unwed homosexuals adopting?

[Quin]

Well, the most important point there I can make is, I am not a member of the LDS church.

Well I am, and I also fully support same sex marriage.

As I said before, as does most of my ward, and most of the wards in my area.

Political and Civic Activity

As citizens, Church members are encouraged to participate in political and governmental affairs, including involvement in the political party of their choice. Members are also urged to be actively engaged in worthy causes to improve their communities and make them wholesome places in which to live and rear families.

In accordance with the laws of their respective governments, members are encouraged to register to vote, to study issues and candidates carefully, and to vote for individuals whom they believe will act with integrity and sound judgment. Latter-day Saints have a special obligation to seek out, vote for, and uphold leaders who are honest, good, and wise (see D&C 98:10).

While affirming the right of expression on political and social issues, the Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote. However, in some exceptional instances the Church will take a position on specific legislation, particularly when it concludes that moral issues are involved. Only the First Presidency can speak for the Church or commit the Church to support or oppose specific legislation or to seek to intervene in judicial matters. Otherwise, stake presidents and other local leaders should not organize members to participate in political matters or attempt to influence how they participate.

. https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.1.29

Q

[Wingnut]

Our church also does NOT tell us how to vote.

On any issue.

This isn't entirely accurate. It's uncommon for the Church to involve itself directly and actively in the political arena, but it does. It never takes a side with specific candidates, but it does take sides on issues. The most prominent example in recent memory/history, of course, is Prop 8 in California six years ago. While the Church leadership did not specifically say, "vote yes," the wording they did use in the letter sent to congregations in CA was anything but ambiguous:

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

"Well, the most important point there I can make is, I am not a member of the LDS church."

"Uh... I find this interesting that not everyone on lds.net is LDS. If you would notice, each poster shows their religious preference. For example, yours says "muslim". Lakumi says "other".

oops, somebody face-palm me.

[Lakumi]

Yeah... go "other" Praise the Helix Fossil!

[dirtydevil]

It sounds like the beliefs among mormons are not as unified as I had previously assumed. I guess it is a diverse group, maybe not as diverse as muslims, because of their small size and controls, but diverse none the less.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Scotch

[Soulsearcher]

It sounds like the beliefs among mormons are not as unified as I had previously assumed.

Out of curiosity could you provide the info on the successful lawsuit against the church?

[bytebear]

This isn't entirely accurate. It's uncommon for the Church to involve itself directly and actively in the political arena, but it does. It never takes a side with specific candidates, but it does take sides on issues. The most prominent example in recent memory/history, of course, is Prop 8 in California six years ago. While the Church leadership did not specifically say, "vote yes," the wording they did use in the letter sent to congregations in CA was anything but ambiguous:

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

The church teaches correct principles and lets the members govern themselves.

[dirtydevil]

Out of curiosity could you provide the info on the successful lawsuit against the church?

looking for info on it online.

[Wingnut]

looking for info on it online.

Nope, that's not how it works here. You throw something out like you did, making a factual statement and/or accusation, the burden of proof is on you to back yourself up. It's no one's job to validate your arguments or statements but your own.

[Wingnut]

The church teaches correct principles and lets the members govern themselves.

Hence my statement:

While the Church leadership did not specifically say, "vote yes," the wording they did use in the letter sent to congregations in CA was anything but ambiguous.

[Soulsearcher]

Nope, that's not how it works here. You throw something out like you did, making a factual statement and/or accusation, the burden of proof is on you to back yourself up. It's no one's job to validate your arguments or statements but your own.

In his defense i think he's looking for the info himself rather than telling me to do so, though i could be wrong. I just think me of all people might have heard about this if it had happened, but i guess i can miss things lol

[Wingnut]

Whoops, my bad. I read too quickly...he said "looking," not "look." Sorry, Scotch!

[dirtydevil]

I dont know if this is the case. I just heard it from the rumor mill. But I found this case. it isnt recent. it is from 2010.

Mormons Found Guilty on 13 Counts of Prop 8 Malfeasance, Fined by FPPC | California Progress Report

"[The fine] seems a little light since [the FPPC] only looked at $36,000 of their contributions, but it's also historic because no church has ever been fined for illegal political activity in California before," said Fred Karger, CAH founder. "In fact, it's unprecedented."

"it was eventually learned that the Mormon Church coordinated contributions amounting to more than half of the $45 million dollar Yes on Prop 8 campaign, as well as contributing non-monetarily to the campaign by sending Mormon campaign volunteers through the Church's "mission" program and offering use of church ward (parish) properties throughout the state."

[bytebear]

I dont know if this is the case. I just heard it from the rumor mill. But I found this case. it isnt recent. it is from 2010.

Mormons Found Guilty on 13 Counts of Prop 8 Malfeasance, Fined by FPPC | California Progress Report

"[The fine] seems a little light since [the FPPC] only looked at $36,000 of their contributions, but it's also historic because no church has ever been fined for illegal political activity in California before," said Fred Karger, CAH founder. "In fact, it's unprecedented."

"it was eventually learned that the Mormon Church coordinated contributions amounting to more than half of the $45 million dollar Yes on Prop 8 campaign, as well as contributing non-monetarily to the campaign by sending Mormon campaign volunteers through the Church's "mission" program and offering use of church ward (parish) properties throughout the state."

That's a bit of a red herring. The church's "13 counts" were actually 13 days of not filing a document. It was an oversight. Those opposed to the church's position have made a mountain out of a molehill. The church simply corrected a very minor oversight that happened to be found 13 days late. Also the "Mormon Church coordinated contributions amounting to more than half of the $45 million dollar" is very misleading ("coordination" does not equate to contribution). The fact is some Mormons contributed to the other side, but no one is saying that was the church's funds.

Edited March 17, 2014 by bytebear

[Soulsearcher]

I dont know if this is the case. I just heard it from the rumor mill. But I found this case. it isnt recent. it is from 2010.

Mormons Found Guilty on 13 Counts of Prop 8 Malfeasance, Fined by FPPC | California Progress Report

"[The fine] seems a little light since [the FPPC] only looked at $36,000 of their contributions, but it's also historic because no church has ever been fined for illegal political activity in California before," said Fred Karger, CAH founder. "In fact, it's unprecedented."

"it was eventually learned that the Mormon Church coordinated contributions amounting to more than half of the $45 million dollar Yes on Prop 8 campaign, as well as contributing non-monetarily to the campaign by sending Mormon campaign volunteers through the Church's "mission" program and offering use of church ward (parish) properties throughout the state."

I'd heard about this, but it's not a matter of being sued as it is being fined for mis or non reporting. there was really no finding of guilt being they admitted they'd missed reporting in the last two weeks of the campaign. While it might raise a few eye brows and shows some of the things some members had issues with during the prop 8 campaign, it's really nothing major and doesn't come close to being sued and found guilty. To my knowledge, and trust me i've looked neither the LDS or any church has been successfully sued when it comes to the opposition of SSM.

[carlimac]

Going back to the OP, I believe that it's better for a child to be adopted by a married couple consisting of a man and a woman. I don't believe it's in the child's best interest to be adopted by homosexuals or singles. Singles adopting has never ever made sense to me, except perhaps in the case of a grandparent adopting a grandchild. Obviously you can't take adopted kids away from their single parent. But I wish that there were some way to turn that law around from this time forward.

All that being said, I don't know how much information is required by the agency or attorneys when a single person adopts. Does the adoptive parent even have to reveal if they are gay or straight? Or bisexual? If they aren't cohabitating, I don't know what difference it would make.

[Lakumi]

Going back to the OP, I believe that it's better for a child to be adopted by a married couple consisting of a man and a woman. I don't believe it's in the child's best interest to be adopted by homosexuals or singles. Singles adopting has never ever made sense to me, except perhaps in the case of a grandparent adopting a grandchild. Obviously you can't take adopted kids away from their single parent. But I wish that there were some way to turn that law around from this time forward.

All that being said, I don't know how much information is required by the agency or attorneys when a single person adopts. Does the adoptive parent even have to reveal if they are gay or straight? Or bisexual? If they aren't cohabitating, I don't know what difference it would make.

I donno, the option of having one parent (or gay parents) vs no parents...

And even if you have a mother and a father, doesn't mean they're gonna be any good.

[Windseeker]

It sounds like the beliefs among mormons are not as unified as I had previously assumed. I guess it is a diverse group, maybe not as diverse as muslims, because of their small size and controls, but diverse none the less.

What a let down huh..

The whole gay marriage thing has been done to death here so that’s probably why.

You and your U.N. buddies need to get where the action is. It’s hot right now in Muslim transsexual rights. Why should anyone care what's under that berka right?

I heard some dude stole some trannies Oscar!

I'd get on that if I were you.

[Lakumi]

While all this was going down, I wrote an awesome story I don't think I can post on the site, even sans swears (a man's head explodes in anime fashion)

but those rings meant so much to those people, as engagement rings are known to do...

[bytebear]

I admire anyone who takes in foster children, or tries to help kids out of a bad situation, but what about surrogacy? I am torn, because I get that you want a perfect baby, but there are so many imperfect kids who need to be helped too. And I really find it selfish to be a single (as assuming working) parent who chooses to have a child alone (or raised by nannies). For gays, they must have a third person involved. It's simply inevitable. It's bad enough our society has made it that both parents have to work, or that so many kids are born to unstable homes, or just terminated out of convenience that we don't need to add to that. So, the church is working toward an ideal world, one where every child is conceived by a couple who is prepared to raise that child together.

Edited March 17, 2014 by bytebear

[dirtydevil]

so do you think that the LDS general authorities are unified in their opinions on whether gay marriage should be legal, or do you think they have conflicting opinions like other LDS members? Muslims for Progressive Values support transexuals rights too. Not all of us agree with their behavior, but we believe in allowing them the legal right to continue in their lifestyle if they wish. Muslims are very diverse, just as diverse as christianity.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Scotch

[MarginOfError]

If you're interested in the Church's organizational preferences for adoptive parents, you can look over the requirements for LDS Family Services.

https://itsaboutlove.org/ial/ct/adopting-families/is-adoption-right-for-us/adopting-with-lds-family-services/?lang=eng

Among the requirements, adoptive parents must be, "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, sealed to each other in the temple, and have current temple recommends." That's a long-winded way of effectively saying that the LDS Church won't assist single parents or same sex couples (or opposite sex couples who are not sealed) adopt children. I think that kind of kills your argument.

[Blackmarch]

deleted

[Just_A_Guy]

If nobody here cares if single people (gay or straight) adopt, . . .

Speaking for myself: The position isn't that I don't care; the position is that I think there should be a preference in favor of married heterosexual couples, but not an absolute prohibition on singles or homosexual couples. I further suggested that the implementation of even such a preference is not politically possible in the US at this time.

. . . even though the adopted child would be missing out on a parent of the opposite sex of their adopted parents, then why is a child missing out of a parent of a particular sex the primary argument against the legalization of same sex marriage by the LDS??

That is one argument, but not the only one. For example, one might ask why, as a society, we would continue to subsidize married couples at all, if--on top of the other ways marriage has evolved in the last five decades (e.g. it's generally no longer a lifelong union; and even if it is, the rise of dual-income families means that marriage no longer represents an economic risk/burden for either participant)--we finally formally decree that there is no nexus between marriage and child-rearing.

You are trying to do a character assasination of me when you should not be.

If my pointing out that your post made you appear as if you were looking for a fight is "character assassination"--well, I'm sorry, I guess. But, perhaps you might wish to re-read the posts you made both before and after I made that assertion, and then ask yourself--was I wrong?

If you had a logical argument to defend your LDS stance against ssm, then you would not engage in a last resort character assasination in stating that I appear to be out to attack you as apposed to bringing forth an argument for moral advocacy.

Huh? At that point in the discussion, it wasn't even clear what we were supposed to be disagreeing about. Rather than openly making an argument regarding gay marriage, you were still bound up in your adoption argument and bizarre scenarios about increasingly hypothetical same-sex, celibate couples; while trying to refute an argument I hadn't made.

And let's get one thing "straight" (if you'll pardon the pun): There is nothing moral about gay sex. That's kind of the elephant in the room, if you're going to set yourself up as a "moral advocate" and start hectoring a bunch of Mormons on a Mormon-run discussion forum about their approach to marriage.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Meerkatarmy]

As some one who has worked in Social Work I would much prefer childrfen ber placed with gay or single adoptive parents than left to be shifted round the foster care system that is immensly damaging to children much more than not living in a typical nuclear family.

My opinion is the church should stay out of politics and non members lives. People who haven't chosen to live by church rules shouldn't have them forced on them by banning certain types of adoption or marrige

[Lakumi]

My opinion is the church should stay out of politics and non members lives. People who haven't chosen to live by church rules shouldn't have them forced on them by banning certain types of adoption or marrige

yes, this...beautiful!