US House Committee Moves to Restrict LGBT Adoption

[Krasny-Volny]

The issue here, as I see it, is which discriminatory activity is likely to harm a child more and for longer? Keeping him away from potentially compatible parents, or shuttling him between agencies because the feds effectively drive them to insolvency?

How about we don't do either?

Let the religious orphanages run, but force them to let LGBT adopt?

You can't compel the state to force religious institutions to do anything. The state should stay out of the church the same way it stays out of the bedroom. If a religious school or orphanage is not accepting any government funding, the government has no say in how said institution is run.

[Xelsis]

Unless you intend to press those running the orphanages into slavery, then that's not an option for many, which will shut down, leaving the children without any recourse, rather than be forced to do something they consider to be immoral.

This is more a question of, regardless of opposition to the practice of only placing children with opposite-sex couples, whether the moral outrage there is something that should outweigh the welfare of the children helped by such organizations.

What?

Slavery how?

Don't cut there funding, but force them to let gays adopt.

No one is being made to be a slave.

This is the incredibly obvious practical solution to the problem that puts the kids first.

Again, many agencies will shut down entirely rather than be forced to do something they consider to be against their conscience. By creating such a mandate, you lose many of the organizations entirely. The kids aren't put forced by that method, many of them lose the organizations that were giving them aid.

[Dahon]

The issue here, as I see it, is which discriminatory activity is likely to harm a child more and for longer? Keeping him away from potentially compatible parents, or shuttling him between agencies because the feds effectively drive them to insolvency?

Why should they fall into insolvency? Surely their co-religionists will fill the gap caused by a loss of federal funds. We're told all the time that religious people donate more to charity, this is their time to show it. The adoption agencies shouldn't have to take Caesar's gold.

The only thing keeping me from replying in kind is that I know I can't answer you without knowing anything more about these faith-based agencies (to use a hopefully obsolete Bushism). Rules of thumb (regarding size, percentage of federal funds taken per year, etc.) are helpful in gauging the impact of a potential loss of federal funds towards them, only I don't have the numbers and am unlikely to start looking for those numbers any time soon.

[Zeganas]

My question is why are they so adamant about not letting gays adopt and yet parents who may be hypothetically swingers be allowed to adopt? Or parents who commit any of the seven deadly sins? Besides, the sin is the act of sodomy itself, not simply BEING gay, and sins are committed all the time.

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir here but come on. I'm a christian agnostic and I'm shaking my head that christians have to make this an issue by being so butthurt because people found true love in an unorthodox way and want to adopt a child into a loving home.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

What?

Slavery how?

Don't cut there funding, but force them to let gays adopt.

No one is being made to be a slave.

This is the incredibly obvious practical solution to the problem that puts the kids first.

Again, many agencies will shut down entirely rather than be forced to do something they consider to be against their conscience. By creating such a mandate, you lose many of the organizations entirely. The kids aren't put forced by that method, many of them lose the organizations that were giving them aid.

Why the fuck would they do that?

"Oh no I have to let gay people adopt I guess I better let all these orphans be homeless beacuse I don't like gay people and think there icky."

[Firaxin]

What?

Slavery how?

Don't cut there funding, but force them to let gays adopt.

No one is being made to be a slave.

This is the incredibly obvious practical solution to the problem that puts the kids first.

Again, many agencies will shut down entirely rather than be forced to do something they consider to be against their conscience. By creating such a mandate, you lose many of the organizations entirely. The kids aren't put forced by that method, many of them lose the organizations that were giving them aid.

Then let them, and then make it illegal for an agency to have religious beliefs. Open state operated adoption agencies to make up for the loss.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

How about we don't do either?

Let the religious orphanages run, but force them to let LGBT adopt?

You can't compel the state to force religious institutions to do anything. The state should stay out of the church the same way it stays out of the bedroom. If a religious school or orphanage is not accepting any government funding, the government has no say in how said institution is run.

But they are receiving government funding.

[Xelsis]

My question is why are they so adamant about not letting gays adopt and yet parents who may be hypothetically swingers be allowed to adopt? Or parents who commit any of the seven deadly sins? Besides, the sin is the act of sodomy itself, not simply BEING gay, and sins are committed all the time.

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir here but come on. I'm a christian agnostic and I'm shaking my head that christians have to make this an issue by being so butthurt because people found true love in an unorthodox way and want to adopt a child into a loving home.

Because the view of those organizations is that children are raised best when they are raised by both a mother and a father, rather than two men, or two women, and that placing a child in a household of opposite-sex parents is best for their development, with upbringing from both the masculine and the feminine for them.

You are free to disagree with that, of course, but the policy generally comes from operating on the belief that it is best for the child. "Every child deserves a mom and a dad" is a slogan you'll often find.

[Dahon]

You can't compel the state to force religious institutions to do anything. The state should stay out of the church the same way it stays out of the bedroom. If a religious school or orphanage is not accepting any government funding, the government has no say in how said institution is run.

Stupid question, but fuck it: aren't these agencies still subject to federal, state, and local laws respecting child welfare et al even if they don't receive federal funding or if funding is taken away from them?

[Krasny-Volny]

You can't compel the state to force religious institutions to do anything. The state should stay out of the church the same way it stays out of the bedroom. If a religious school or orphanage is not accepting any government funding, the government has no say in how said institution is run.

But they are receiving government funding.

But I was explicitly talking about those religious institutions that don't. And yes, they do exist.

[Xelsis]

Again, many agencies will shut down entirely rather than be forced to do something they consider to be against their conscience. By creating such a mandate, you lose many of the organizations entirely. The kids aren't put forced by that method, many of them lose the organizations that were giving them aid.

Why the fuck would they do that?

"Oh no I have to let gay people adopt I guess I better let all these orphans be homeless beacuse I don't like gay people and think there icky."

Because people take moral stands? If you believe something to be immoral, and the only way not to be forced to do it is to drop out, many will drop out rather than be made to violate their conscience and beliefs.

If you want the common-sense option, it is to not force the organization that is currently helping children to be pressed to violate their consciences or shut down the organization, and simply to allow them to continue with the good they are doing.

[Farnhamia]

Why should they fall into insolvency? Surely their co-religionists will fill the gap caused by a loss of federal funds. We're told all the time that religious people donate more to charity, this is their time to show it. The adoption agencies shouldn't have to take Caesar's gold.

The only thing keeping me from replying in kind is that I know I can't answer you without knowing anything more about these faith-based agencies (to use a hopefully obsolete Bushism). Rules of thumb (regarding size, percentage of federal funds taken per year, etc.) are helpful in gauging the impact of a potential loss of federal funds towards them, only I don't have the numbers and am unlikely to start looking for those numbers any time soon.

Well, I wasn't asking you for hard numbers. My point was, they signed up to take government funding and to follow the rules the government sets regarding the use of those funds. Now they don't like some of the rules and they're demanding an exemption. How is that fair? Shouldn't they refuse the government money if they feel so strongly about the rules accompanying it? That's the honest thing to do.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Why the fuck would they do that?

"Oh no I have to let gay people adopt I guess I better let all these orphans be homeless beacuse I don't like gay people and think there icky."

Because people take moral stands? If you believe something to be immoral, and the only way not to be forced to do it is to drop out, many will drop out rather than be made to violate their conscience and beliefs.

If you want the common-sense option, it is to not force the organization that is currently helping children to be pressed to violate their consciences or shut down the organization, and simply to allow them to continue with the good they are doing.

I never said I wanted to shut down the organisations.

I just don't think a bunch of people who think Gay people are icky would abandon children for the sake of own agenda.

If they really love those kids, they will comply and stay in operation.

[Dahon]

I know, Farn -- it's only that you need hard numbers for this debacle too.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

But they are receiving government funding.

But I was explicitly talking about those religious institutions that don't. And yes, they do exist.

The legislation would only affect those who do.

[Krasny-Volny]

You can't compel the state to force religious institutions to do anything. The state should stay out of the church the same way it stays out of the bedroom. If a religious school or orphanage is not accepting any government funding, the government has no say in how said institution is run.

Stupid question, but fuck it: aren't these agencies still subject to federal, state, and local laws respecting child welfare et al even if they don't receive federal funding or if funding is taken away from them?

I used to debate this with my college buddies who hated the Branch Davidians and thought the FBI and ATF were justified in initiating the Waco siege for the sake of rescuing the children, if nothing else. My response was always that if there's concrete proof of child neglect or abuse, the religious caregivers have clearly violated the law and should be prosecuted accordingly. If there's no proof any laws have been violated but you just think their religion is deluded, that's no excuse to claim that state intervention is necessary for the sake of the children.

In short, yes religious institutions that provide care to children should be left alone except when they violate federal or state laws, in which case the latter is justified in cracking down on them.

[Xelsis]

The only thing keeping me from replying in kind is that I know I can't answer you without knowing anything more about these faith-based agencies (to use a hopefully obsolete Bushism). Rules of thumb (regarding size, percentage of federal funds taken per year, etc.) are helpful in gauging the impact of a potential loss of federal funds towards them, only I don't have the numbers and am unlikely to start looking for those numbers any time soon.

Well, I wasn't asking you for hard numbers. My point was, they signed up to take government funding and to follow the rules the government sets regarding the use of those funds. Now they don't like some of the rules and they're demanding an exemption. How is that fair? Shouldn't they refuse the government money if they feel so strongly about the rules accompanying it? That's the honest thing to do.

It's also something that, at worst, forces them into insolvency and to shut down, screwing over the children and, at best, bursts their budgets and forces them to scale back the aid they provide, again hurting the children.

You can force them to give up the money, but it's the balance I spoke on earlier, whether the moral outrage/spite over their beliefs/policy is sufficient to outweigh the aid the children will lose.

[Krasny-Volny]

But I was explicitly talking about those religious institutions that don't. And yes, they do exist.

The legislation would only affect those who do.

Yes, but in your post you didn't specify whether you meant all religious orphanages or just the ones that were publicly subsidized. I thought you meant all of them.

[Xelsis]

Because people take moral stands? If you believe something to be immoral, and the only way not to be forced to do it is to drop out, many will drop out rather than be made to violate their conscience and beliefs.

If you want the common-sense option, it is to not force the organization that is currently helping children to be pressed to violate their consciences or shut down the organization, and simply to allow them to continue with the good they are doing.

I never said I wanted to shut down the organisations.

I just don't think a bunch of people who think Gay people are icky would abandon children for the sake of own agenda.

If they really love those kids, they will comply and stay in operation.

And if the ones seeking to strip funding really had the well-being of the kids as their top priority, they would never seek to strip funding.

It's a question of whether the ends justify the means-and some people believe they do not, that the ends of providing the aid they wish to does not justify the means of what they believe to be immoral action to do it.

Again, the common-sense solution is to simply not have the government butt in and force a "Keep your conscience or keep your organization" decision and just let organizations helping children continue to help children. Is that so difficult?

[San Lumen]

I never said I wanted to shut down the organisations.

I just don't think a bunch of people who think Gay people are icky would abandon children for the sake of own agenda.

If they really love those kids, they will comply and stay in operation.

And if the ones seeking to strip funding really had the well-being of the kids as their top priority, they would never seek to strip funding.

It's a question of whether the ends justify the means-and some people believe they do not, that the ends of providing the aid they wish to does not justify the means of what they believe to be immoral action to do it.

Again, the common-sense solution is to simply not have the government butt in and force a "Keep your conscience or keep your organization" decision and just let organizations helping children continue to help children. Is that so difficult?

If they truly cared about the children they wouldn’t shut down and render them all on the street because they can’t descriminate against lgbt people

[Des-Bal]

Title is false and misleading. The federal government declining to pull funding from an agency isn't any sort of restriction.

That said while I'm torn on whether the agencies should be permitted to discriminate the government should not be funding ones that do.

[Falex Jones]

“We support kids! Adoption not abortion!”
Promptly makes adoption harder

“We need to respect the Constitution and send the power back to the states!”
Legislates nationally about a state issue

Something’s not right here.

[Xelsis]

And if the ones seeking to strip funding really had the well-being of the kids as their top priority, they would never seek to strip funding.

It's a question of whether the ends justify the means-and some people believe they do not, that the ends of providing the aid they wish to does not justify the means of what they believe to be immoral action to do it.

Again, the common-sense solution is to simply not have the government butt in and force a "Keep your conscience or keep your organization" decision and just let organizations helping children continue to help children. Is that so difficult?

If they truly cared about the children they wouldn’t shut down and render them all on the street because they can’t descriminate against lgbt people

The children would never be forced onto the street if the lawmakers didn't attempt to force the organizations to act against their beliefs. You spoke earlier of moral imposition-that would be an example of it in the plainest form, and an imposition that is against the best interests of the children.

[Xelsis]

“We support kids! Adoption not abortion!”
Promptly makes adoption harder

“We need to respect the Constitution and send the power back to the states!”
Legislates nationally about a state issue

Something’s not right here.

You do realize that this amendment is about protecting funding to adoption agencies, and is about federal, not state funds, do you not?

I think the issue here is one of misunderstanding.

[Farnhamia]

Well, I wasn't asking you for hard numbers. My point was, they signed up to take government funding and to follow the rules the government sets regarding the use of those funds. Now they don't like some of the rules and they're demanding an exemption. How is that fair? Shouldn't they refuse the government money if they feel so strongly about the rules accompanying it? That's the honest thing to do.

It's also something that, at worst, forces them into insolvency and to shut down, screwing over the children and, at best, bursts their budgets and forces them to scale back the aid they provide, again hurting the children.

You can force them to give up the money, but it's the balance I spoke on earlier, whether the moral outrage/spite over their beliefs/policy is sufficient to outweigh the aid the children will lose.

And as I mentioned earlier, don't they have private donors who can pick up the slack? I suppose I can see their side, sort of, I mean, they never thought anyone would try to make them let homosexuals adopt these children and make doing so a condition of receiving federal aid, so they just went along and took the money. Can you call it short-sighted? Perhaps. Seems to me that they're holding the kids hostage, though, now that the rules have changed a bit. Or rather, not so much changed as been clarified. There were always rules surrounding the money.