Catholic Charities In Rockford Ending Foster Care, Adoptions Over Gay Rights

[actuarial]

So it sounds like lifestyle discrimination.

Apparently, lifestyle discrimination is allowed by the government. Being a drug user is a lifestyle choice also. The government won't allow drug users to adopt kids.

And before the wacko fucks in here think I am comparing being gay and living a gay lifestyle to being a drug user...let me say you can go fuck yourselves.

So what exactly is a gay lifestyle then?

Living with a man? Smoking pole? Taking it in the pooper? Why don't they discriminate against women who do all those things? They're discriminating against people who live the EXACT SAME LIFESTYLE as every woman they adopt to. Other than of course sitting down to pee (maybe they can sign a form guaranteeing they'll do that too).

If you're going to throw out people who's lifestyle choice is living with a man, then only adopt to single and lesbian parents.

 

[Atreus21]

The only way to turn away from divorce is to get back together with your former spouse. As far as catholics are concerned you're married forever. So if you are adopting with anyone but your FIRST spouse, you are actively living a lifestyle which is inconsistent with Catholic teachings.

Do you think they ask people if they engage in protected sex?

Uh, no. Entirely and 100% incorrect.

 

[classy]

So what exactly is a gay lifestyle then?

Living with a man? Smoking pole? Taking it in the pooper? Why don't they discriminate against women who do all those things? They're discriminating against people who live the EXACT SAME LIFESTYLE as every woman they adopt to. Other than of course sitting down to pee (maybe they can sign a form guaranteeing they'll do that too).

If you're going to throw out people who's lifestyle choice is living with a man, then only adopt to single and lesbian parents.

Same sex couples constitutes a gay lifestyle.

 

[actuarial]

I addressed this before. Those things don't violate the primary basis of a family structure of a man and a woman. I stated very clearly that once that first basis is established, then you judge the couples accordingly.

Are you a married opposite sex couple? Yes.
Okay then lets go to the next steps.
You do drugs? No
What is the education? Husband has Masters and I have an Associates
What is your job? My husband is a business manager and I do porn movies. I actually work for his company. We earned 2.1 millions dollars in profit last year.
We can stop here, thank you for coming in, the secretary will show you out.

So you'd be fine with "Are you a married same race couple?" Marrying someone of the opposite race is as much a lifestyle choice as gay marriage is. And don't think people didn't believe for a LONG time and the proper family structure was in-race only.

 

[Atreus21]

So what exactly is a gay lifestyle then?

Living with a man? Smoking pole? Taking it in the pooper? Why don't they discriminate against women who do all those things? They're discriminating against people who live the EXACT SAME LIFESTYLE as every woman they adopt to. Other than of course sitting down to pee (maybe they can sign a form guaranteeing they'll do that too).

If you're going to throw out people who's lifestyle choice is living with a man, then only adopt to single and lesbian parents.

I'd say they'd define the gay lifestyle as Engaging in sexual congress with another member of the same sex.

 

[classy]

So you'd be fine with "Are you a married same race couple?" Marrying someone of the opposite race is as much a lifestyle choice as gay marriage is. And don't think people didn't believe for a LONG time and the proper family structure was in-race only.

Simple as this. Is the person a man and is he married to a woman? If you don't qualify for that first step all the others don't matter.

The other stuff is simple trolling.

 

[actuarial]

I'd say they'd define the gay lifestyle as Engaging in sexual congress with another member of the same sex.

Explain to me how a woman can choose the exact same mate and have the exact same sex as a man but those are different 'lifestyle' choices.

 

[actuarial]

Simple as this. Is the person a man and is he married to a woman? If you don't qualify for that first step all the others don't matter.

The other stuff is simple trolling.

It's not trolling. Why is same sex a choice but same race not? Why is same sex damaging to the child but interracial not?

Why can't we discriminate against 'interracial' lifestyle choices?

 

[JockoJohnson]

So what exactly is a gay lifestyle then?

Living with a man? Smoking pole? Taking it in the pooper? Why don't they discriminate against women who do all those things? They're discriminating against people who live the EXACT SAME LIFESTYLE as every woman they adopt to. Other than of course sitting down to pee (maybe they can sign a form guaranteeing they'll do that too).

If you're going to throw out people who's lifestyle choice is living with a man, then only adopt to single and lesbian parents.

Where did I say lesbian isn't gay? I am just pointing out the fact that government doesn't allow for the use of common sense in making decisions. Instead, they use laws. Most, if not all, laws do not allow people to use common sense.

I don't agree with the Catholic church on their stance of homosexuality either. But if people are going to make it a legal argument about the church accepting public money and what they can/cannot do, why can't there be an argument made for lifestyle discrimination?

Edit: Also, common sense would dictate to not cut funding altogether because the Catholic church will not be able to help foster children on its own. Instead, something else should be offered or negotiated. But with the "no common sense" allowed law, it is discrimination and now the church can't get public funding and so now less help for children. Good job!

 

[Atreus21]

Explain to me how a woman can choose the exact same mate and have the exact same sex as a man but those are different 'lifestyle' choices.

...uh...it's a different lifestyle because women and men having sex is different than men and men having sex, perhaps?

 

[zsdersw]

A scenario:

- A man and a woman, legally married, go to this Catholic charity seeking adoption.
- The man has a six-figure income at a successful company, they're both drug-free, live in a good neighborhood, have no criminal record, and the woman is planning on staying at home to take care of the child.
- The adoption is granted.

- Unknown to the charity at the time, the man is gay and the woman knows and is OK with it.
- The man regularly has sex with other men at somewhere other than the 4-bedroom house he and the woman have in both their names, and the woman has no problem at all with it.
- The man pays for everything the woman and child wants or needs, and is an active, involved, loving, and responsible parent to the adopted child.. putting him/her through college, etc.

If you were the Catholic charity, what would you do upon learning the bottom three items?

 

[classy]

It's not trolling. Why is same sex a choice but same race not? Why is same sex damaging to the child but interracial not?

Why can't we discriminate against 'interracial' lifestyle choices?

You can do whatever you want. But one natural born penis and one natural born vagina coming together is the foundation of a family structure. It can be any size, shape, or color though. No lesbian, no matter how butched can teach a youngman how to be man better than me. Neither can the dude named Sam, who believes he is Samantha can either.

I am just so tired of hearing the bitching and complaining from gays about people wanting to live true to their natural born gender.

Next they will want us to be born with gills and live under water, because walking on land land breathing air because just, I don't know..................................................normal.

 

[Atreus21]

A scenario:

- A man and a woman, legally married, go to this Catholic charity seeking adoption.
- The man has a six-figure income at a successful company, they're both drug-free, live in a good neighborhood, have no criminal record, and the woman is planning on staying at home to take care of the child.
- The adoption is granted.

- Unknown to the charity at the time, the man is gay and the woman knows and is OK with it.
- The man regularly has sex with other men at somewhere other than the house he and the woman have in both their names, and the woman has no problem at all with it.
- The man pays for everything the woman and child wants or needs, and is an active, involved, loving, and responsible parent to the adopted child.. putting him/her through college, etc.

If you were the Catholic charity, what would you do upon learning the bottom three items?

If I were the charity:

If I discovered these things after the adoption was granted, I would probably try to reverse it, considering that had I known this in advance, the adoption would've been rejected.

It means the couple would've been dishonest to obtain the adoption. I think other adoption services, not just catholic ones, would have similar reservations about a man who had sex with others outside of the marriage with the full consent of the spouse.

 

[JockoJohnson]

A scenario:

- A man and a woman, legally married, go to this Catholic charity seeking adoption.
- The man has a six-figure income at a successful company, they're both drug-free, live in a good neighborhood, have no criminal record, and the woman is planning on staying at home to take care of the child.
- The adoption is granted.

- Unknown to the charity at the time, the man is gay and the woman knows and is OK with it.
- The man regularly has sex with other men at somewhere other than the house he and the woman have in both their names, and the woman has no problem at all with it.
- The man pays for everything the woman and child wants or needs, and is an active, involved, loving, and responsible parent to the adopted child.. putting him/her through college, etc.

If you were the Catholic charity, what would you do upon learning the bottom three items?

It depends, are they responsible at that point now that the "transfer" of the child has been made or is it up to the state? From a previous post, it sounds like the church can get sued for shitty parents, so the church is still responsible. If so, the church would most likely try and get the child out of that environment. Not saying I would do that but what the church would do.

 

[JockoJohnson]

If I were the charity:

If I discovered these things after the adoption was granted, I would probably try to reverse it, considering that had I known this in advance, the adoption would've been rejected.

It means the couple would've been dishonest.

^This. In my reply, I didn't even think about the dishonesty part. That makes all the difference.

 

[classy]

A scenario:

- A man and a woman, legally married, go to this Catholic charity seeking adoption.
- The man has a six-figure income at a successful company, they're both drug-free, live in a good neighborhood, have no criminal record, and the woman is planning on staying at home to take care of the child.
- The adoption is granted.

- Unknown to the charity at the time, the man is gay and the woman knows and is OK with it.
- The man regularly has sex with other men at somewhere other than the 4-bedroom house he and the woman have in both their names, and the woman has no problem at all with it.
- The man pays for everything the woman and child wants or needs, and is an active, involved, loving, and responsible parent to the adopted child.. putting him/her through college, etc.

If you were the Catholic charity, what would you do upon learning the bottom three items?

I don't know if there is anything legally that can be done. That is complete deception and I don't know what that has to do with this conversation, but I would like to know what is your angle.

This scenario would highly highly be in the exception column though.

 

[zsdersw]

If I were the charity:

If I discovered these things after the adoption was granted, I would probably try to reverse it, considering that had I known this in advance, the adoption would've been rejected.

It means the couple would've been dishonest to obtain the adoption. I think other adoption services, not just catholic ones, would have similar reservations about a man who had sex with others outside of the marriage with the full consent of the spouse.

How were they being dishonest and what exactly were they being dishonest about? Would they have asked the man about his sex life? Would they have asked the woman whether she and her husband have sex?

 

[classy]

How were they being dishonest and what exactly were they being dishonest about?

Umm adultery?

Or this okay with you too as long as the person does it with the same sex?

 

[classy]

Z

I just have to ask this question...

Are you more of a Don Lemon type or Ru Paul?
I just wanna get an angle on how your project yourself.

 

[Atreus21]

How were they being dishonest and what exactly were they being dishonest about? Would they have asked the man about his sex life? Would they have asked the woman whether she and her husband have sex?

I'm certain that in the interview to establish eligibility, the charity would've been perturbed to know that her husband regularly cheats on her with her consent.

And I'd say the couple would have a pretty good expectation that this would be relevant, in which case for that to be left out of the equation they'd either have to directly lie about it (if it was asked), or play dumb (if it was not).

Either is dishonest.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't know if there is anything legally that can be done. That is complete deception and I don't know what that has to do with this conversation, but I would like to know what is your angle.

This scenario would highly highly be in the exception column though.

My "angle" is that nothing in that scenario as I described it should prevent a couple from being adoptive parents. The parents' sex lives is not the child's or anyone else's business. The child has a father and mother.. both of whom are responsible and active and involved in the child's development, and the material needs are well provided for.

 

[zsdersw]

I'm certain that in the interview to establish eligibility, the charity would've been perturbed to know that her husband regularly cheats on her with her consent.

Perturbed maybe, but why is it any of their business?

And I'd say the couple would have a pretty good expectation that this would be relevant, in which case for that to be left out of the equation they'd either have to directly lie about it (if it was asked), or play dumb (if it was not).

What if they don't think it's relevant? What if they keep their sex lives completely to themselves? If they're directly asked and they don't reveal it, then yes.. that's dishonest. Otherwise, not necessarily.

 

[classy]

My "angle" is that nothing in that scenario as I described it should prevent a couple from being adoptive parents. The parents' sex lives is not the child's or anyone else's business. The child has a father and mother.. both of whom are responsible and active and involved in the child's development, and the material needs are well provided for.

Your just ignorant. That scenario describes a person cheating on his wife with multiple people and in that sick twisted mind you think there is no potential for that to affect the child. You are a fool.

You should not be allowed to adopt a child, not because you are gay, but an idiot.

 

[zsdersw]

Your just ignorant. That scenario describes a person cheating on his wife with multiple people and in that sick twisted mind you think there is no potential for that to affect the child. You are a fool.

You should not be allowed to adopt a child, not because you are gay, but an idiot.

What potential is there for that to affect the child? The man is never at the couple's home when he has sex, always has protected sex, and never talks about his sex life when the child asks questions about "the birds and the bees".

 

[actuarial]

...uh...it's a different lifestyle because women and men having sex is different than men and men having sex, perhaps?

So the only difference is the gender of the person engaging in the exact same acts? But that's NOT gender discrimination?