at all, but mostly it is because they were not accepted by their male peers. They started acting feminine and relating more to their female peers.

Since there is no gay gene, there is no need to force people to accept homosexuality. Yes, it is wrong to beat/murder/etc. someone for being gay, but no religious group says those things are okay.

And even if they do find a gay gene (very unlikely at this point, considering the genome’s been mapped out and they’ve been searching desperately for one for years), that doesn’t mean it’s okay. Just because you have the urge to do something doesn’t mean it’s okay. Some people are prone to alcoholism/smoking/drugs but that doesn’t mean they should do them. And what if there’s a gene for incest? Bestiality? Pedophilia? Are those things going to be okay in about 50 years? I shudder at how much “progress” these liberals would make if they had their way.
 
rossum said:
See Why Gays Don’t Go Extinct. Homosexuality is caused by a mixture of genetics and environment.

rossum
Click to expand...
I remember reading of a theory that said that homosexuality was a response to over utilization of resources and that the “world” responded by increasing homosexuality to help decrease population.

If you buy that and do not subscribe to the Christian viewpoint I suppose the obvious answer would be to liquidate homosexuals to further reduce their use of resources.

Bunk.
 
rossum said:
See Why Gays Don’t Go Extinct. Homosexuality is caused by a mixture of genetics and environment.

rossum
Click to expand...
They better hope there isn’t a “gay gene” because if they ever indentify one, we’ll see one of the biggest crack-ups in the liberal left-wing ever. Because once they find a so-called “gay gene” it won’t be long before they come up with prenatal screening for that gene marker in early pregnancies, just like they already do for Down’s Syndrone and other markers in early pregnancy tests. And since couples getting pregnant are by definition heterosexual, they are going to prefer a heteosexual child, for all kinds of reasons, including the fact that they’ll want a child which will be “normal” and have children of it’s own (and grandkids for the mon and dad), and a host of other reasons. Abortions of babies with the “gay gene” marker will be off the charts. And then the Left (including gays who are now almost always “pro-choice”) will have to decide whether they are against people “exercising their right to choose” in aborting all these “gay gene” marker babies, or if it’s OK and instead we’ll have to accept that gays coming into the world are going to be a rarity. You’ll have the gays who don’t want to be the last generation of their kind fighting for anti-abortion laws and you’ll have the “Pro-Choice” lobby fighting against any laws, knowing if you can make aborting “gay gene” babies illegal, that will open the flood-gates for making other types of abortion illegal.

Yes, if they ever find a “gay gene” that will be the beginning of the end of the Left-Wing coalition.
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
They better hope there isn’t a “gay gene” because if they ever indentify one, we’ll see one of the biggest crack-ups in the liberal left-wing ever. Because once they find a so-called “gay gene” it won’t be long before they come up with prenatal screening for that gene marker in early pregnancies, just like they already do for Down’s Syndrone and other markers in early pregnancy tests. And since couples getting pregnant are by definition heterosexual, they are going to prefer a heteosexual child, for all kinds of reasons, including the fact that they’ll want a child which will be “normal” and have children of it’s own (and grandkids for the mon and dad), and a host of other reasons. Abortions of babies with the “gay gene” marker will be off the charts. And then the Left (including gays who are now almost always “pro-choice”) will have to decide whether they are against people “exercising their right to choose” in aborting all these “gay gene” marker babies, or if it’s OK and instead we’ll have to accept that gays coming into the world are going to be a rarity. You’ll have the gays who don’t want to be the last generation of their kind fighting for anti-abortion laws and you’ll have the “Pro-Choice” lobby fighting against any laws, knowing if you can make aborting “gay gene” babies illegal, that will open the flood-gates for making other types of abortion illegal.

Yes, if they ever find a “gay gene” that will be the beginning of the end of the Left-Wing coalition.
Click to expand...
You know, there was a Movie Exactly about that some years ago. I thinkit was an HBO Movie. It was about a Near-Future America where Couples Could “Screen” their Unborn Children for things such as Homosexuality------it was the story of One woman who Found Out Her Child was Tested Positive For the “Gay Gene” and was considering having an Abortion. Her Brother (Played by Brendan Fraser!!!) “Happened” to be Homosexual and Wanted to Discourage Her from Having an Abortion. He was Telling Her “God Gave you a Challenge----You have to Face it” and All of that. I don’t remember the Ending but I think She finally decided to Have the Baby.

The Funny Thing was, the Brother was Talking to Her Pretty Much Like a Pro-Life Person would. And was Portrayed Pretty Sympathetically.😃

The Hypocrisy Of The Gay Lobby/Pro-Choice Folks Knows No Bounds. :rolleyes:
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
You know, there was a Movie Exactly about that some years ago. I thinkit was an HBO Movie. It was about a Near-Future America where Couples Could “Screen” their Unborn Children for things such as Homosexuality------it was the story of One woman who Found Out Her Child was Tested Positive For the “Gay Gene” and was considering having an Abortion. Her Brother (Played by Brendan Fraser!!!) “Happened” to be Homosexual and Wanted to Discourage Her from Having an Abortion. He was Telling Her “God Gave you a Challenge----You have to Face it” and All of that. I don’t remember the Ending but I think She finally decided to Have the Baby.

The Funny Thing was, the Brother was Talking to Her Pretty Much Like a Pro-Life Person would. And was Portrayed Pretty Sympathetically.😃

The Hypocrisy Of The Gay Lobby/Pro-Choice Folks Knows No Bounds. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Hypocrisy all right. You can bet If they ever do find that gay gene, the Gay Lobby (which today is almost universally “Pro-Choice”) will move their protests and Rainbow flags from in front of Catholic churches to the abortion clinics, protesting the “genocide against unborn gays”.

I wonder if they’ll feel weird standing by all those Catholics and nuns at their new protest location.
 
You all know THERE ARE pro-life gay people don’t you? There are gay Republicans too.
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
They better hope there isn’t a “gay gene” because if they ever indentify one, we’ll see one of the biggest crack-ups in the liberal left-wing ever. Because once they find a so-called “gay gene” it won’t be long before they come up with prenatal screening for that gene marker in early pregnancies, just like they already do for Down’s Syndrone and other markers in early pregnancy tests. And since couples getting pregnant are by definition heterosexual, they are going to prefer a heteosexual child, for all kinds of reasons, including the fact that they’ll want a child which will be “normal” and have children of it’s own (and grandkids for the mon and dad), and a host of other reasons. Abortions of babies with the “gay gene” marker will be off the charts. And then the Left (including gays who are now almost always “pro-choice”) will have to decide whether they are against people “exercising their right to choose” in aborting all these “gay gene” marker babies, or if it’s OK and instead we’ll have to accept that gays coming into the world are going to be a rarity. You’ll have the gays who don’t want to be the last generation of their kind fighting for anti-abortion laws and you’ll have the “Pro-Choice” lobby fighting against any laws, knowing if you can make aborting “gay gene” babies illegal, that will open the flood-gates for making other types of abortion illegal.

Yes, if they ever find a “gay gene” that will be the beginning of the end of the Left-Wing coalition.
Click to expand...
Or suppose you could get an over the counter cure?
 
The link, agree with it’s suppositions or not, wasn’t referring to the “act”, it was clearly about sexual orientation, which the Church does not take issue with.

Also, though I’m no expert on this, I must point out that sexual orientation does not, in fact, have much to do with gender identification or behavior…look at Russell Brand, for instance, who acts extremely feminine, but clearly is as hetero as they come. Contrast that with Errol Flynn types, the gay biker or NFL football player type who is as manly in mannerisms as you can get, but attracted to men.

With women we see the same dynamic at work too…it’s a mystery really, for those of faith and of science.
 
Publisher said:
You all know THERE ARE pro-life gay people don’t you? There are gay Republicans too.
Click to expand...
I said “almost” univerally pro-choice, sure there are exceptions but the overwelming majority blindly follow the “pro-choice” party line of liberalism. Because they understand the quid pro quo aliances of modern liberalism,it’s a coalition of groups with totally different issues that are important to them and they get into a group think where if liberalism will support “their issue”, they’ll blindly back all the other issues that are part of the liberal agenda. Many gays don’t support abortion because they’ve given it a lot of soul searching thought, they do simply because it’s part of the laundry list of liberal “issues” they’re suppose to support.
 
I know that this is out of left field,but every time I turn on the TV the majority of what is on is getting out of hand. There are more weekly shows of homosexuality it just makes me so sad that who are watching this stuff is the our future.
 
larkin31 said:
British law protects sexual orientation more strongly and directly than US law. 🤷
Click to expand...
I think its important for me to help you clarify your language, as it will demonstrate what we agree on.

British law protects people better, where sexual orientation is concerned, than American law.

I agree with that.

Though, like the counter-racism or abortion laws in the United States–all of which are probably done with generous, humanitarian intentions to protect people–there are consequences. A more delicate, even-handed approach could be adopted by the British government, without question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top