Adoption Rules Changed

[Speedwell]

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

Would you agree to a Muslim adoption agency receiving federal funds to place children--not necessarily Muslim children--only in Muslim homes?

 

[Hammster]

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

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

 

[Speedwell]

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

But that is your sectarian religious position, with which many do not agree. Why should my tax dollars subsidize it?

 

[Hammster]

Would you agree to a Muslim adoption agency receiving federal funds to place children--not necessarily Muslim children--only in Muslim homes?

Their understanding of adoption is not the same, so it’s not a direct comparison.

 

[Hammster]

But that is your sectarian religious position, with which many do not agree. Why should my tax dollars subsidize it?

Hey, vote for someone to change it. My tax dollars went the other way with Obama.

 

[Elle12]

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

The federal government disagrees with you.

 

[Speedwell]

Their understanding of adoption is not the same, so it’s not a direct comparison.

That was not the question. Would you approve of their receiving a federal subsidy?

What about a Humanist adoption agency which refused to place children in Christian families?

 

[Hank77]

Would you agree to a Muslim adoption agency receiving federal funds to place children--not necessarily Muslim children--only in Muslim homes?

Are we talking about agencies that put children in only Christian homes or about agencies that put children in only homes with two parents of the opposite gender/sex?

 

[Speedwell]

Are we talking about agencies that put children in only Christian homes or about agencies that put children in only homes with two parents of the opposite gender/sex?

It's the same in either case. We are talking about agencies that exercise religious discrimination in placing children.

 

[Elle12]

The laws, the courts, and the evidence are all in support that the gender of two parents does not, by itself, make a significant impact in the physical well-being, mental health, or sexual orientation of the children that they raise. Current laws and statements by the Supreme Court indicate that same-sex couples should be treated equally to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to foster and adopt children. A couple or an individual should not be, according to the courts and the laws of today, denied from fostering or adopting a child due to their sexual orientation.

If a private adoption agency wants the federal government to give them federal grants to support their mission (to place children in good homes), they should not be operating in direct opposition to the guidelines and rulings of the Supreme Court.

Now, I personally also think that organizations receiving federal funding should not discriminate based on any religious beliefs (as many do). But I do think that is a different question with far different implications. The deciding factor, in my opinion, is when a religious belief (ie; homosexuality is a sin, so homosexuals should not raise children) causes discrimination that is in direct opposition to the courts (sexual orientation should not be a deciding factor on whether to deny someone the opportunity to adopt).

 

[Speedwell]

And why should certain sectarian religious groups be privileged by special exemption from rules that others have to abide by when receiving federal subsidies?

 

[mina]

Just to be clear this is a proposed rule change. It has not yet been adopted and is likely to be challenged in court if it goes through.

 

[GACfan]

And why should certain sectarian religious groups be privileged by special exemption from rules that others have to abide by when receiving federal subsidies?

I think my friend, @JackRT, gave a good explanation for the cause of this in the first sentence of his post: Same-sex marriage was always legal – its judicial and political enabling legalized institutional.

Just to be clear this is a proposed rule change. It has not yet been adopted and is likely to be challenged in court if it goes through.

I hope this proposed rule change is challenged in court and shot down.

 

[The_Barmecide]

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

A family made up of people who spend all their time mouthing piety to a god they only believe in so that they can get some "goodies". Which is far too many people of faith. That's a family I wouldn't put a child into.

I wouldn't put a child into a family that spends most of its time slagging the poor for being poor and fighting tooth and nail to NOT support the larger society or social safety nets. Because that's a family of no real values except "Me-me-me". That's a family I wouldn't put a child into.

I wouldn't put a child into a family that loves their guns more than their own children. A family of people who think there's a version of Jesus that wants them to own more guns.

 

[The_Barmecide]

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

Like Pastor Ted Haggard? Or Jimmy Swaggart? Or Jim Bakker? Or ...

 

[Hammster]

The federal government disagrees with you.

Okay.

 

[GACfan]

Like Pastor Ted Haggard? Or Jimmy Swaggart? Or Jim Bakker? Or ...

Or in the homes of the 68% of Christian men (including pastors) who are addicted to pornography or in the homes of the church leaders and Catholic priests who are guilty of sexually molesting children.

Shocker: Study Shows Most Christian Men Are Into Porn

US Southern Baptist churches embroiled in sex abuse scandal

 

[Hammster]

That was not the question. Would you approve of their receiving a federal subsidy?

What about a Humanist adoption agency which refused to place children in Christian families?

That would be wrong.

 

[Hammster]

The laws, the courts, and the evidence are all in support that the gender of two parents does not, by itself, make a significant impact in the physical well-being, mental health, or sexual orientation of the children that they raise.

The Bible, however, says different.

 

[Hammster]

A family made up of people who spend all their time mouthing piety to a god they only believe in so that they can get some "goodies". Which is far too many people of faith. That's a family I wouldn't put a child into.

I wouldn't put a child into a family that spends most of its time slagging the poor for being poor and fighting tooth and nail to NOT support the larger society or social safety nets. Because that's a family of no real values except "Me-me-me". That's a family I wouldn't put a child into.

I wouldn't put a child into a family that loves their guns more than their own children. A family of people who think there's a version of Jesus that wants them to own more guns.

Okie dokie.