Adoption Rules Changed

[Hammster]

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 have addressed it. And I didn’t ask you. So whether you respond to the question or not isn’t relevant. Though I’d still be interested in your response.

 

[Elle12]

I have addressed it. And I didn’t ask you. So whether you respond to the question or not isn’t relevant. Though I’d still be interested in your response.

Please point out where you've addressed it, because after searching the thread your pattern of response seems to tend towards ignoring the questions asked to you and the sound responses to what discussion you do bring, followed by asking obscure questions to someone else in the thread (only to eventually ignore their responses and move on to another).

The question isn't relevant, so you're right; whether I (or anyone) responds to it isn't relevant.

 

[The_Barmecide]

If it’s not wrong then don’t bring it up.

I bring it up precisely because you are sitting in judgement here but making exceptions for some sins while taking a hard line against others.

My point being that all are fallen, so who are YOU to sit there and say "these fallen people must NEVEr raise children but these fallen people over here are OK"

 

[Hammster]

I bring it up precisely because you are sitting in judgement here but making exceptions for some sins while taking a hard line against others.

My point being that all are fallen, so who are YOU to sit there and say "these fallen people must NEVEr raise children but these fallen people over here are OK"

I’m not bar that things are judged. That would be Jesus Christ and His word.

 

[The_Barmecide]

Or, let them use the money in ways that don’t go against their conscience.

Federal Funds already do NOT go to pay for abortions from places like Planned Parenthood. That's because many Christians do not want their tax money supporting something they disagree with.

Why can't we put the same limitations on things that other people find morally repugnant? If I think that excluding gay people and treating them as sick outsiders while children go unadopted is morally repugnant, why must my tax dollars go to support that?

 

[The_Barmecide]

I’m not bar that things are judged. That would be Jesus Christ and His word.

Look at my faith icon. I'm an atheist. As such my tax money is NOT appropriated per your faith.

Sorry but them's the rules.

 

[Hammster]

Please point out where you've addressed it, because after searching the thread your pattern of response seems to tend towards ignoring the questions asked to you and the sound responses to what discussion you do bring, followed by asking obscure questions to someone else in the thread (only to eventually ignore their responses and move on to another).

That’s not true. I may miss a question since there’s a lot of posts. But I don’t ignore questions.

 

[Hammster]

Federal Funds already do NOT go to pay for abortions from places like Planned Parenthood. That's because many Christians do not want their tax money supporting something they disagree with.

Why can't we put the same limitations on things that other people find morally repugnant? If I think that excluding gay people and treating them as sick outsiders while children go unadopted is morally repugnant, why must my tax dollars go to support that?

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

 

[Hammster]

Look at my faith icon. I'm an atheist. As such my tax money is NOT appropriated per your faith.

Sorry but them's the rules.

Your lack of faith doesn’t negate God’s word.

 

[The_Barmecide]

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

But we already do things to make your faith happy in this country. We don't allow federal tax money to go to support Abortions. I am merely asking that you give up something of yours. We've given up something for YOU.

That's what a plural society does. We "pick our battles". You who are devout Christians get a lot of stuff (you get tax exempt churches, people trip over themselves trying to keep your tax money from going to something your God tells you is wrong...) I'm just asking that maybe, just maybe, you think about people who do not share your faith.

For once. Perhaps. You know...just to let us know we exist along with you in this country.

 

[The_Barmecide]

Your lack of faith doesn’t negate God’s word.

It negates God's call on my tax money, though.

 

[The_Barmecide]

Your lack of faith doesn’t negate God’s word.

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?

 

[Speedwell]

Your lack of faith doesn’t negate God’s word.

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.

 

[durangodawood]

Federal Funds already do NOT go to pay for abortions from places like Planned Parenthood. That's because many Christians do not want their tax money supporting something they disagree with.

Why can't we put the same limitations on things that other people find morally repugnant? If I think that excluding gay people and treating them as sick outsiders while children go unadopted is morally repugnant, why must my tax dollars go to support that?

.....

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

I think you missed the point.

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

 

[Elle12]

That’s not true. I may miss a question since there’s a lot of posts.

I suggest you take a closer look, then.

But I don’t ignore questions.

Perhaps not, but you do refuse to answer them by your own admission. That's worse, in some ways.

Why should the rules surrounding adoption by homosexuals change?

 

[Bobber]

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.

I wonder Speedwell if you're being a little bit shortsighted about his one thing. Because a certain principle can be found in the Bible such can't go to say that's the ONLY motivation for wanting whatever policy of state to be a certain way. As an example many Christians because of Bible beliefs believe in supporting Israel. But does that set aside other reasons they also have even if the Bible didn't exist? So because there just happens to be one connection in wanting things a certain way why should that exclude the possibility there's other reasons as well that can be argued as you say from a secular standpoint?

It does seem rather unconstitutional that because one does have a reason for belief connected to one thing it's not rightly acknowledged there's other reasons too. Murder itself is a prime example. Is it spoken against in scripture? Yes. But is that a Christian's ONLY reason to be against it? Or stealing? So isn't it really just a disingenuous way to control the moral direction of a nation by claiming the only reason one advances a certain policy is because of religion? It seems like just a too easy thing to claim against one setting aside their constitutional to equally have a voice in regard to the direction of a nation.

 

[Skewpoint]

If you were in charge, is there any group that you wouldn’t place children with?

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

 

[Speedwell]

I wonder Speedwell if you're being a little bit shortsighted about his one thing. Because a certain principle can be found in the Bible such can't go to say that's the ONLY motivation for wanting whatever policy of state to be a certain way. As an example many Christians because of Bible beliefs believe in supporting Israel. But does that set aside other reasons they also have even if the Bible didn't exist? So because there just happens to be one connection in wanting things a certain way why should that exclude the possibility there's other reasons as well that can be argued as you say from a secular standpoint?

It does seem rather unconstitutional that because one does have a reason for belief connected to one thing it's not rightly acknowledged there's other reasons too. Murder itself is a prime example. Is it spoken against in scripture? Yes. But is that a Christian's ONLY reason to be against it? Or stealing? So isn't it really just a disingenuous way to control the moral direction of a nation by claiming the only reason one advances a certain policy is because of religion? It seems like just a too easy thing to claim against one setting aside their constitutional to equally have a voice in regard to the direction of a nation.

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.

 

[Elle12]

I wonder Speedwell if you're being a little bit shortsighted about his one thing. Because a certain principle can be found in the Bible such can't go to say that's the ONLY motivation for wanting whatever policy of state to be a certain way. As an example many Christians because of Bible beliefs believe in supporting Israel. But does that set aside other reasons they also have even if the Bible didn't exist? So because there just happens to be one connection in wanting things a certain way why should that exclude the possibility there's other reasons as well that can be argued as you say from a secular standpoint?

It does seem rather unconstitutional that because one does have a reason for belief connected to one thing it's not rightly acknowledged there's other reasons too. Murder itself is a prime example. Is it spoken against in scripture? Yes. But is that a Christian's ONLY reason to be against it? Or stealing? So isn't it really just a disingenuous way to control the moral direction of a nation by claiming the only reason one advances a certain policy is because of religion? It seems like just a too easy thing to claim against one setting aside their constitutional to equally have a voice in regard to the direction of a nation.

I think there are clear reasons to prohibit murder and stealing that go beyond religious reasons, and they are justly prohibited by law.

Speedwell (from what I have seen) has an objection to using one's interpretation of the Bible as rationale to implement law in a secular nation. If there were other reasons to prohibit homosexuals from fostering or adopting, beyond objections of a religious or personal nature, then we can at least have a discussion about those reasons.

Likewise, for the other examples you presented, there are clear reasons to prohibit murder and stealing that go beyond a religious rationale, and those things are justly prohibited by law. But there has been very little presented in this thread to suggest any reason to prohibit adoption by a same-sex couple, aside from religious rationale and someone's personal moral opinion.

I don't think anyone here thinks that we should do a bad thing, just because Christianity says not to. But if the research says it's not a bad thing, if the courts have said it's not a bad thing, if it's recently been legalized and the majority is in favor of it, and there aren't really any objective reasons as to why it's a bad thing, a secular nation should not allow a religion to dictate what its constituents can legally do. No?

 

[Hammster]

But we already do things to make your faith happy in this country. We don't allow federal tax money to go to support Abortions. I am merely asking that you give up something of yours. We've given up something for YOU.

That's what a plural society does. We "pick our battles". You who are devout Christians get a lot of stuff (you get tax exempt churches, people trip over themselves trying to keep your tax money from going to something your God tells you is wrong...) I'm just asking that maybe, just maybe, you think about people who do not share your faith.

For once. Perhaps. You know...just to let us know we exist along with you in this country.

What you’re saying, then, is that that we should fund one sin to because we we don’t fund another.