• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Republicans Vote to Make It Legal to Ban Gays and Lesbians from Adopting

AaronB

Member
I think the entire thread has missed the issue completely. It's not about banning same-sex adoption, or the merits of same-sex parenting. The law is about allowing adoption agencies with religious convictions to refuse to serve same-sex couples.

It's basically the gay wedding cake thing all over again.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
The fact a lot of Republicans believe this is problematic by itself. They could have just looked at The Netherlands and see how good this has turned out.
 

SonicSleuth

Member
I personally disagree with the ability to adopt children by same sex couples.

I believe a child shouldn't be put into a household with a relationship of that kind prior to an age that they can understand sexuality and that relationship.

I believe they should have to be a certain age where their mind is fully developed, say like age 13. And that they should have to sign off on accepting the parents after affirming they understand the situation.
Holy hell I hope this is trolling.

Raised by lesbians, child of divorce from a dad and two step-dads who couldn't give one single f*ck about the kids.

For generations we've been brainwashing kids into thinking there is only one kind of relationship. This is more of the same.
 

SonicSleuth

Member
I think the entire thread has missed the issue completely. It's not about banning same-sex adoption, or the merits of same-sex parenting. The law is about allowing adoption agencies with religious convictions to refuse to serve same-sex couples.

It's basically the gay wedding cake thing all over again.
Anyone who thinks raising kids is the same as decorating a cake needs to have their head examined. I hope you don't have any kids.
 

AaronB

Member
Anyone who thinks raising kids is the same as decorating a cake needs to have their head examined. I hope you don't have any kids.

The outline of the debate is the same. Do you force a person/individual to provide services that are against their religious convictions, or do you force them to do so because it would be discriminatory not to?

If someone says "Landing a probe on the moon is like sinking a 1000 foot putt" would you say "Anyone who thinks space exploration is like golf should have their head examined"?
 

BibiMaghoo

Member
I am in favor allowing a person of religious conviction to refuse a service only where there is a legal guarantee that each relevant service is able to continue if an objector steps away. You can refuse service, so long as you are willing to employ someone that would not refuse the service. You can enjoy the freedom to remove yourself from a situation only if you are willing to provide an alternative. I think the knock on effect of such a law would be that many in principal objectors would no longer object to save the wages of another person doing it, and the genuinely religious objectors would employ someone to mitigate their issue. They wouldn't be happy about it, but it is surely a better result for them than being forced to do it.

I am not in favor of allowing someones right to adopt a child be effected or prohibited by their sexuality, but can also appreciate a legitimate objection based on personal beliefs. I wish there was a test that you could fire up to see if someone genuinely believed their religious views or just used it as an excuse to be a twat, but there isn't.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Its absolutely disgusting that people would rather see orphans in orphanages rather than be with families that could love and care for them just because that family happen to be gay.



Its fucking pathetic in my opinion actually. To hate gay people and disagree with their lifestyle so much that you actually wanna see children suffer as a result of it. I cannot imagine hating anything that much.
 
Last edited:

Bolivar687

Banned
You guys really need to go back and read the article in the OP, and you should also take a closer look at the evidence you're citing here.

This has nothing to do with government banning adoption. There have been and will continue to be plenty of agencies more than willing to work with same sex couples. This is about whether religious adoption agencies absolutely have to play along, too - whether the state can coerce Christians into publicly disavowing their beliefs. Of course, the answer to this question is always a resounding "no," each and every time. We can have all the anti-discrimination laws in the world, but the moment they begin to impose on the free exercise of religion, it's game over. If you want to change that order of priority, then you really need to start organizing to amend the Constitution, because the Supreme Court is no longer going to legislate this kind of stuff from the bench for you anymore.

This is not an abstract thought experiment. The City of Philadelphia has revoked their foster care contract with Catholic Social Services, pre-emptively, without any evidence of discrimination. That's what this amendment is looking to preclude - the absurd reality where governments are filtering out which religions can and cannot do business with the public, based on whether their denominational doctrine comports with the agenda of the current party in power. The idea that anyone would use this precedent to racially discriminate is equally absurd. The lead plaintiff in the case against Philadelphia is an African American woman who has been working with Catholic Social Services for over twenty-five years. Again, this is not an abstract thought experiment - the Universal Church is frequently the biggest and best provider of human services in the communities that need them the most. They're largely the ones picking up the pieces for the people of color who are routinely hit the hardest by the family-destroying consequences of progressive politics. If you're willing to let the most vulnerable in our society suffer so you can push an anticlerical agenda, then maybe now might be a good time to take a step back and evaluate what you're really after here.


Substantially all of the studies showing no differences have been absolutely torn to shreds. They use self-selecting volunteer sample sizes so small, they would never, ever pass scrutiny for any other subject. Many of these studies make no comparison at all, contrary to what many posters are uninformedly claiming in this thread. Comparisons are also frequently made to a baseline that is never accurately defined, or they compare to a baseline of broken homes and single mothers. Also contrary to what many are uninformedly claiming in this thread, there have indeed been findings since identifying the same kind of differences we see with children who are not otherwise raised by their biological mother and father. Meanwhile, developmental psychology has known for decades and decades the things a child can only get from her mother, and the different things she will only ever get from her father. The growing literature on the damage fatherlessness has done to society, especially to young men of color, is absolutely unassailable. Moreover, this phenomenon facilitates surrogacy, the commercialization of the human womb, which is untenable under any real bioethical framework.

It's one thing to discard generations of psychology research to throw children into the test labs of social engineering. It's quite another entirely to fabricate bad research to sustain it. Much like abortion and embryology, same sex adoption is an area that shows the left is just as willing as the right to deny science when it runs afoul of their narratives.
 
Last edited:
This is not an abstract thought experiment. The City of Philadelphia has revoked their foster care contract with Catholic Social Services, pre-emptively, without any evidence of discrimination.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/f...atholic-social-services-lawsuit-20180713.html

In her decision, Tucker agreed with the city’s assertion that CSS’s policy against working with same-sex couples violated Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance, which forbids city contractors from discriminating on the base of sexuality.
darn
 

Lastyou1

Banned
There is a huge misunderstanding here:

the amendement doesn't forbid gay parents to adopt children.

Simply put, if I am responsable of a child-adoption social service, I am allowed to not give in adoption the kuds to gay couples according to my moral and religious beliefs/standards.


For sure, there is a child-adoption service who isn't linked to moralists/religious movements, right?

Right?

Right?



OH, wait...a good 90% of those services are managed by religious associations.
That's a problem, but guess who is to blame?


Personally, I think there is nothing wrong in this emendement, and no, I amatheist and not homophobe.

Gay couples will ask to non-religious organizations, that's it. And maybe this is the good, needed chance that finally, non-religious associations will grow in numbers and importance.
 
There is a huge misunderstanding here:

the amendement doesn't forbid gay parents to adopt children.

Simply put, if I am responsable of a child-adoption social service, I am allowed to not give in adoption the kuds to gay couples according to my moral and religious beliefs/standards.


For sure, there is a child-adoption service who isn't linked to moralists/religious movements, right?

Right?

Right?



OH, wait...a good 90% of those services are managed by religious associations.
That's a problem, but guess who is to blame?


Personally, I think there is nothing wrong in this emendement, and no, I amatheist and not homophobe.

Gay couples will ask to non-religious organizations, that's it. And maybe this is the good, needed chance that finally, non-religious associations will grow in numbers and importance.

The amendment literally shields entities from prosecution that discriminate based on religious beliefs.
ll. (a) The Federal Government, and any 2 State or local government that receives Federal funding 3 for any program that provides child welfare services under 4 part B or part E of title IV of the Social Security Act 5 (and any subdivision, office, or department of such State), 6 shall not discriminate or take an adverse action against 7 a child welfare service provider on the basis that the pro8 vider has declined or will decline to provide, facilitate, or 9 refer for a child welfare service that conflicts with, or 10 under circumstances that conflict with, the provider’s sin11 cerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/07/12/aderholt.laborhhs.amendment[1].pdf

e: unless I'm reading that wrong.
 
Last edited:

Liberty4all

Banned
I think the entire thread has missed the issue completely. It's not about banning same-sex adoption, or the merits of same-sex parenting. The law is about allowing adoption agencies with religious convictions to refuse to serve same-sex couples.

It's basically the gay wedding cake thing all over again.

Yup this is about the protection of religious liberty.

The reality is many faith based organizations believe homosexuality is wrong and forcing them to deliver services against their religion is unconstitutional (or I assume the supreme Court would rule this as so).

Where things get sticky is that often these agencies are being funded by taxpayer dollars. So then it becomes a separation of church and state issue I think.

As somebody else mentioned above is not an easy issue though given that many faith based non profit organizations are completely integrated into the delivery of social services in some states.
 

Ke0

Member
I think the entire thread has missed the issue completely. It's not about banning same-sex adoption, or the merits of same-sex parenting. The law is about allowing adoption agencies with religious convictions to refuse to serve same-sex couples.

It's basically the gay wedding cake thing all over again.

But aren't most of those adoption agencies government funded?
 

Liberty4all

Banned
But aren't most of those adoption agencies government funded?

My guess is yes, and that's where I think there is a big issue. In many states I'm guessing that religious non profits are DEEPLY embedded into delivery of service. It is very common for gov to subcontract out services to non profits.

So I do think it's fair that religious organization can say no, but also fair that gov can pull funding.

But then again you have stuff like what happened in Canada where government pulled funding from religious organizations that would not agree to sign an attestment saying they support women reproductive rights (ie. Abortion). Some issues like that I don't think are soley religious issues, I've met many secular people who believe abortion is murder.
 
Last edited:

manfestival

Member
I dont understand why it is so hard to follow the constitution. Leave church and state to their own things. Of course the GOP is behind this as they typically are. I am curious, how much of the republican party has the GOP taken over of?
 

NahaNago

Member
As someone who leans conservative this is terrible. I would prefer gay and lesbian couples taking care of a kid instead of the government.
 
My guess is yes, and that's where I think there is a big issue. In many states I'm guessing that religious non profits are DEEPLY embedded into delivery of service. It is very common for gov to subcontract out services to non profits.

So I do think it's fair that religious organization can say no, but also fair that gov can pull funding.

But then again you have stuff like what happened in Canada where government pulled funding from religious organizations that would not agree to sign an attestment saying they support women reproductive rights (ie. Abortion). Some issues like that I don't think are soley religious issues, I've met many secular people who believe abortion is murder.
i agree with this. if a religious foster home doesn't want homosexuals to adopt children from their place, that is fine. But the government shouldn't need to fund them imo. I think this is fair
 
Last edited:

Super Mario

Banned
I do not particularly agree with the concept of same-sex couples adopting. Having personally known multiple adopted people, adoption is already TOUGH on everyone involved. I also believe that a child's needs is a topic someone like Jordan Peterson could shed some light on some actual psychology here. The Liberal agenda has masked it as a "75 studies say so" type deal, as they usually do. The fact that you should even need psychologists or "facts" to tell you that there are consequences of a child not having a mother or a father, only proves you know nothing. That is an overwhelming fact proven millions of times. Are you going to make an intelligent discussion that all of these troubled children without fathers would have been "normal" if they simply had a second mother? Children need that attention from each sex. Why? Because that is how we evolved.

I know anything not pro-LGBTQ is normally seen as hateful and bigoted. I just don't believe it's in the best interest of a child. No, an orphanage is not better either. No need to compare it to the worst options and say "it could be worse". Do I believe that there are some same-sex couples out there who have done a better job than heterosexual? ABSOLUTELY! However, the child will be best off with both a mother and a father. Period. It sounds like a noble cause, but it is not that simple.
 

Liberty4all

Banned
I do not particularly agree with the concept of same-sex couples adopting. Having personally known multiple adopted people, adoption is already TOUGH on everyone involved. I also believe that a child's needs is a topic someone like Jordan Peterson could shed some light on some actual psychology here. The Liberal agenda has masked it as a "75 studies say so" type deal, as they usually do. The fact that you should even need psychologists or "facts" to tell you that there are consequences of a child not having a mother or a father, only proves you know nothing. That is an overwhelming fact proven millions of times. Are you going to make an intelligent discussion that all of these troubled children without fathers would have been "normal" if they simply had a second mother? Children need that attention from each sex. Why? Because that is how we evolved.

I know anything not pro-LGBTQ is normally seen as hateful and bigoted. I just don't believe it's in the best interest of a child. No, an orphanage is not better either. No need to compare it to the worst options and say "it could be worse". Do I believe that there are some same-sex couples out there who have done a better job than heterosexual? ABSOLUTELY! However, the child will be best off with both a mother and a father. Period. It sounds like a noble cause, but it is not that simple.

I think that's what Jordann was getting at when he said he would prefer priority be given to a heterosexual couple first... Due to studies showing children suffering they grow up without a mother or a father.

Is not really an equality issue but a what's best for the child issue.

Personally I'm somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing. I'm sure both sides have studies supposedly proving the other side wrong on this issue.
 
Last edited:
I do not particularly agree with the concept of same-sex couples adopting. Having personally known multiple adopted people, adoption is already TOUGH on everyone involved. I also believe that a child's needs is a topic someone like Jordan Peterson could shed some light on some actual psychology here. The Liberal agenda has masked it as a "75 studies say so" type deal, as they usually do. The fact that you should even need psychologists or "facts" to tell you that there are consequences of a child not having a mother or a father, only proves you know nothing. That is an overwhelming fact proven millions of times. Are you going to make an intelligent discussion that all of these troubled children without fathers would have been "normal" if they simply had a second mother? Children need that attention from each sex. Why? Because that is how we evolved.

I know anything not pro-LGBTQ is normally seen as hateful and bigoted. I just don't believe it's in the best interest of a child. No, an orphanage is not better either. No need to compare it to the worst options and say "it could be worse". Do I believe that there are some same-sex couples out there who have done a better job than heterosexual? ABSOLUTELY! However, the child will be best off with both a mother and a father. Period. It sounds like a noble cause, but it is not that simple.
why are you referring to Peterson instead of the studies that say there is no difference between couple types? Those studies are *studies*. You know, people who spend time, and compile information and compare, and run statistical analysis, and discuss, and publish in *peer reviewed journals*. When you have multiple studies saying the same thing, why question it since the more studies that say the same thing are building up evidence for something. If it was just one study, or several studies that came up with wildly different results, I’d agree with you, but that’s not the case. Maybe things are just that simple? To default to a philosopher instead of well several researched studies goes against logic and sound reasoning. It’s being ignorant, because you refuse to change your beliefs.
 
Call me a biological realist, because I feel like progressivism needs to be equally balanced with what nature laid out for us.

Heterosexual couples has been the norm for thousands of years and it's a model that clearly works for us. Same-sex adoption has only been a relatively new phenomenon so I'm going to express some skepticism to what effects it may have on a society.

Doesn't mean I hate LGBT. But if nature intended for humans to have a mother and a father unit for thousands of years, then perhaps we should continue working with that system before exploring other options.


It has nothing to do with the parades (their life style didn't cross my mind when I typed this).

I'm concerned with working with models we evolved with. A mother and a father goes back thousands of years and has kept society going. Same-sex hasn't so I express some cautions with changing the system.

I follow your logic, and this is not a response to your hypothesis, but I am curious as to how far you take it:

Do you think there should be laws to expose children to a more biologically natural diet? I mean, we were evolved to eat greens, nuts, berries, and meats instead of the complex carbs that make up most of our diet. And that's over millions of years.

And certainly we're not evolved to sit in chairs or on toilets. Should we have laws for when children are introduced to those as well?

There are tons of other examples, and they're all very fundamental to life and shape how children/humans grow to see the world around them.

How do you choose which biological priorities you feel strongly about?

I do not particularly agree with the concept of same-sex couples adopting. Having personally known multiple adopted people, adoption is already TOUGH on everyone involved. I also believe that a child's needs is a topic someone like Jordan Peterson could shed some light on some actual psychology here. The Liberal agenda has masked it as a "75 studies say so" type deal, as they usually do. The fact that you should even need psychologists or "facts" to tell you that there are consequences of a child not having a mother or a father, only proves you know nothing. That is an overwhelming fact proven millions of times. Are you going to make an intelligent discussion that all of these troubled children without fathers would have been "normal" if they simply had a second mother? Children need that attention from each sex. Why? Because that is how we evolved.

I know anything not pro-LGBTQ is normally seen as hateful and bigoted. I just don't believe it's in the best interest of a child. No, an orphanage is not better either. No need to compare it to the worst options and say "it could be worse". Do I believe that there are some same-sex couples out there who have done a better job than heterosexual? ABSOLUTELY! However, the child will be best off with both a mother and a father. Period. It sounds like a noble cause, but it is not that simple.

I'd posit a similar question here:

You're implying that there's a right way to be raised, based on biological evolution. How can you decide what the "right way" is, though? For example, much of our evolution is in the context of tight-knit family groups where many family members lived together. The children would spend almost all their time with mom and dad. We are not, for example, evolved to spend so much time away from parents in school. Possibly because of this modern-day disparity, early childhood education has HUGE implications on a person's development. And early childhood educators from baby daycare to nursery school to kindergarten all the way through around 3rd grade are virtually all female, so the children are spending a lot of their really formative years highly influenced by mainly one sex. And they're barely around people working with tools, making things with their hands, caring for gardens, etc.

Certainly this is not "normal" if you define normal as the type of environment and society our brains are biologically "expecting" to experience.

But you'd scarcely take the time to post online and claim "I do not particularly agree with the concept of child care away from the home."

I'd say because this is so common in our civilization, you've gotten used to it and accepted it as a given fact, not unlike many people hope to see adoption by same-sex couples. And in accepting it as a given fact, we don't consider that perhaps it's responsible for depression, obesity, psychopathy or other social ails.

I see the line being drawn here as completely arbitrary and potentially out of conditioned blindness.
 
Last edited:

Super Mario

Banned
why are you referring to Peterson instead of the studies that say there is no difference between couple types? Those studies are *studies*. You know, people who spend time, and compile information and compare, and run statistical analysis, and discuss, and publish in *peer reviewed journals*. When you have multiple studies saying the same thing, why question it since the more studies that say the same thing are building up evidence for something. If it was just one study, or several studies that came up with wildly different results, I’d agree with you, but that’s not the case. Maybe things are just that simple? To default to a philosopher instead of well several researched studies goes against logic and sound reasoning. It’s being ignorant, because you refuse to change your beliefs.

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-a...ex-parenting-children-evaluating-the-research

Being ignorant is reading a few flashy headlines and thinking you've learn about the world. What is better than one headline saying what you want to hear? How about multiple saying the same thing? It's gotta be law then! You can literally prove anything you want in a "study". If it doesn't go your way, you can also choose not to post it. You are ignorance at its finest. I actually did change my beliefs. I once followed this manufactured utopia that was outrage on the other end.

Peterson is a big deal because he is not hiding behind agenda, selective samples, big money, etc. He is a highly accredited psychologist who has had enough of the narrative telling everyone the complete opposite of every single thing he has learned in his career.
 
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-a...ex-parenting-children-evaluating-the-research

Being ignorant is reading a few flashy headlines and thinking you've learn about the world. What is better than one headline saying what you want to hear? How about multiple saying the same thing? It's gotta be law then! You can literally prove anything you want in a "study". If it doesn't go your way, you can also choose not to post it. You are ignorance at its finest. I actually did change my beliefs. I once followed this manufactured utopia that was outrage on the other end.

Peterson is a big deal because he is not hiding behind agenda, selective samples, big money, etc. He is a highly accredited psychologist who has had enough of the narrative telling everyone the complete opposite of every single thing he has learned in his career.
I’m going to quote my earlier post for you:
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank and is in no means proof that the studies have been debunked. The sourced I’ve :cited is The ACLU, whose stance is officially non-partisan.
The problem with the Heritage foundation is their bias. So you just cited something where in your argument directly below you say: “If it doesn't go your way, you can also choose not to post it.” Also, they get funded by conservative lobbyists to push an agenda.
The point of Multiple studies is that they keep each other in check. People can corroborate their information, if they were funded by a political group, or with an agenda in mind. Yes, you can manipulate data to put together any narrative you want, but having more studies can weed out those outliers. If you snub actual data and research done by many different groups that all say the same thing, then you can not claim logic. Peterson is not a scientist. He can look at information and maybe make a conclusion, but so can I. And so can you. You just decide to listen to who you agree with rather than what facts are presented.
 
Goddamn it, I wish the Republicans would drop this SoCon shit already. No one gives a shit.

Run on the economy. Run on gun rights. Run on a functional limited government that doesn't somehow maintain the power to invade people's bedrooms.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Okay, this is fucked up. Even as a conservative, I've never seen a case of someone being harmed because their parents are gay. My mom is gay and I turned out okay, as did my brother.

That's why libertarians > republicans

"Let private businesses exclude whomever they please" is the quintessential libertarian position.

Anyone who thinks raising kids is the same as decorating a cake needs to have their head examined. I hope you don't have any kids.

This classic NeoGAF post by Opiate was written for you.
 

PkunkFury

Member
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-a...ex-parenting-children-evaluating-the-research

Being ignorant is reading a few flashy headlines and thinking you've learn about the world. What is better than one headline saying what you want to hear? How about multiple saying the same thing? It's gotta be law then! You can literally prove anything you want in a "study". If it doesn't go your way, you can also choose not to post it. You are ignorance at its finest. I actually did change my beliefs. I once followed this manufactured utopia that was outrage on the other end.

Peterson is a big deal because he is not hiding behind agenda, selective samples, big money, etc. He is a highly accredited psychologist who has had enough of the narrative telling everyone the complete opposite of every single thing he has learned in his career.

possible; but being ignorant is definitely sourcing the heritage foundation as unbiased research

You are ignorance at its finest
 
Last edited:

Super Mario

Banned
I’m going to quote my earlier post for you:

The problem with the Heritage foundation is their bias. So you just cited something where in your argument directly below you say: “If it doesn't go your way, you can also choose not to post it.” Also, they get funded by conservative lobbyists to push an agenda.
The point of Multiple studies is that they keep each other in check. People can corroborate their information, if they were funded by a political group, or with an agenda in mind. Yes, you can manipulate data to put together any narrative you want, but having more studies can weed out those outliers. If you snub actual data and research done by many different groups that all say the same thing, then you can not claim logic. Peterson is not a scientist. He can look at information and maybe make a conclusion, but so can I. And so can you. You just decide to listen to who you agree with rather than what facts are presented.

The heritage may have an agenda. However, that doesn't absolve the argument. Do you dispute their claims? They made references. According to arguments on this site, references with sources cited are law.
 

AfricanKing

Member
The heritage may have an agenda. However, that doesn't absolve the argument. Do you dispute their claims? They made references. According to arguments on this site, references with sources cited are law.

and here are 74 studies that say otherwise. The fact you even acknowledge they have an agenda throws your argument out the window. Unbiased research is the quintessential form of research you can source .


Or you could just read one of the 75 studies done on the subject that says gay parents are fine, instead of using a naturalistic fallacy to dismiss evidence and say "we better wait more just in case."

https://whatweknow.inequality.corne...eing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The heritage may have an agenda. However, that doesn't absolve the argument. Do you dispute their claims? They made references. According to arguments on this site, references with sources cited are law.
You can’t just say “so what if they have an agenda?” The whole purpose of research is to make sure it’s unbiased. Also, many of their sources don’t exist or lead you to sites like this:
http://www.marriagewatch.org
It’s not a reliable article to back your argument. If you’re adamant your position is true: find a better article, please.
 
Goddamn it, I wish the Republicans would drop this SoCon shit already. No one gives a shit.

Run on the economy. Run on gun rights. Run on a functional limited government that doesn't somehow maintain the power to invade people's bedrooms.

It’s what people do in their bedrooms that is invading our lives, not the other way around. And 75 studies compared to thousands of years of traditional family parenting is laughable.
 
Last edited:
Did everyone read the the same story as I did? It said it would just grant adoption agencies the option to refuse with no reprisal. That means if an agency which is ran by or in conjunction with a church they won't be forced to accept gay people seeking to be parents. The market will have non religious organizations that fill in the gap and not turn away those people. Also, the wording in that amendment is vague. So basically if an Islamic couple went to "Saint Vincent's Orphanage" they could be turned down because of the couple being Muslim. And it would be tit for tat the other way around.

Kids will still be adopted. Gay people will still adopt. People will sleep better at night not being forced to do something they don't believe in. In fact, if new organizations rise up to fill in the gap more kids get adopted by there being more facilitators.
 

Lanrutcon

Member
Is there such an abundance of people willing to adopt that being picky is an option that doesn't screw over the kids?
 

Nicktendo86

Member
As a conservative leaning person I very much disagree with this. If people are able and willing to give children who desperately need it a safe, loving home their sexuality should not even come into the process of consideration. Would people rather children remain in foster care or 'in the system' than going to a properly vetted, good home where they could flourish?
 

Corrik

Member
As a conservative leaning person I very much disagree with this. If people are able and willing to give children who desperately need it a safe, loving home their sexuality should not even come into the process of consideration. Would people rather children remain in foster care or 'in the system' than going to a properly vetted, good home where they could flourish?
I personally, as a conservative leaning mind, wish that people would not be engaging in sex that results in children unless they are prepared with taking care of said children and not relying on adoption to rid themselves of the issue.

Granted, it is a super nuanced issue. And, many liberals will point out that conservatives try to limit access to birth control.

I think everyone should be given free access to birth control, but they have to be completely responsible for their kids also.

I think we have a lack of accountability in our nation a lot with things in that people want to do things but not deal with the consequences of their actions also.

That said, I am super off topic here. I apologize.
 
Did everyone read the the same story as I did? It said it would just grant adoption agencies the option to refuse with no reprisal. That means if an agency which is ran by or in conjunction with a church they won't be forced to accept gay people seeking to be parents. The market will have non religious organizations that fill in the gap and not turn away those people. Also, the wording in that amendment is vague. So basically if an Islamic couple went to "Saint Vincent's Orphanage" they could be turned down because of the couple being Muslim. And it would be tit for tat the other way around.

Kids will still be adopted. Gay people will still adopt. People will sleep better at night not being forced to do something they don't believe in. In fact, if new organizations rise up to fill in the gap more kids get adopted by there being more facilitators.

As long as they tell the kids to their face that they wouldn’t let them get adopted because the family was the wrong religion.
 

Ke0

Member
Always interesting to see America's fear of "Sharia law" while in the same breath slowly push Christian law which ultimately will be the same thing.

Did everyone read the the same story as I did? It said it would just grant adoption agencies the option to refuse with no reprisal. That means if an agency which is ran by or in conjunction with a church they won't be forced to accept gay people seeking to be parents. The market will have non religious organizations that fill in the gap and not turn away those people. Also, the wording in that amendment is vague. So basically if an Islamic couple went to "Saint Vincent's Orphanage" they could be turned down because of the couple being Muslim. And it would be tit for tat the other way around.

Kids will still be adopted. Gay people will still adopt. People will sleep better at night not being forced to do something they don't believe in. In fact, if new organizations rise up to fill in the gap more kids get adopted by there being more facilitators.

If the organization is taking federal money they shouldn't have the right to turn anyone away.
 
Last edited:

Trey

Member
Republican here, fuck this. This is hateful and disgusting. Lesibisn and gay people have been proven to love and raise children just as normal as hedrosexual couples.

This shit is an embarrassment for my party.

An embarrassment? It's a core policy position of the party, lmao
 
Top Bottom