Adoption Rules Changed

[Nithavela]

No one thinks that.

Some people think that some people think that, which is basically the same for the former people.

 

[Belk]

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.

But we are not talking about "best for children". If we were the criteria for adoption would be much more stringent. What we are discussing is acceptable for children and apparently it is acceptable as long as there are both genders as roll models. At least that is what your anecdote would seem to indicate.

 

[Belk]

I find it quite interesting that people think it is just evangelicals that support President Trump. I am not an evangelical and I proudly support President Trump. I am very happy that he has decided not to follow the sinful and harmful polices of the last guy.

Of course not. He decided to come up with sinful and harmful policies of his very own.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Food for thought; Biblical marriage is the union between a man and a woman, there's no other way to have it. When someone refers to 'biblical marriage' in accordance to a nonbelieving couple, it's because they, religious or not, are still the union of a man and a woman. I doubt many adoption agencies(of the religious variety)also would want to stick a child in ANY kind of sinful environment. But most of that stuff isn't obvious and can't be accounted for, I'd imagine. However, if two men walk in with wedding bands on talking about adoption, their sin is on full display.

tbh if you're not religious and don't care what kind of couple your kid goes to so long as they don't wind up abused or neglected, just stick them in a secular adoption center, not a religious one. You at least owe them the effort in reading up on the place you'll be sticking them in. In my opinion, I agree that the husband/wife/children dynamic is the most natural and beneficial dynamic. I mean, if it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, then logically they should be the ones raising it.

perhaps if our culture gets around to being less sex-saturated and afraid of commitment and children, we won't have to have as many of these debates ;p

 

[Always in His Presence]

From some of the replies here you would think the only adoption choices there are, are Christian Evangelical organizations.
News flash. There are other organizations.

 

[Speedwell]

The issue is not whether Christian adoption agencies should be able to act out their homophobic bigotry. Nobody cares if they do.

The issue is whether Christian adoption agencies receiving federal funds should be able to do so.

 

[Elle12]

The issue is not whether Christian adoption agencies should be able to act out their homophobic bigotry. Nobody cares if they do.

The issue is whether Christian adoption agencies receiving federal funds should be able to do so.

I don't think there's much of a point. The people on this thread seem much more willing to be outraged about a false headline than to actually discuss the issue.

I think the answer is clearly, no, if you want federal grant money to help place children in fit homes, you shouldn't be allowed to add your own faith-based criteria to what makes a family fit to have a child.

 

[Elle12]

From some of the replies here you would think the only adoption choices there are, are Christian Evangelical organizations.
News flash. There are other organizations.

From your reply, you would think that the only way for Christian Evangelical adoption organizations can function is with a handout from the federal government.

 

[Hammster]

I don't think there's much of a point. The people on this thread seem much more willing to be outraged about a false headline than to actually discuss the issue.

I think the answer is clearly, no, if you want federal grant money to help place children in fit homes, you shouldn't be allowed to add your own faith-based criteria to what makes a family fit to have a child.

Why not? Why can’t every agency set guidelines based on their worldview?

 

[GACfan]

{snip}The issue is whether Christian adoption agencies receiving federal funds should be able to do so.

I certainly don't want my tax dollars paying for that. I don't support homosexual American citizens being treated like second class citizens in our country and being subjected to prejudicial discrimination because some Christians or other religious people don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle.

 

[Elle12]

Why not? Why can’t every agency set guidelines based on their worldview?

Adoption agencies are free to set guidelines based on their worldview. They are not (or should not be) free to accept federal grant money to place children in fit homes, when their guidelines discriminate against people that the federal government has deemed fit to adopt children.

 

[GACfan]

I think the answer is clearly, no, if you want federal grant money to help place children in fit homes, you shouldn't be allowed to add your own faith-based criteria to what makes a family fit to have a child.

I agree. I would be able to take these Christians moral indignation and objection to homosexuality more seriously if they extended their moral outrage to include the other sexual sins, like adultery, premarital sex, and the high rate of addiction to pornography within the Christian Church.

 

[Elle12]

I agree. I would be able to take these Christians' moral indignation against homosexuality more seriously if they extended their moral outrage to include other the sexual sins, such as adultery, premarital sex, and the high rate of addiction to pornography within the Christian Church.

Some do. I agree that homosexuality and same-sex marriage get far more attention than other "issues," but frankly I think it's all irrelevant to this issue. Adoption agencies that use religious criteria to exclude otherwise fit homes should a) not be awarded money to do so from the federal government, and b) clearly state such criteria online and in publications.

Most documented legal cases on the subject are brought about when the agency is either receiving federal funds and discriminates, or when the agency knowingly leads on an LGBT couple to invest time, money, and effort when they have no intention of matching them with a child in order to keep them from adopting elsewhere. The a) and b) above would seem to prevent this.

 

[Hammster]

I certainly don't want my tax dollars paying for that. I don't support homosexual American citizens being treated like second class citizens in our country and being subjected to prejudicial discrimination because some Christians or other religious people don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle.

What’s your line of demarcation? What lifestyle would you NOT approve of where you would not place a child?

 

[Hammster]

Adoption agencies are free to set guidelines based on their worldview. They are not (or should not be) free to accept federal grant money to place children in fit homes, when their guidelines discriminate against people that the federal government has deemed fit to adopt children.

Why not?

 

[Elle12]

Why not?

You come off as a toddler asking, "Why?" to the answer to a question. The answer is in the last answer. The federal government has directed state agencies to treat same-sex couples in the same way as they do opposite-sex couples. Providing funds to an agency that does otherwise would be contrary.

Just say what you mean to say. Why should these agencies receive federal funds to discriminate against groups that the federal government has deemed to be fit parents?

 

[Speedwell]

Why not? Why can’t every agency set guidelines based on their worldview?

No reason at all. But when the Federal Government is subsidizing them they have a right to impose nondiscrimination standards.

 

[Hammster]

You come off as a toddler asking, "Why?" to the answer to a question. The answer is in the last answer. The federal government has directed state agencies to treat same-sex couples in the same way as they do opposite-sex couples. Providing funds to an agency that does otherwise would be contrary.

Just say what you mean to say. Why should these agencies receive federal funds to discriminate against groups that the federal government has deemed to be fit parents?

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

 

[Hammster]

No reason at all. But when the Federal Government is subsidizing them they have a right to impose nondiscrimination standards.

It’s not about the sinful couples who are pretending to be in a marriage.

 

[Elle12]

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

But they aren't helping children. They are keeping them in the system longer by keeping good families from adopting them.