Adoption Rules Changed

[Elle12]

@yeshuaslavejeff , do you have any objective reasons as to why US law and rules that determine how federal grants are awarded should be altered to prohibit homosexuals from adopting?

Otherwise, it would appear that your religious opinions aren't relevant to the topic.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Yes, I know what an argument from consequence looks like. That's how I identified it in the post I quoted.

You can too - Appeal to Consequences

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

First realize, no religion. No opinions. All such is like grass in the field that grows up one day, and the next day is thrown into the fire.

@yeshuaslavejeff , do you have any objective reasons as to why US law and rules that determine how federal grants are awarded should be altered to prohibit homosexuals from adopting?

Otherwise, it would appear that your religious opinions aren't relevant to the topic.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, I know what an argument from consequence looks like. That's how I identified it in the post I quoted.

You can too - Appeal to Consequences

That is exactly what I knew, and thought, of your post I replied to.

 

[Elle12]

First realize, no religion. No opinions. All such is like grass in the field that grows up one day, and the next day is thrown into the fire.

Duly noted. That sounds like a no, though, so I'm going to go ahead and say it's irrelevant in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Duly noted. That sounds like a no, though, so I'm going to go ahead and say it's irrelevant in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

The evidence is usually ignored.

Is there any indication the evidence is not going to be ignored today , here ?

 

[Elle12]

The evidence is usually ignored.

Is there any indication the evidence is not going to be ignored today , here ?

The ones that want to change the law are supposed to provide the evidence, not the other way around. Just before you posted, I provided a handful of evidence supporting the laws as they stand. That seems to have been received, and not ignored.

Unfortunately, if your evidence is of a purely subjective or religious backing, such evidence is typically not a valid reason to change the law. In which case it would be considered off-topic, apparently.

 

[Hank77]

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 no statics that show that children raised in same-sex couples homes are as healthy mentally and emotionally as those raised in two parent, opposite sex homes.
I could show you statics that show they are not but those statics are just as flawed as the ones that say they are.
The Research on Same-Sex Parenting: “No Differences” No More

You can try to spin what I have presented but it won't make you correct.
I think that many people are not thinking logically but are speaking from their emotions/hearts. I certainly understand why. I too know very loving and kind homosexual people and I don't want to see them unhappy, but when it comes to children what is best for them comes first.

I notice that you still haven't answered my question.
Why do you think that Big Brothers and Big Sister type organizations were created?

 

[Lulav]

“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.”

Seems most here are overlooking one thing, spelled out in this OP quote.

President Trump is not the bad guy here.

Read closely - It was Obama who enacted the law to force these adoption and foster agencies to do something they did not believe in.

I think that's a lot more controversial and harmful than just not enforcing it.

It's like you think that Trump is doing something wrong or that his personal life has to be brought into this.

Obama's 'rule' was non-negotiable and it was also disregarding the beliefs of many Americans.

Trumps just trying to give back what was taken from these organizations and the people of similar beliefs.

 

[Elle12]

There are no statics that show that children raised in same-sex couples homes are as healthy mentally and emotionally as those raised in two parent, opposite sex homes.
I could show you statics that show they are not but those statics are just as flawed as the ones that say they are.
The Research on Same-Sex Parenting: “No Differences” No More

You can try to spin what I have presented but it won't make you correct.
I think that many people are not thinking logically but are speaking from their emotions/hearts. I certainly understand why. I too know very loving and kind homosexual people and I don't want to see them unhappy, but when it comes to children what is best for them comes first.

I notice that you still haven't answered my question.
Why do you think that Big Brothers and Big Sister type organizations were created?

Did you miss the post on the last page, where I provided multiple studies and articles with empirical evidence showing that children raised with same-sex parents are mentally healthy and emotionally/socially well-adjusted?

I don't want to spin what you've presented any way at all. I will say that it's an older article, based on data from 1997-2013, and that it doesn't present any original data. At first glance, it appears to simply be pulling some results from a few studies that other researchers have carried out, and very few websites do so without an agenda. On a website that lists "traditional marriage serves as the cornerstone of the family" as one of its guiding principles, I am naturally skeptical of its intentions in presenting those specific results, and will happily read into the sources cited on the article.

I will also point out that one of the studies published in 2019 that I mentioned in my post on the last page looks at the same type of data from a more recent study and identifies some compelling evidence to suggest that it is the unfavorable laws and attitudes towards homosexuals that caused or at least influenced some of these differences. Other studies that I mentioned present statistics specifically supporting the idea that children raised by same-sex parents are mentally and emotionally stable and healthy.

I don't know too much about Big Brothers and Big Sister type organizations, so I'll defer to others on that one.

I agree that what is best for children comes first. Do you believe that it is better for them to remain without homes and families, than it is for them to be raised by two homosexuals? I understand that the 'ideal' may be two happily married Christian heterosexuals, but unfortunately that just isn't an option for all of the children that need it.

 

[durangodawood]

Someone’s has to be, correct?

Thats a good point. It reinforces my sense that many of these social issues are more about maintaining political blocs than about moral reasoning, anti abortion being the prime example.

 

[durangodawood]

...Obama's 'rule' was non-negotiable and it was also disregarding the beliefs of many Americans.

Trumps just trying to give back what was taken from these organizations and the people of similar beliefs.

This is a huge issue that I vaccinate on:

Should we simply let entities in marketplace discriminate however they see fit and let the chips fall? For one business that may mean they hang a "no blacks" sign. Or for a charity it may mean "no gays" is the policy.

 

[Elle12]

Seems most here are overlooking one thing, spelled out in this OP quote.

President Trump is not the bad guy here.

Read closely - It was Obama who enacted the law to force these adoption and foster agencies to do something they did not believe in.

I think that's a lot more controversial and harmful than just not enforcing it.

It's like you think that Trump is doing something wrong or that his personal life has to be brought into this.

Obama's 'rule' was non-negotiable and it was also disregarding the beliefs of many Americans.

Trumps just trying to give back what was taken from these organizations and the people of similar beliefs.

The article doesn't appear to be correct about the very things you are highlighting.

All other accounts state that no one was forcing faith-based adoption and foster agencies to place children in same-sex households to begin with; simply, that adoption and foster agencies that refused to do so are ineligible for specific federal grants.

It doesn't even appear to relate to a law; it's the Department of Health and Human Services proposing changes to the regulatory provisions in The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards. I'm not certain that it was even Obama that pushed HHS to change the provisions in the first place, which is why it's being called an Obama-era rule.

Regardless, at no point were Christian agencies being forced to act in ways they weren't believing in. Their choice to do so at the expense of federally protected groups does prevent them from getting taxpayer-funded grants, though.

 

[Hammster]

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.

So it can change. Therefore, not objective.

 

[Hammster]

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.

Why not? They can provide a loving home.

 

[Elle12]

So it can change. Therefore, not objective.

You don't appear to know the meaning of objective. It is not a synonym for static.

 

[Hammster]

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.

Far more valid than your “let’s vote for morality” view.

 

[Hammster]

You don't appear to know the meaning of objective. It is not a synonym for static.

But it only based upon popular opinion.

 

[Elle12]

Far more valid than your “let’s vote for morality” view.

I don't recall presenting that view.

The discussion isn't on whether or not US law should be dictated by your religious views, or by anyone's religious views. We don't want to get off-topic.

But it only based upon popular opinion.

Can you rephrase? I'm not sure if it's been a long day, or if you're missing some syntactic context.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Gay couples aren't being punished.

Yes they are. Also they're being denighed their rights to adopt.