Oklahoma to Limit Same Sex Adoption

[Bombadil]

They shouldn't be deciding based on their personal beliefs.

Would you prefer that the orphanages shut down? Because that's what's going to happen if they're compelled to place children with same-sex couples.

"Now now Billy, play fair and let everyone enjoy the toys"
"No.. fuck you!"
*breaks all the toys*

I mean.. due to being unable to discriminate they close instead, kind of crushes the idea that the kids are what's important here. That's like the rich threatening to leave the country if they have to pay taxes.

[Kannap]

They shouldn't be deciding based on their personal beliefs. Why should a gay couple who wants to adopt be denied?

What if the child is Catholic and a gay couple wouldn't want to take them to a Catholic Church or allow them to be Catholic?

Why would a non-Catholic gay couple be trying to adopt a kid from a Catholic orphanage?

[Auralia]

Better to leave children out in the streets than have them exposed to faggotry. Think of the Children indeed.

Better for the state not to force them to choose between following Catholic doctrine and continuing to serve these children.

[San Lumen]

Discrimination is never ok.

The harm caused by a same-sex couple having to go to a different orphanage to adopt seems negligible in comparison to the harm caused by shutting down orphanages.

Then the orphanage should not not be shutting down if they truly care about the kids.

[Petrasylvania]

Would you prefer that the orphanages shut down? Because that's what's going to happen if they're compelled to place children with same-sex couples.

"Now now Billy, play fair and let everyone enjoy the toys"
"No.. fuck you!"
*breaks all the toys*

I mean.. due to being unable to discriminate they close instead, kind of crushes the idea that the kids are what's important here. That's like the rich threatening to leave the country if they have to pay taxes.

This is Oklahoma, that also threatened to abolish marriage altogether rather than let those sodomites join in unholy matrimony.

[Auralia]

I mean.. due to being unable to discriminate they close instead, kind of crushes the idea that the kids are what's important here. That's like the rich threatening to leave the country if they have to pay taxes.

I think you should read the article I linked to, which demonstrates that your comparison is totally off-base.

[Kannap]

They shouldn't be deciding based on their personal beliefs.

Would you prefer that the orphanages shut down? Because that's what's going to happen if they're compelled to place children with same-sex couples.

You'd think that people so compelled to help children wouldn't give up so easily.

[Auralia]

The harm caused by a same-sex couple having to go to a different orphanage to adopt seems negligible in comparison to the harm caused by shutting down orphanages.

Then the orphanage should not not be shutting down if they truly care about the kids.

Alternatively, the state could just not force them to make that choice. That's generally how things work in liberal, pluralistic societies.

[Kannap]

Better to leave children out in the streets than have them exposed to faggotry. Think of the Children indeed.

Better for the state not to force them to choose between following Catholic doctrine and continuing to serve these children.

An agency centered around children should be focused on serving children first and other things second.

[Auralia]

An agency centered around children should be focused on serving children first and other things second.

I repeat: if the state simply let the Catholic orphanages do their thing, this wouldn't be a problem.

[San Lumen]

Then the orphanage should not not be shutting down if they truly care about the kids.

Alternatively, the state could just not force them to make that choice. That's generally how things work in liberal, pluralistic societies.

Adoption is a right of all parents and if a two Catholic women or men want to adopt a child they should not be able to deny them.

[San Lumen]

That a place which is supposed to find homes for children is a 'business' makes my skin crawl, to be honest.

Well technically it is, but the customer that they should be allowed to not serve is the adoptive family, not the child. They shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against the children or mistreat them in any other way. They are the children's guardians, and thus must take care of them, obviously

And let me be clear, I am against discrimination, but I am also against anti-discrimination laws.

so your response to Jim Crow would have been oh well?

[Kannap]

An agency centered around children should be focused on serving children first and other things second.

I repeat: if the state simply let the Catholic orphanages do their thing, this wouldn't be a problem.

If Catholic orphanages would put kids first and discrimination aside, the state probably wouldn't have to regulate adoption agencies.

[Bombadil]

I mean.. due to being unable to discriminate they close instead, kind of crushes the idea that the kids are what's important here. That's like the rich threatening to leave the country if they have to pay taxes.

I think you should read the article I linked to, which demonstrates that your comparison is totally off-base.

“Sadly, we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions, in order to exercise the religious freedom that was the prompting for having begun adoptions many years ago.”

i.e. the religious freedom to discriminate.

That's generally how things work in liberal, pluralistic societies.

Yeah, when the law of a liberal pluralistic society deems same sex adoption as fine then render unto Caesar.

[Auralia]

Adoption is a right of all parents...

It is emphatically not a "right of all parents". Adoption is for the benefit of the child, not the parents.

[Albrenia]

Would you prefer that the orphanages shut down? Because that's what's going to happen if they're compelled to place children with same-sex couples.

You'd think that people so compelled to help children wouldn't give up so easily.

The point is, they wouldn't. They'd help children even if it hurts their feels that they have to treat everyone as humans.

[Auralia]

If Catholic orphanages would put kids first and discrimination aside, the state probably wouldn't have to regulate adoption agencies.

Catholic institutions have a higher obligation to the moral law, and must obey it even if means they cannot continue doing their good works.

The fact remains that in the Massachusetts case, it was the state who imposed the requirements, and so it was the state's fault that Catholic Charities had to cease providing adoption services. It is good that Oklahoma will not repeat this mistake.

[Kannap]

Adoption is a right of all parents...

It is emphatically not a "right of all parents". Adoption is for the benefit of the child, not the parents.

But alas, Oklahoma has decided that it is not required for orphanages to act in the best benefit for the children they house.

[Kannap]

If Catholic orphanages would put kids first and discrimination aside, the state probably wouldn't have to regulate adoption agencies.

Catholic institutions have a higher obligation to the moral law, and must obey it even if means they cannot continue doing their good works.

The fact remains that in the Massachusetts case, it was the state who imposed the requirements, and so it was the state's fault that Catholic Charities had to cease providing adoption services. It is good that Oklahoma will not repeat this mistake.

Massachusetts did the right thing. Passed anti-discrimination laws that are step-for-step with the Supreme Court's decisions regarding discrimination.

It's not Massachusetts' fault that these Catholic Charities seem to want to exercise the right to discriminate. Remind me how discrimination is moral?

[Auralia]

The point is, they wouldn't. They'd help children even if it hurts their feels that they have to treat everyone as humans.

And you'd think Massachusetts would have simply let Catholic Charities continue to operate, because providing adoption services matters more than the hurt feelings of gay couples.

[Albrenia]

If Catholic orphanages would put kids first and discrimination aside, the state probably wouldn't have to regulate adoption agencies.

Catholic institutions have a higher obligation to the moral law, and must obey it even if means they cannot continue doing their good works.

The fact remains that in the Massachusetts case, it was the state who imposed the requirements, and so it was the state's fault that Catholic Charities had to cease providing adoption services. It is good that Oklahoma will not repeat this mistake.

Sometimes I forget how repulsive organised religion can be. This is a fair reminder - hating gays is more important than helping children.

[San Lumen]

Adoption is a right of all parents...

It is emphatically not a "right of all parents". Adoption is for the benefit of the child, not the parents.

so in other words we dont like these people therefore we deny them the children a loving home. Thats not acting for the benefit of the child.

[Kannap]

You'd think that people so compelled to help children wouldn't give up so easily.

The point is, they wouldn't. They'd help children even if it hurts their feels that they have to treat everyone as humans.

I get how these charities are supposed to really act in regards to their care of children. I work with children and I am prepared to do anything in my power to protect and keep those kids safe. Everything I do for those children is with their best interests in mind. It disgusts me that there are people who aren't doing the same.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What if the child is Catholic and a gay couple wouldn't want to take them to a Catholic Church or allow them to be Catholic?

That is not something for a adoption agency to decide. Plus forcing ones religious beliefs on someone is wrong.

I go back to the example of my friend from college who was raised by a gay couple in Massachusetts. They are the only family he's ever known and he turned out just fine. He's religious, intelligent,charming and very intellectual. Why should he have been denied a loving home from two wonderful men whom I had the honor of meeting while at college?

All parents force their religious beliefs on their children. If the children are a part of a religious organization, I think that religious organization has a right to protect their religious beliefs from being attacked by potential adoptive parents.

[Albrenia]

The point is, they wouldn't. They'd help children even if it hurts their feels that they have to treat everyone as humans.

And you'd think Massachusetts would have simply let Catholic Charities continue to operate, because providing adoption services matters more than the hurt feelings of gay couples.

They're not stopping them from continuing to operate.