a TEST is coming

[skippy740]

9 minutes ago, JoCa said:

It is child abuse to purposefully place a child in a homosexual environment.  It is sick, it is twisted, it is evil.  How someone can not be strongly against placing an innocent baby in a home that is 100% contrary to God's laws is beyond me.  To me, it is a sign at just how slick the homosexual movement is at convincing people (including members of the Church), there is no sin in homosexuality.

Can you prove this LEGALLY?  So far, this is simply your opinion.  It is rooted in the gospel, but it is your opinion.

The problem we have is in separating legal vs moral.  Legally, there is no problem.  Morally, it's a big problem.  But if you can't substantiate it LEGALLY, you have no case.

Edited September 20, 2017 by skippy740

[JoCa]

12 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

Can you prove this LEGALLY?  So far, this is simply your opinion.  It is rooted in the gospel, but it is your opinion.

Lol . . . you are obviously not a parent or this issue has so clouded your judgement and thinking.  

You should start reading? Here is one for starters.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

It's not the one I'm looking for but there are now sons/daughters of homosexual families who are starting to speak out. I have read several blogs about the trials of children who grew up with homosexual parents and the pain, suffering and horror they went through simply for wanting a dad.  And b/c homosexual couples are now "good", the child can't say "hey I want a dad"-the response is "what's the matter kid you have two parents who love you!" Better that they grow up in a divorced home, right??  Yeah except a divorced home had a fundamental basis in goodness even if it became wrecked.  A homosexual couple has no basis is goodness. 

We just did a big huge experiment on changing the family structure with absolutely 0 science to actually back up it up . . . simply based on "feelings".  Now after about 20 years of experimentation we can start to see the ill effects of it.  

It is 100% pure evil to place a child in this environment.  I'm gonna be blunt here-if you don't see it you really need to re-evaluate your morals.

Legally doesn't matter in this instance.  Look if some adoption agency wants to give babies up for adoption to homosexuals-I'll say it's evil but if an adoption agency wants to be evil . . fine.

But that is not what has happened. The State, as in the federal government puts mandates on adoption agencies that they cannot discriminate and if they do discriminate they will be prosecuted.  The Church got out of adoptions for this exact reason!!! You say b/c of litigation . . . well yeah b/c they were going to be litigated to death, as in i.e. forced to obey anti-discrimination laws to force adoptions to homosexuals.  They didn't get out for any other reason.

You aren't following what is happening- the State, i.e. the government, is enforcing evil.  Got it? 

Edited September 20, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

14 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

So far, this is simply your opinion.  It is rooted in the gospel, but it is your opinion.

More moral relativism.  I guess that is all the Gospel is . . opinion.  You have your opinon, I have my opinion and that's that.  Someone else could have a different opinion and who's to say that their opinion is bad b/c that's all they are is opinions.

Bye, bye western civilization, hello moral relativism and wickedness.  There is no such thing as Truth . . .it is all just a matter of opinion.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The day you will understand your dangerous position of governance is the day Sharia Law becomes the law of the land.  You are lucky that you live in a democratic country where your system of morality is still the majority.  The way it is going, it won't be for too long.  You can shout on the rooftops as much as you like that your idea of what is moral is right and true.  In a free country, nobody has to believe you.  And they still get a vote.

Well, nobody has to believe me, thats true. Go and find out yourself and see that what I speak of is true.

Where do you think men get the principles of what is right and wrong? Is it not the moral fiber of their conscious or spirit within them? Where do men come from? God. And each of us are born with the light of Christ. That light teaches, or shows, to us what is right and wrong. We then make laws based off of that within us. If you dont think that laws are not made off of what men think and believe are the principles of right and wrong then youve never listened to debate by lawmakers debate back and forth how to pass laws that are based on the right and wrong behaviirs of society. The definition of moral is-

"concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character"

 

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, skippy740 said:

What you need to understand... is the definition of a fundamental right.

"A fundamental right is a right which ALL people can simultaneously claim without forcing someone to serve their needs." - Joel Skousen

In short - do what you want with your own life.  Live the way you want... but don't force me to serve your needs or impede on my liberties.

Murder, theft, rape... all impede on someone else.  I never talked about any of that.  I talked about the freedom to choose moral agency for ones self.  If you want to look at porn, go ahead.  If you want to be in a same-sex relationship with two consenting adults, go ahead.  I won't say there won't be eternal consequences, but you have the freedom to choose - as long as you don't impose your will onto another person.

You want to drink alcohol?  Fine.  Go ahead.  But don't drink and drive, because that becomes a danger to society - both in terms of property and a danger to someone else's life.  Do it in your own home or arrange a ride home.

Or do you propose a distorted interpretation of the Articles of Faith?

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

... unless I don't like how you lead your life.  Then it's my job to force you through the laws of the land to live as I want you to live.

The thing is, this talk of "fundamental rights" (or "positive" versus "negative" rights, as I've heard it described elsewhere); itself derives from a certain sort of morality--a morality that puts all humans on more-or-less equal footing and ascribes to humans a duty not to infringe on the God-given prerogatives of another individual.  Those sorts of theories don't occur in a vacuum; and they lose potency once the strong (and wannabe strongmen) believe that violating social norms actually works to their individual advantage.  That's why atheistic societies morph into police states so easily--once the masses realize that obedience is a sucker's game, brute force becomes the only thing that can (for a while) keep the whole house of cards standing.

The other issue, re marriage, is that it is not a *private* contract; it is a *public* contract built on assumptions about child-rearing which then binds parties beyond the married couple.  Some of those assumptions (women and children as property, etc) have been repudiated; but others remain and are integral to the way our welfare state runs.  For example--we assume that married men and women will be making unequal material contributions to their partnerships.  On that basis we *compel* employers to give pension and health benefits to widows and dependents who have never done a day's work for the employer.  On that basis we compel dead men to leave their surviving spouses an "elective share" of their estates even if the men would have preferred to leave their wealth to someone else (and even if the surviving spouse is independently wealthy).  On that basis we create divorce laws that allow formerly-unemployed spouses to claim ongoing support from their working exes over the objection of those exes.  On the basis of facilitating family life we give tax breaks, allow fast-tracked immigration policies, prison visitation and conjugal visits, evidentiary privilege/immunity in court cases, and the other thousand-odd marriage benefits cited in the DOMA court cases--all of which necessitate some sacrifice or specialized treatment by society or its designated agents in government.  These go far beyond a couple's right to love and to be left alone--they impute the couple's right to demand that I, a bystander, give them *my* stuff, for free.

All those public benefits for couples are quite silly, on the face of it--from a utilitarian standpoint it's much better for society to have *both* spouses in the workforce; and elimination of all these unearned benefits would do a lot to nudge couples in that direction (or at least, streamline the workings of government).  So why don't we eliminate them?  Surely it's not in society's interest to force my employer to subsidize my wife's taking a three year hiking tour of Tibetan monasteries in order to "find herself"?  No; society binds itself to recognize and facilitate such foolhardy, economically one-sided relationships because it acknowledges that these relationships tend to produce stable children which is in society's long-term interests.  

When @anatess2 talks about marriage and child protection, she's not saying that gays are pedophiles.  Part of what she's saying (at least, what I think she's saying) is that gays don't make babies; and that there's no point in government-sponsored marriage as we now know it existing unless children are (at least potentially) going to be a part of that equation.  

If we're at a point where we've thoroughly detached marriage from childrearing, it would be more efficient to terminate government support of marriage and give the benefits directly (and exclusively) to the folks who are actually raising the kids.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

26 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Lol . . . you are obviously not a parent or this issue has so clouded your judgement and thinking.  

How curious that, because of my posts, you are making assumptions about me and my personal life.  You must think I'm on my way to the Telestial Kingdom.

I have three children - my daughter will be 14 this week, and two sons - 11 and 9.

[Just_A_Guy]

51 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I would say ophanages and adoption agenecies should only place children in stable married male/female homes. And yes there are plenty of them out there.

In addition, plenty of married male/female couples would love to adopt . . .but adoption costs are through the roof. 

I am currently working in the child welfare system, so let me add a little tangential insight:

Adoption of unwanted babies, versus placement of children in foster care, are two very different things.  

For baby adoptions--especially white babies--yes; to put things crassly, demand far outstrips supply.  Cost is an issue, but a lot of that is just the nature of the beast--birth moms will pick a couple willing to pay their hospitalization costs, they want to see their kid raised in a very financially stable home, and attorney fees aren't usually prohibitive but are no picnic either--so yeah; in that context a would-be adoptive couple is basically in a beauty pageant where the competition is absolutely cutthroat.

Foster kids are another issue entirely.  Utah has a severe shortage of foster families, and in the county where I work it's nearing crisis stage.  Group homes and crisis nurseries do their best, but they're terrible places for a kid to spend more than a day or two; and I will take a placement with a gay couple over a week in a group home any day--it's That Bad.

Folks who want to call me an apostate over that, are welcome to do so--provided they go out and get their foster care licenses first.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

38 minutes ago, JoCa said:

It's not the one I'm looking for but there are now sons/daughters of homosexual families who are starting to speak out. I have read several blogs about the trials of children who grew up with homosexual parents and the pain, suffering and horror they went through simply for wanting a dad.  And b/c homosexual couples are now "good", the child can't say "hey I want a dad"-the response is "what's the matter kid you have two parents who love you!" Better that they grow up in a divorced home, right??  Yeah except a divorced home had a fundamental basis in goodness even if it became wrecked.  A homosexual couple has no basis is goodness. 

Look, I (sort of) have personal experience with this.  Up until about two months ago, I did not have full custody of my children.  My daughter lived with her mom and her grandmother.  She was doing some inappropriate things - sneaking out at night, inappropriate texting, etc.  Not showing the best of judgment.

Well, my ex-wife was going to go on a cruise with her mom and needed me to watch my three kids for 10 days - which was no problem.  But once my daughter went back, she sneaked out of the house again.  We had her here and made an ultimatum:  If she sneaks out again, she'll be moving in with me.

She did it THAT night.  (One would think she'd wait a week or two so she could stay with her mom, go to the school she wanted, and be close to her friends... but NOOO! lol)

She's been with me for the past 2 months... and absolutely no problems!  My daughter doesn't sneak out (which was attributed to a panic attack), she's been on top of ALL her school work (something she has struggled with for the past 5 years), and is VOLUNTARILY going to seminary!  (I don't make it a requirement so she can take pride in that effort herself.  She's only missed one day in the past month!)

So yeah, I GET it.  Right now, my daughter needs her daddy and I'm available.  But does that diminish her MOTHER and GRANDMOTHER?  No, it's simply different and I'm glad she's flourishing.

Edited September 20, 2017 by skippy740

[JoCa]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

When @anatess2 talks about marriage and child protection, she's not saying that gays are pedophiles.  Part of what she's saying (at least, I think she's saying) that gays don't make babies; and that there's no point in government-sponsored marriage as we now know it existing unless children are (at least potentially) going to be a part of that equation.

And I would add that a significant part of the problem is that as a society we have turned child-rearing on it's head where it doesn't even mean the same thing anymore.  Today people think raising children is all about "love" and that's all you need is just "love".  Utter complete horse doogie.

The purpose of raising children is to promulgate culture and values.  It is to literally reproduce society.  While not ever child turns out like their parents, the training and teaching of cultural values is paramount to social order and structure. One cannot understate the importance of parents.  Paradoxically, the greatest thing parents can ever do for their children is to teach them that their is something more of value then the children- and that something is the marriage covenant between male and female.  That is the underlying key to raising children successfully.  And when the underlying key to successfully raising children is based on an evil, deviant practice-the whole deck falls completely apart.  

The sad thing is that people knew this just 30-40 years ago, but today this knowledge is completely lost so know we have perverse ideologies floating around that homosexuals can be just as good as normal parents.  No they can't, it is just simply logically impossible.

So when the State engages in actively forcing agencies to provide homosexual couples the same rights as married couples, it is in a very literal sense engaged in it's own cultural self-destruction and nothing less.

The really sad thing is that in every single instance of a tyrannical government, Germany, USSR, etc. the first thing they did is they went after the youth. They ripped children away from parents and indoctrinated them with the State's ideology.  They don't need to rip kids away today-society is voluntarily giving them up for indoctrination . . .and then we wonder why society is such a mess today . . . .

[skippy740]

And yes, I predict my sons will be coming over to me in the next couple of years.

[JoCa]

11 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

How curious that, because of my posts, you are making assumptions about me and my personal life.  You must think I'm on my way to the Telestial Kingdom.

I have three children - my daughter will be 14 this week, and two sons - 11 and 9.

Then you don't understand the purpose of raising children.  No, I don't think that, go ask God not me-he is your Judge.

I do know raising of children by homosexual couples is evil and again if you don't see that-I would ask you to re-evaluate and reconsider why or why not?

[JoCa]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Folks who want to call me an apostate over that, are welcome to do so--provided they go out and get their foster care licenses first.

Well actually discussing the foster care system is another can of worms in and of itself . . .IMO a creature of the State and that it shouldn't exist.  Churches should take up the slack-it shouldn't be the governments business.  But b/c it is subsidies Churches can be less charitable and let the government take care of it. . . . I seem to recall some scriptures about the purpose of religion to help take care of these children .  . .. 

[skippy740]

Now, compare MY children's experience with their DIVORCED parents... to my father's and uncle's experience in foster care.

They were molested.

Compare my Ex-wife's mother's experience with HER father.

She was molested.  And her father was prominent in the church way back in the day.  She still questions whether her baptism was "legit" or not.

There is IDEAL (loving mother and father) and then there is what IS.  

I believe that being with a same-sex couple can be superior to foster care and a sexually abusive father ANY day of the week.

[JoCa]

7 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

So yeah, I GET it.  Right now, my daughter needs her daddy and I'm available.  But does that diminish her MOTHER and GRANDMOTHER?  No, it's simply different and I'm glad she's flourishing.

I never said that it diminishes her mother or grandmother.  Just that kids need a father, just like they need a mother.  To voluntarily put a child in a situation where there is absolutely 0 hope of getting one of those is evil and child abuse.

[skippy740]

What about INVOLUNTARILY?

What about a child whose father died - either at war, freak accident, or whatever?  The STATE is not going to take that child away from her mother.

What if that mother is sick and has no hope of remarrying "because their kid needs a father"?

You have a lot of assumptions of what "should" be, rather than knowing that life is a series of adjustments and you have to make the best decisions that can be made at that time.

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, skippy740 said:

I believe that being with a same-sex couple can be superior to foster care and a sexually abusive father ANY day of the week.

But again this is the argument that people trot out.  As if it is an either or, either go to a homosexual couple or be molested. It doesn't work like that.  It's not an either or situations.

And it completely demonstrates how slick the devil is-he has convinced us that homosexuality really isn't "that bad" and so people trot out these arguments when they have lost.  Yeah it's bad but it's not that bad.  Well were did I say that a child should be with a sexually abusive father. 

In a societal sense . . .yes it is that bad.  One has extremely detrimental short-term affects (sexually abusive, foster care), the other has extremely detrimental long-term affects (normalization of sin). 

[JoCa]

7 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

What about INVOLUNTARILY?

What about a child whose father died - either at war, freak accident, or whatever?  The STATE is not going to take that child away from her mother.

What if that mother is sick and has no hope of remarrying "because their kid needs a father"?

You have a lot of assumptions of what "should" be, rather than knowing that life is a series of adjustments and you have to make the best decisions that can be made at that time.

Again, I'm not talking about that.  Two homosexuals can't reproduce.  Of course the state isn't going to take the child away from the mother who lost her husband or who is divorced, b/c the possibility exists that at some point on a societal-wide basis (not on an individual basis) there is a good chance that that at some point the child can have a father and mother.

With homosexuality, there is 0 possibility of it ever happening.  Putting any child in a homosexual household is a bastardization of the family.  Naturally a child can never come from homosexuals.  At some point a child must come from a mother and a father.

I'm talking about the State enforcing anti-discrimination laws on adoptions agencies (to a large extent foster homes-but again that's slightly different due to the nature of it being a State creation) to force adoption agencies to give homosexual couples the same treatment with regards to children as a stable male/female marriage. 

Edited September 20, 2017 by JoCa

[skippy740]

Just now, JoCa said:

With homosexuality, there is 0 possibility of it ever happening.

Zero huh?  So, you don't believe that a person who identifies with same-sex attraction can repent, divorce their partner, and find a spouse of the opposite sex?

Sure, it's far-fetched... but it can happen.  Don't you believe in repentance?

[JoCa]

3 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

Zero huh?  So, you don't believe that a person who identifies with same-sex attraction can repent, divorce their partner, and find a spouse of the opposite sex?

Sure, it's far-fetched... but it can happen.  Don't you believe in repentance?

Okay, now I believe I can claim that I've won the argument :-). 

I absolutely believe they can repent, divorce and find a spouse of the same sex . . . and when they do then they can adopt.

I am against the agencies placing children with single parents too . . .but that's not quite as big of a problem b/c anti-discrimination laws don't come into play with it and therefore agencies are more free to do as they feel. With homosexual marriage, the State now enforces anti-discrimination laws on adoption agencies.

Edited September 20, 2017 by JoCa

[skippy740]

When you use an 'absolute', it's far easier to claim that "you win".  You said ZERO chance.  I simply gave an alternative scenario.  :-)

This has been fun.

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, skippy740 said:

When you use an 'absolute', it's far easier to claim that "you win".  You said ZERO chance.  I simply gave an alternative scenario.  :-)

This has been fun.

Lol  . . .okay I do concede on that point.  Sometimes hyperbole is useful :-).

[JoCa]

One of the things nobody in today recognizes is that raising kids is an act of love for your neighbor.  Raising righteous kids is important b/c at some point I will be dealing with your kids and if you have raised your kids properly, they will be pleasant to interact with, but if you do a poor job then I will have to deal with your jerk kids.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by JoCa

[JohnsonJones]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I am currently working in the child welfare system, so let me add a little tangential insight:

Adoption of unwanted babies, versus placement of children in foster care, are two very different things.  

For baby adoptions--especially white babies--yes; to put things crassly, demand far outstrips supply.  Cost is an issue, but a lot of that is just the nature of the beast--birth moms will pick a couple willing to pay their hospitalization costs, they want to see their kid raised in a very financially stable home, and attorney fees aren't usually prohibitive but are no picnic either--so yeah; in that context a would-be adoptive couple is basically in a beauty pageant where the competition is absolutely cutthroat.

Foster kids are another issue entirely.  Utah has a severe shortage of foster families, and in the county where I work it's nearing crisis stage.  Group homes and crisis nurseries do their best, but they're terrible places for a kid to spend more than a day or two; and I will take a placement with a gay couple over a week in a group home any day--it's That Bad.

Folks who want to call me an apostate over that, are welcome to do so--provided they go out and get their foster care licenses first.

WAAAAAY off topic.

Part of the difficulty is seeing the challenges of adoption.  I have discussed with my wife about adopting, but it seems a LOT of paperwork and other things just to adopt.  We'd adopt any kid, but think perhaps focusing on a Hispanic kid or a minority in that arena would be more what we'd look at (and not an infant, more like at least age 5 on up.  5-10 probably being the ideal, but perhaps even up to their mid to late teens.  We are older, so no desire to die off before a kid we adopt is an adult).  However, when we look at all that we have to do just to get to that point, thus far we've just tossed up our hands and given up.  I think that may be the case with many.  Adopting in the US is no picnic (even if one is willing to pay all the fees, the rigor moral of needing to jump through the hoops is enough to make one simply decide it's easier not to).  If it were easier, I think there would be more adoptions.

We ruled out foster care for one reason though.  We just aren't cut out for it.  Our daughter and son in law wanted to adopt for a while and went through foster care being foster parents.  It tore their hearts out.  They'd take care of one kid, and then that kid would be taken out of the home and another put in...and the process just kept going.  It seemed very hard on the heartstrings.  I don't think me and my wife could handle that type of approach to children...and our hearts couldn't take it, which is why we don't do the foster care thing. 

Edited September 20, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

When @anatess2 talks about marriage and child protection, she's not saying that gays are pedophiles.  Part of what she's saying (at least, what I think she's saying) is that gays don't make babies; and that there's no point in government-sponsored marriage as we now know it existing unless children are (at least potentially) going to be a part of that equation.  

If we're at a point where we've thoroughly detached marriage from childrearing, it would be more efficient to terminate government support of marriage and give the benefits directly (and exclusively) to the folks who are actually raising the kids.

If gays don't make babies, that would actually be good.  Then their societal impact is lessened.  But when I talk about child protection, I'm talking about gay marriages raising babies.  Either their own or adopted/fostered/etc.  The legalization of gay marriage pretty much declared that a generation raised by homosexual parents is a societal benefit - or at least, do not cause societal harm.  Sibling marriage is still illegal - because it is considered to be a societal harm due to genetic risks to children.  The govt doesn't even bother to make exemptions for sterilized siblings.  We simply don't want to normalize that condition as it doesn't provide a societal benefit.  Do you see?

Edited September 20, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

You gotta wonder what theoretically faithful LDS people are thinking relative to an eternal perspective when they argue that children being raised in a gay marriage household has no potential harm.