Adoption Rules Changed

[rambot]

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.

Wow. I'm sorry you are so incorrect and don't see it. I have several gay friends who are raising children and doing quite great if you judge the quality of the child's character. I See the opposite being displayed in front of me from how you are interpreting scripture.
That does not bode well for your convincing me.

 

[Hammster]

Nor are us unbelievers, any plans to exclude atheists from adopting?

That’s addressed in my post.

 

[Desk trauma]

That’s addressed in my post.

If it had been the case I would not have asked my question.

So, yes we should be excluded or no we should not be?

After all we are modeling the sin of unbelief, something that will be picked up by our children unlike sexuality.

 

[The_Barmecide]

That’s addressed in my post.

What about Christians who get "biblically married" and then either break that vow or get divorced? Can people who violate sacred vows to God be excluded from adoption?

 

[The_Barmecide]

If it had been the case I would not have asked my question.

So, yes we should be excluded or no we should not be?

I think the other poster made it relatively clear that couples that are "biblically married" are the ones, so unless there's a way for atheists to be "biblically married" it would seem that they are to be excluded as well.

And remember, this is, as I understand it, ONLY related to religious-based adoption agencies. Presumably any religious-based adoption agency should be able to follow the dictates of their faith. If their God/god thinks some people are inherently evil then they would be remiss and not doing their duty if they put a child in the care of someone they deem evil.

In a sense it kinda makes sense. It just means that if you want a lot of unadopted kids you put the orphans in a religious-based adoption system. If you want them adopted by caring parents of all types then you go with a more secular/pluralistic adoption system.

 

[Hammster]

But only a few are so far under God's wrath that they cannot even be considered to be adoption parents!

We surely ARE all sinners...but only SOME are so sinful that no one needs to be forbearant of them.

Well, that’s not the argument.

 

[GACfan]

I think we're all aware that the evangelicals are holding their collective noses because Trump helps them foist their religious prohibitions on other people. But thanks for the reminder.

Hence the reason why I have distanced myself from the Republican Party as a Christian. I'm beginning to think that these people who want to discriminate against homosexuals and other LGBTQ American citizens should perhaps get a taste of their own medicine and start to reap what they sow.

Maybe these people shouldn't be allowed to adopt children or foster children. But let's not stop there... maybe these people should be denied medical care, denied insurance, denied housing, denied service in a public business, denied the right to marry, denied employment or denied employment benefits, and face relentless discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Denied rights and no equality.

Just imagine the shoe being on the other foot for these people and they find themselves being treated like second class citizens in a county where they are guaranteed freedom, liberty and justice. No rights and no equality for them, marginalized and outcasts, solely based on the fact that they are Christians.

Reaping what they sown when they fought to deny LGBT American citizens civil rights and equality.

"An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[Hammster]

So should we keep SINNERS in general from adopting and raising children? I'd be OK if that were the bar. But SOME sinners shouldn't get to sit in judgement of OTHER sinners based on THE OTHERS' SINS.

To answer your question, no.

 

[Hammster]

Wow. I'm sorry you are so incorrect and don't see it. I have several gay friends who are raising children and doing quite great if you judge the quality of the child's character. I See the opposite being displayed in front of me from how you are interpreting scripture.
That does not bode well for your convincing me.

I wasn’t trying to convince you. The reason for the OP is in the OP.

 

[Hammster]

If it had been the case I would not have asked my question.

So, yes we should be excluded or no we should not be?

After all we are modeling the sin of unbelief, something that will be picked up by our children unlike sexuality.

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.

 

[Hammster]

What about Christians who get "biblically married" and then either break that vow or get divorced? Can people who violate sacred vows to God be excluded from adoption?

You bring up a good point about how prevalent sin is. However, we shouldn’t pretend that a homosexual couple is a good thing just because there’s sin within heterosexual couples.

 

[Hammster]

Hence the reason why I have distanced myself from the Republican Party as a Christian. I'm beginning to think that these people who want to discriminate against same-sex couples and other LGBT American citizens should start getting a taste of their own medicine. After all, it is a biblical teaching to reap what you sow.

Maybe these people shouldn't be allowed to adopt children or foster children. But let's not stop there... maybe these people should be denied medical care, denied insurance, denied housing, denied service in a public business, denied the right to marry, denied employment or denied employment benefits, and face relentless discrimination and harassment in the workplace. No rights and no equality.

Just imagine the shoe being on the other foot for these people and they find themselves being treated like second class citizens in a county where they are guaranteed freedom, liberty and justice. No rights and no equality for them, marginalized and outcasts, solely based on the fact that they are Christians.

Reaping what they sown when they fought to deny LGBT American citizens civil rights and equality.

"An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Here’s the problem with these discussions. Someone will inevitably go far beyond what’s discussed and make counterclaims to ideas not even prevented.

 

[Hammster]

With that said, this has gone far beyond the scope of the OP, and I’ll address anything related to that.

 

[GACfan]

What about Christians who get "biblically married" and then either break that vow or get divorced? Can people who violate sacred vows to God be excluded from adoption?

Of course not, because the couple in question isn't gay.

 

[Desk trauma]

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.

Atheists in civil unions are no more “biblically married” than same sex couples in civil unions.

 

[Elle12]

Adoption agencies have been discriminating against same-sex couples and single people before Obama was president, and since. What "Obama-era" legislation prohibits it? Have we just been ignoring it for the past three years?

Regardless, it seems a shame that children in the system are being kept in limbo by organizations that would rather keep than there and accrue tax dollars than to match them to fit homes.

 

[GACfan]

Adoption agencies have been discriminating against same-sex couples and single people before Obama was president, and since. What "Obama-era" legislation prohibits it? Have we just been ignoring it for the past three years?

Regardless, it seems a shame that children in the system are being kept in limbo by organizations that would rather keep than there and accrue tax dollars than to match them to fit homes.

One more sad fact about this is that not all homes with Christian parents are fit homes. Sometimes being in a Christian home can be more damaging to a child than being in a home with non-Christians.

 

[The_Barmecide]

To answer your question, no.

Why not? Is one sin worse than another?

 

[The_Barmecide]

Atheists in civil unions are no more “biblically married” than same sex couples in civil unions.

Sure many atheists have marriages that last longer than some of the most pious and devout people, but because they didn't use the word "God" it doesn't count as much as the shorter, more contentious marriages by people who DID use the word.

 

[mina]

I have no problem with private religious adoption and foster agencies doing this if they are not accepting federal funding. If they are,then federal funding shouldn't be used to back religious conviction of any particular religion. They should not accept the government's money and do their own private fund raising to uphold their religious beliefs.