Adoption Rules Changed

[Hammster]

This is an interesting point. You DO realize that when you make a special carve out to punish these sinners (the gay people who want to adopt) but you make exceptions for OTHER sinners because they don't offend you as much, you are negating God's word. As another poster asked...what about adoptive parents who eat shellfish?

Or what about adoptive parents who are divorced because they violated a sacred vow to God?

Or what about same-sex couples who do NOT worship your god?

Gay couples aren't being punished.

 

[Hammster]

Your opinion of what God's word is applies only to you. There is no objective reason that it should be reflected in the laws of a secular republic.

You have your standards, correct?

 

[Hammster]

.....

I think you missed the point.

Point is: why is your particular sense of repugnance privileged in law, while other people's isnt?

Someone’s has to be, correct?

 

[Hammster]

Is my hypothetical organization receiving federal money? My answer depends on that question.

Yes, it is.

 

[Hammster]

Generally, I agree with that. In this case, however, the only reason to refuse to foster children with same-sex couples is based on sectarian religious beliefs.

And that belief isn’t valid because...?

 

[Hammster]

I think there are clear reasons to prohibit murder and stealing that go beyond religious reasons,

You may think there are, but without an objective standard of truth, it’s only opinion.

 

[Elle12]

And that belief isn’t valid because...?

It's a valid belief.

It is not a reason for the federal government to change the rules in order fund organizations that believe it with federal grant money. Do you care to provide one?

You may think there are, but without an objective standard of truth, it’s only opinion.

Allow me to rephrase.

Murder and stealing are prohibited for reasons that society has deemed objective and valid reasons to do so. It is agreed that such activities are objectively detrimental to society. No religious standard of truth required.

 

[Skewpoint]

Yes, it is.

I wouldn't allow a family that has a convicted felon with a record of domestic violence, child abuse, or sex offender registry in the main household.

 

[Hank77]

No, it doesn't make it fair. Allowing everyone to discriminate helps only those who want to discriminate, and hurts those discriminated against and the children that they would be providing homes to.

Analogous to, if we let storeowners decide for themselves which ethnic groups they will allow in their stores, doesn't that make it fair to everyone? The ethnic minorities can discriminate against white people, and vice versa. Do you understand the inherent unfairness in that, and how it translates? That type of rule only serves the majority that wants to discriminate.



The discussion is about changing the rules surrounding placing adoptive children with same-sex couples. We shouldn't be changing the subject to other groups under a hypothetical scenario, especially since you've proven unwilling to respond to discussion on the subject.

I don't think that the lives of children should be compared to products one buys in a store.

 

[Speedwell]

And that belief isn’t valid because...?

It's valid as a belief, but not necessarily as an extra-religious or objective basis for secular law. My comment was in response to Bobber's excellent post on the subject.

 

[Speedwell]

You may think there are, but without an objective standard of truth, it’s only opinion.

And that opinion with regard to moral philosophy is another of your religious beliefs which cannot in itself provide an objective basis for secular law.

 

[Elle12]

I don't think that the lives of children should be compared to products one buys in a store.

I'm not comparing the lives of children to products bought in a store. I'm not sure how it came across that way.

You suggested that we let everyone choose to discriminate, and asked if that would make it fair to everyone. The answer to your question is, no, that would not be fair. Discrimination is unfair. Letting everyone discriminate doesn't make discrimination any more fair.

I used the store example to demonstrate the inherent unfairness of discrimination, and who is hurts. I did not use it to compare children to what is being purchased in the store.

Discrimination is not something that the federal government should fund.

 

[Elle12]

In an attempt to direct conversation to the topic (whether or not rules/laws surrounding adoption by homosexuals and the system by which the federal government awards taxpayer-funded grants to adoption agencies that discriminate against homosexuals should change), I went through the thread and identified the reasons presented for current laws to change.

TLDR: The only arguments based outside of religious, moral, or personal beliefs for changing the law to support discrimination against homosexuals trying to adopt that have been presented in this thread are:
-Children need a variety of role models of both genders.
-Keeping a child in the foster care system is better for that child than placing them with a homosexual couple that is qualified to adopt that child.

No, they really cannot. It’s not God’s design for the family. So all they can do is model for them a sinful lifestyle.

This response asserts that homosexuals cannot provide a loving and nurturing environment for foster or adoptive children, that such a family is not God's design, and that homosexuals model a sinful lifestyle. The first assertion is one that is at best subjective, and at worst, actively argued against by modern research and public opinion. As such, not a valid reason to influence law. The other two are based on religious opinion, which is not a valid reason to influence law.

Ultimately, I’d prefer it to be a Christian husband and wife. But a biblically married couple is the next best thing. Same-sex couples are not in God’s plan.

This response repeats the opinion that same-sex couples are not in God's plan. Again, religious opinion, not a valid reason to influence US law.

First let me say that I agree that children should be raised in homes with a mom and a dad, not two moms or two dads.

My opinion about this doesn't have anything to do with sin but because child psychologists say that children are better off and statics have proven this to be true. If they a lacking either the female or male representation in their lives they lose. That's why organizations such as Big Brothers and Sisters were created. That's why many divorced parents have begun living not only in the same city as their ex but also in the same neighborhood or school district and given their children the freedom to go back and forth between their homes as they choose.

Why did Evangelicals overlook his bad behaviors before the 2016 primaries? Evangelicals could have voted for Cruz or Rubio, as a minority did, and still got conservative SCourt justices, etc.

Do you have a citation? My understanding is that research has shown two parents are better but their sex relative to one another is not important.

Children haven't been living with same-sex couples long enough to get any kind of real statics.
I'm not going to look up the info. I'm just stating why I believe what I believe, I'm not trying to convince anyone else.
However, I will add that a couple who have been close friends for over 20 yrs. have a lesbian daughter who is married. She and her partner have adopted two baby boys and a toddler over the last few years. All of the boys are siblings. Both women are college grads and one has her master's. For the very reasons I stated above they quit their well paying university jobs, sold their home, and moved back to the town where the rest of her large family lives. This way the boys can spend a good part of their time with grandpa, four uncles, and several male cousins.

This conversation initially asserts that child psychologists and [statistics?] have proven that children are better off raised in a home by a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple, but the poster then appears to renege on that assertion, and instead state that there are no statistics, and that this is just their beliefs, and not evidence to convince anyone else.

There are statistics that suggest otherwise, but I digress.

Other than that, this conversation does bring up the possibility that same-sex parents may need to sacrifice and make plans to ensure that their children have a variety of role-models of both genders. This type of sacrifice is commonly suggested in cases of divorced parents, as well as when agencies adopt out to single parents. Ensuring that children have a variety of role models of both genders is often considered a key part of responsibly parenting any children, regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents.

Not really when you are considering what is 'best' for children. Just as it isn't 'best' for children when their parents divorce. It isn't 'best' for children to be raised by a single parent. It isn't 'best' for children to be raised by parents of the same sex.

This post suggests that being raised by same-sex parents, single parents, or divorced parents is not 'best' for children, presumably when compared to being raised by a monogamous heterosexual couple in a happy marriage.

Unfortunately, there are not enough of the latter that are willing to adopt the children that need homes. So the question seems not to be what is best, but what is better than being raised in the foster care system? I don't think anyone is suggesting that we take children from happy, monogamous heterosexual parents to give them to homosexual couples. But is a loving homosexual couple a better family than a group home?

They should receive funds because they are helping children. It’s about them.

This post seems to suggest that the law change in favor of federally funding agencies that discriminate against homosexuals because they are "helping children". This assumes that keeping a child in the foster care system is better than placing them with a homosexual couple that, removing sexuality from the equation, desires and is otherwise qualified to adopt a child.

No, they are waiting for good families instead of putting them in homes with fake marriages.

See above, only this one also incorrectly asserts that homosexual marriages are 'fake'.

If scripture is against homosexuality, then it’s safe to assume that placing children with a homosexual couple will also be sinful because it would be condoning that action.

This post's rationale is based on religious opinion, which is not a valid reason to influence law.

Do you understand that I don’t think that children should be put in abhorrent situations such as same-sex couples?

This post's rationale is based on a minority personal opinion, which is not a valid reason to influence law.

And we disagree. I think it’s morally repugnant to let homosexuals to foster and adopt.

This post's rationale is based on a minority moral opinion, which is not a valid reason to influence law.


In summary, the only valid arguments, without basis in religious, moral, or personal beliefs, that might influence the government's decision to change the relevant policies and laws are:
-Children need a variety of role models of both genders.
-Keeping a child in the foster care system is better for that child than placing them with a homosexual couple that is (removing sexuality as a factor) qualified to adopt that child.

Does anyone have any other arguments? Anything I missed?

 

[Elle12]

In summary, the only valid arguments, without basis in religious, moral, or personal beliefs, that might influence the government's decision to change the relevant policies and laws are:
-Children need a variety of role models of both genders.
-Keeping a child in the foster care system is better for that child than placing them with a homosexual couple that is (removing sexuality as a factor) qualified to adopt that child.

Failing to identify any other arguments, I propose that both of these reasons don't have enough evidence to support them, and in fact there is a significant amount of evidence to discount them as rationale to change the relevant policies and laws.

TLDR: The research doesn't support either of these arguments.

The following technical report, published in the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2002, shows the body of literature at the time that demonstrated, in summary, that a child's development "seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes". This report, while now dated, provides a good background to modern studies and the context of homosexual parentage before adoption by homosexual parents became a prevalent political issue. In short, the article supports the idea that homosexual parents can provide a variety of role models of both genders, and that there is evidence to maintain that homosexual parents are indistinguishable from heterosexual parents in terms of parenting skills and attitudes, emotional health, or their ability to raise a well-adjusted child. Some more specifics are quoted verbatim from the report below:

Empirical evidence reveals in contrast that gay fathers have substantial evidence of nurturance and investment in their paternal role and no differences from heterosexual fathers in providing appropriate recreation, encouraging autonomy, or dealing with general problems of parenting. Compared with heterosexual fathers, gay fathers have been described to adhere to stricter disciplinary guidelines, to place greater emphasis on guidance and the development of cognitive skills, and to be more involved in their children’s activities.

Lesbian mothers strongly endorse child-centered attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles and have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers.

Lesbian mothers fall within the range of normal psychologic functioning on interviews and psychologic assessments and report scores on standardized measures of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, and parenting stress indistinguishable from those reported by heterosexual mothers.

Several studies comparing children who have a lesbian mother with children who have a heterosexual mother have failed to document any differences between such groups on personality measures, measures of peer group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic success, or warmth and quality of family relationships.

...children seem to cope rather well with the challenge of understanding and describing their families to peers and teachers. Children born to and raised by lesbian couples also seem to develop normally in every way.

In fact, growing up with parents who are lesbian or gay may confer some advantages to children. They have been described as more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual.

Although gay and lesbian parents may not, despite their best efforts, be able to protect their children fully from the effects of stigmatization and discrimination, parents’ sexual orientation is not a variable that, in itself, predicts their ability to provide a home environment that supports children’s development.

Unfortunately, more recent studies are difficult to access if you don't have subscriptions to their publishers, but abstracts of those studies are more readily available and often provide the reader with enough information to understand some outcomes of the research.

In a 2017 investigation of Dutch families, "No significant differences were found on children's well‐being, problems in the parent–child relationship, being worried about the child, or the use of formal and informal support between mothers in same‐sex and different‐sex parent households or for fathers in same‐sex and different‐sex parent households."

A 2018 paper published in the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics looked at the family structures, processes, and cohesion, the parents' self-efficacy, dyadic adjustment, and flexibility, and the child's health outcomes, psychological adjustment, and prosocial behavior of several hundred heterosexual, male homosexual, and female homosexual parents in Italy. The conclusion of that study found no significant differences in either heterosexual or homosexual families with respect to the variables observed.

This 2019 article in the journal Demography describes evidence that poor academic progress in children of homosexual parents was largely a result of the discriminatory laws against and attitudes towards homosexuals, and since those attitudes have been declining, there is no modern significant association between progress in school and the sexuality of a child's parents.

Most recent articles focus on more specific difficulties and aspects of same-sex parenting, and not on whether or not same-sex parents can successfully parent a well-adjusted child. This seems to be, as stated by another 2018 report from the University of Amsterdam:

The answer to the question, “Are the children of same-sex parents well-adjusted?” is a resounding “Yes.” Four decades of research on psychological adjustment, including our own longitudinal and population-based studies, demonstrate that the children of same-sex parents fare as well as, or sometimes even better than, their peers raised by heterosexual parents.

Regardless of the moral, personal, and religious convictions of some, same-sex couples have been raising children as successfully as heterosexual couples for decades. There is more evidence to suggest that single parents are unfit than there is to suggest the same of homosexual parents. I don't feel the need to cite the many, many studies exploring the emotional, social, physical, economic, and academic deficits associated with children that spend lengths of time in (and out of) foster care, or who age out of the system, given those conclusions.

 

[KCfromNC]

You may think there are, but without an objective standard of truth, it’s only opinion.

I smell an argument from consequence here. Anyone else?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

...
“The Trump administration announced Friday that it will not be enforcing Obama-era rules forcing faith-based adoption and foster agencies to place children in same-sex households, and proposed new rules specifically recognizing the religious and conscience rights of such organizations.”

And this is why so many evangelicals overlook many sinful actions and character flaws of President Trump.

Just in case you were wondering.

GOOD ! (though I was not wondering, and this is subject to being verified, of course)... There is a BIG difference in "overlooking" sinful actions and character flaws, vs DOING what GOD DECIDES .... (besides rebelling against what is good and right to do, God's Decision) ...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I smell an argument from consequence here. Anyone else?

IF you mean , or better yet include "eternal consequences", there's really no debate nor argument at all, not even a teeny tiny one....

 

[KCfromNC]

IF you mean , or better yet include "eternal consequences", there's really no debate nor argument at all, not even a teeny tiny one....

I can only conclude from your post you have no idea what I was talking about.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Belittling seems de rigor.
"Everyone sins"
What?!????
I know everyone sins but that doesnt mean the quality of everyone's character is the same. NOR does it excuse his behaviour.
I mourn the lack of discernment in favour of political preference....

"Everyone sins"
"Some sin a sin that leads to death - I (Jesus) do not say to pray for those".
"There is a sin that does not lead to death" It is find to pray for these.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I can only conclude from your post you have no idea what I was talking about.

I only think / thought I know / knew. Perhaps you do know ?