[Wonder Warthog]

I don't see the problem. No matter what the status of the parents, the child is innocent. The only answer is the the child should be baptized.

[MyKidsDad73]

"I don't see the problem. No matter what the status of the parents, the child is innocent. The only answer is the the child should be baptized."

From the article:
"The church had theological convictions about sex and marriage, as well as about how, in their theological tradition, infant baptism was offered based on the faith and obedience of parents. The pastor, however, chose to go through with the baptism, in order to 'show love to the child and her parents.'"

In full disclosure, I do not believe in infant baptism but rather believer's baptism. You simply can't point to a scenario in The Bible in which an infant was baptized.

With that said, and in accordance with this specific belief, I would argue that the only answer is to decline infant baptism based on the parents' disobedience.

[Notthereyet]

The act of placing Holy Water on the child is not the issue. The actual issue is the Church’s instructions for the GODPARENTS of the child. They are clearly instructed to assist the family in the religious raising of the child. If the homosexual or lesbian couple are not even attempting to live by the Word it is up to the Godparent/s to instruct the child in the Word. I’m fairly certain that there would be a WHOLE LOT OF ANGST from the homosexual or lesbians who are raising this child if the Godparent does indeed try to implement the Lord’s Instructions. If the Godparent does not attempt to raise the child correctly or even point out the issues to the homosexual or lesbian couple, then the Baptism itself is a fraud. Better to say, “No,” with love up front than to lie because you want to appear nice to everyone who walks in the Church’s doors.