LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

And there are many who don't acknowledge divorce or see annulment as the same thing. I figured widow(er)s went without saying.

So? It still doesn't mean that you can throw out "So much for the sanctity of marriage" as a blanket dismissal, or demand that all denominations must adhere to the same standards for it to count at all. This is an organization affiliated by one particular denomination, and so far, that denomination has not been identified here. So you have no data whatsoever about their stand on divorce.

edited 15th Apr '14 11:44:35 AM by Madrugada

Most such "HEY EVERYONE WE'RE SO CHRISTIAN" organizations this side of the ocean tend to be subgroups of English Protestantism, which broke off from the Catholics over divorce in the first place.

edited 15th Apr '14 11:47:47 AM by Pykrete

If this particular organization does allow actual divorce recipients to adopt regardless of how many times they have been divorced, it does give grounds for the "sanctity of marriage" excuse not to fly.

They can use any other excuse if they want, such as kids need two genders in parents or some other nonsense. But that particular one isn't valid anymore.

Only if by "sanctity of marriage" you're requiring "only one, ever, no divorce or separation for any reason, period, end of sentence, end of discussion." Which is a definition that far narrower than most denominations use, to the point of looking suspiciously like it's made of old clothes and stuffed with straw.

You also apparently missed that they have requirements for how long a second or third marriage has to have lasted before they'll consider the couple as adoptive parents. So it's apparent that they don't regard divorce as something that doesn't matter at all.

edited 15th Apr '14 12:02:56 PM by Madrugada

I agree it's bunk.

Doesn't stop people from using it.

And notice I said "if". These people could be the sweetest people in the world who wouldn't think twice on offering gay couples the chance to adopt so long as they were married. But they may not.

It's not really that big of a deal either way. It's just one place. But if other agencies have similar rules then choose to discriminate against gay couples, then it's something to consider and could help to fight back.

Gradually, little by little, public agencies are loosing the ability to say no to de gayz. Eventually all rebuttals will be burned for the strawmen they are. I hope it's just sooner and more willingly then later with kicking and screaming.

EDIT: I am trying to keep up with your edits and it's not working.

No I did not miss the requirements. I noticed them well and just because their is a time frame doesn't mean that they do or do not take issue with divorce. I have been acquainted with clients who have had more than one spouse die on them.

I'm not making an accusation. I'm just noting something that I thought was interesting.

edited 15th Apr '14 12:08:54 PM by Polarstern

Ok, then. I fell afoul of "there is no tone of voice or body language on the internet." What you wrote sounded like sniping. My apologies if that isn't the case.

edited 15th Apr '14 12:21:34 PM by Madrugada

I should have chosen better words. My bad.

I'm actually interested to know if the length-of-marriage bit has an exception for widow/ers, since that situation is different from divorce. From their stated rules, it does appear as though they want to make sure adopting couples have a good strong relationship.

Doesn't look like there's any exemption on the second/third marriage time requirements for widows/widowers. At least, there's nothing to indicate that there is anywhere on the website, and the pre-application form simply has checkboxes for divorced/widowed/annulled

There's churches that don't even accept annulment? Christ. And people think the Catholic Church is bad

*Sarcastic chortle*

Gabs posted this in the LGBT rights and America, but I figured that it's should be here considering.

baptists-tell-pastors-no-more-adam-and-steve-jokes

Having a more socially conservative background than the average troper (at least not one that i've wholesale rejected) I do sort of empathise with the difficult position ('traditionalist' ie non-LGBT friendly religions) put themseves in regards to gay-rights.

The message is that you don't have to be in a ass hole to people because they don't fit into your world beliefs is a good one. It's not abandoning your values to not be antagonistic towards people.

edited 23rd Apr '14 4:29:09 PM by joeyjojo

While it would be nice to not be accused of being a child molester anymore, I'll believe this is a change for the better when I see some actual change.

So they decided to alter the tone of the message but not the content. A cheap marketing technique after they realized most people disagree with them.

I do think this is a move to be more Christian.

I don't mind if someone has different beliefs than me so long as they are not dicks about it.

As much as I would like everyone on earth to not feel anything is wrong with being LGBT, I also respect the right to believe otherwise.

This is mainly because I want people to respect my rights and beliefs even if they contradict theirs.

I'd be wary of blanket judgements. While I have no doubt that some of the pastors do regard it as just marketing strategy, I wouldn't rule out that some are at least trying to genuinely reach out, however clumsily.

'Sexual orthodoxy' is going to be a big part of any conventionally religious person's belief structure in the US. Even if they themselves don't practice what they believe in.

The Baptist Church taking the same 'incompatible with, but respectful unto' stance towards LGBT people as it least claims it takes towards people other denominations is a good thing. If nothing else it is certainly a step towards social coexistence, if not social acceptance.

But to each their own.

edited 23rd Apr '14 8:45:17 PM by joeyjojo

Progress is progress.

Saying you should make progress and making progress are two different things. I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet.

edited 24th Apr '14 5:55:09 AM by Morgikit

A portion of Christians have decided being hateful liars is shameful and they need to stop.

That's progress.

There's no guarantee that churches will actually listen to the SBC. I can just hear my old preacher ranting about them "selling out to the homosexuals" or some other shit like that.

Just like there are still people who think interracial couples are the devil, socialists are commie devils, and Hispanics are trying to takeour jobs, you will never win them all.

Best to try and make the bigots and hatefulness as much a minority as possible and their views appearing archaic and horrible.

This is a start of a slow roll. I embrace any step further, especially since just one generation ago I could be lynched for being with my girl. Or less than a decade ago she could be court marshaled and kicked out for loving me.

We have a ways to go yet. But nothing is ever won easy.

This.

Don't fall victim to Perfect Solution Fallacy and start criticizing people for trying to help you. Biting the olive branch when they try to extend it is just going to make them hate you more.

edited 24th Apr '14 7:19:40 AM by TobiasDrake

I'm saying this as someone who was raised Southern Baptist. The SBC holds no authority over the individual churches in its membership because one of the basic principles of the denomination is autonomy of local churches.

That said, I am glad the leadership of the SBC is trying to improve their following of their own beliefs. Y'know, love thy neighbor.

No council or organization has any true authority over anyone in the religious community.

Consider the Catholic Church's stance on birth control but over 90% of Catholics openly admit to using birth control of some kind at some point.

But having an organization sanctioning or renouncing something is a resource. It can be exploited or denied.

I rather cut off all potential sources of validation for the biogots to the point all they have left is a twisted interpretation of an ancient storybook.