US House Committee Moves to Restrict LGBT Adoption

[The South Falls]

The problem here is the fact that adoption agencies can affiliate with a specific religion. Agencies aren’t people, they are systems designed to serve a function, and that is all they should do.

Exactly. They shouldn't be able to exercise religious beliefs, because they are not people.

[Xelsis]

Discrimination of some sort is accepted by everybody, the question is whether this specific kind of discrimination is OK-but that's actually not the question. What the question actually is whether that discrimination is so bad that you're willing to cut the funding for all the other children as a result of it.



Generally because people think aiding in helping orphaned children find homes is a good idea.

That still does not mean they should be allowed to discriminate. What if they found interracial couples to be against their religious beliefs? would that sort of discrimination be ok?

Again, that isn't the question. Let's say that they discriminated against couples that both had red hair and green eyes, just because they hated that for whatever reason. The question isn't whether that's OK, most people would argue it isn't, but whether you consider it bad enough to make the children lose out by cutting the agency's funding.

[Katganistan]

They should not be able to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. By denying loving parents the right to adopt because you dont like they are gay is not a in child's best interest.

Shutting off federal funding to an adoption agency because they only place children with c. 95+% of parents is most certainly not in the best interests of the child, regardless of your opinion on placing children with same-sex couples.

Essentially, you need to ask yourself if not offering adoption to the c. 5% or less of same-sex couples (I don't know the exact number, I would presume it is lower, feel free to correct me if you happen to have a source) is so bad that you cut the funding for the children being provided to the other 95% of couples. If the kids are the top priority, it is a very easy choice to make.

Please. The conservatives behind your bill that tell us not to discriminate because of religious reasons want to defund Planned Parenthood which does cancer screenings, STI screenings and treatment, gynecological exams and treatment, education and prescription of contraceptives because they also perform abortions EVEN THOUGH none of the federal funds are allowed for anything related to abortion. For religious reasons.

So no. If they can defund Planned Parenthood which is an absolute must for especially teens, single moms, and poor families who can't afford more mouths to feed over a tiny percentage of what it does, how does they expect us to let it get its foot in the door by denying adoption on religious grounds?

You want all or nothing, you get all or nothing.

Or stop being assholes and denying people the services they need because muh religion says so.

[San Lumen]

That still does not mean they should be allowed to discriminate. What if they found interracial couples to be against their religious beliefs? would that sort of discrimination be ok?

Again, that isn't the question. Let's say that they discriminated against couples that both had red hair and green eyes, just because they hated that for whatever reason. The question isn't whether that's OK, most people would argue it isn't, but whether you consider it bad enough to make the children lose out by cutting the agency's funding.

I dont think federal funding should allow for discrimination. LGBT adoption is law of the land. We fought for decades to get rights equal to you. We don't need to start chipping away at it for you so called religious freedom.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

That still does not mean they should be allowed to discriminate. What if they found interracial couples to be against their religious beliefs? would that sort of discrimination be ok?

Again, that isn't the question. Let's say that they discriminated against couples that both had red hair and green eyes, just because they hated that for whatever reason. The question isn't whether that's OK, most people would argue it isn't, but whether you consider it bad enough to make the children lose out by cutting the agency's funding.

Perhaps they should the agency should not get any taxpayer money because they don’t pay taxes? If they want more money, do what other private charitable orignzations due, ASK FOR DONATIONS!

[Xelsis]

Discrimination of some sort is accepted by everybody, the question is whether this specific kind of discrimination is OK-but that's actually not the question. What the question actually is whether that discrimination is so bad that you're willing to cut the funding for all the other children as a result of it.



Generally because people think aiding in helping orphaned children find homes is a good idea.

But why should my taxpayer money go to an institution that I find immoral, religiously based institutions. See, this argument can go both ways. See, they can help all the orphaned children they wish, but since they don’t pay a fucking dime in taxes, they should not get any tax payer money.

Do you apply that same argument to the poor? A significant percentage of Americans do not pay any taxes in net. Should they be removed from welfare?

Shutting off federal funding to an adoption agency because they only place children with c. 95+% of parents is most certainly not in the best interests of the child, regardless of your opinion on placing children with same-sex couples.

Essentially, you need to ask yourself if not offering adoption to the c. 5% or less of same-sex couples (I don't know the exact number, I would presume it is lower, feel free to correct me if you happen to have a source) is so bad that you cut the funding for the children being provided to the other 95% of couples. If the kids are the top priority, it is a very easy choice to make.

Please. The conservatives behind your bill that tell us not to discriminate because of religious reasons want to defund Planned Parenthood which does cancer screenings, STI screenings and treatment, gynecological exams and treatment, education and prescription of contraceptives because they also perform abortions EVEN THOUGH none of the federal funds are allowed for anything related to abortion. For religious reasons.

So no. If they can defund Planned Parenthood which is an absolute must for especially teens, single moms, and poor families who can't afford more mouths to feed over a tiny percentage of what it does, how does they expect us to let it get its foot in the door by denying adoption on religious grounds?

You want all or nothing, you get all or nothing.

Or stop being assholes and denying people the services they need because muh religion says so.

Nearly every effort to strip funding from Planned Parenthood has been one which redirected that funding to women's health organizations that had such healthcare as their main focus, rather than as a side note to abortions. It's not ending the funding, it's redirecting it, and to institutions that use more of it for actual healthcare (Number of mammogram machines in Planned Parenthood facilities=0).

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Shutting off federal funding to an adoption agency because they only place children with c. 95+% of parents is most certainly not in the best interests of the child, regardless of your opinion on placing children with same-sex couples.

Essentially, you need to ask yourself if not offering adoption to the c. 5% or less of same-sex couples (I don't know the exact number, I would presume it is lower, feel free to correct me if you happen to have a source) is so bad that you cut the funding for the children being provided to the other 95% of couples. If the kids are the top priority, it is a very easy choice to make.

Please. The conservatives behind your bill that tell us not to discriminate because of religious reasons want to defund Planned Parenthood which does cancer screenings, STI screenings and treatment, gynecological exams and treatment, education and prescription of contraceptives because they also perform abortions EVEN THOUGH none of the federal funds are allowed for anything related to abortion. For religious reasons.

So no. If they can defund Planned Parenthood which is an absolute must for especially teens, single moms, and poor families who can't afford more mouths to feed over a tiny percentage of what it does, how does they expect us to let it get its foot in the door by denying adoption on religious grounds?

You want all or nothing, you get all or nothing.

Or stop being assholes and denying people the services they need because muh religion says so.

You already answered the question with your last sentence. Social conservatives believe their Churches should not have to pay any taxes AND get taxpayer money because they believe that their Church does more good for society that the “baby killers” at Planned Parenthood...

[Katganistan]

That still does not mean they should be allowed to discriminate. What if they found interracial couples to be against their religious beliefs? would that sort of discrimination be ok?

Again, that isn't the question. Let's say that they discriminated against couples that both had red hair and green eyes, just because they hated that for whatever reason. The question isn't whether that's OK, most people would argue it isn't, but whether you consider it bad enough to make the children lose out by cutting the agency's funding.

They're already losing out because 20,000 kids a year age out. Denying perfectly good parents because they're gay is abominable.

In other words, their discrimination prevents the number of kids who are left without a family from decreasing.

Utterly immoral.

[Xelsis]

Again, that isn't the question. Let's say that they discriminated against couples that both had red hair and green eyes, just because they hated that for whatever reason. The question isn't whether that's OK, most people would argue it isn't, but whether you consider it bad enough to make the children lose out by cutting the agency's funding.

I dont think federal funding should allow for discrimination. LGBT adoption is law of the land. We fought for decades to get rights equal to you. We don't need to start chipping away at it for you so called religious freedom.

Let's flip the question then: If federal funding is allowed only for institutions that believe in placing children with same-sex couples, and withheld from those who do not, is that not clear discrimination in itself?

Either way, you discriminate, the only question is whether it is the agency discriminating, or the federal government itself.

Again, that isn't the question. Let's say that they discriminated against couples that both had red hair and green eyes, just because they hated that for whatever reason. The question isn't whether that's OK, most people would argue it isn't, but whether you consider it bad enough to make the children lose out by cutting the agency's funding.

Perhaps they should the agency should not get any taxpayer money because they don’t pay taxes? If they want more money, do what other private charitable orignzations due, ASK FOR DONATIONS!

That is a perfectly fair position to hold, I simply wonder if it applies across the board.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

But why should my taxpayer money go to an institution that I find immoral, religiously based institutions. See, this argument can go both ways. See, they can help all the orphaned children they wish, but since they don’t pay a fucking dime in taxes, they should not get any tax payer money.

Do you apply that same argument to the poor? A significant percentage of Americans do not pay any taxes in net. Should they be removed from welfare?

Please. The conservatives behind your bill that tell us not to discriminate because of religious reasons want to defund Planned Parenthood which does cancer screenings, STI screenings and treatment, gynecological exams and treatment, education and prescription of contraceptives because they also perform abortions EVEN THOUGH none of the federal funds are allowed for anything related to abortion. For religious reasons.

So no. If they can defund Planned Parenthood which is an absolute must for especially teens, single moms, and poor families who can't afford more mouths to feed over a tiny percentage of what it does, how does they expect us to let it get its foot in the door by denying adoption on religious grounds?

You want all or nothing, you get all or nothing.

Or stop being assholes and denying people the services they need because muh religion says so.

Nearly every effort to strip funding from Planned Parenthood has been one which redirected that funding to women's health organizations that had such healthcare as their main focus, rather than as a side note to abortions. It's not ending the funding, it's redirecting it, and to institutions that use more of it for actual healthcare (Number of mammogram machines in Planned Parenthood facilities=0).

No, I don’t apply the same standard to the poor? You know why? Because they are poor, and religious institutions are not. As for restricting welfare, and helping the able body adults on welfare find a job, I’m all for. But just because you believe your religion is “good for society” does not mean it should be given taxpayer money while not paying any taxes.

[San Lumen]

Again, that isn't the question. Let's say that they discriminated against couples that both had red hair and green eyes, just because they hated that for whatever reason. The question isn't whether that's OK, most people would argue it isn't, but whether you consider it bad enough to make the children lose out by cutting the agency's funding.

They're already losing out because 20,000 kids a year age out. Denying perfectly good parents because they're gay is abominable.

In other words, their discrimination prevents the number of kids who are left without a family from decreasing.

Utterly immoral.

But try telling them that. Who knows how long my friend might have stayed in foster care had his parents been told sorry but your guy so you can't adopt him?

[The South Falls]

That still does not mean they should be allowed to discriminate. What if they found interracial couples to be against their religious beliefs? would that sort of discrimination be ok?

Again, that isn't the question. Let's say that they discriminated against couples that both had red hair and green eyes, just because they hated that for whatever reason. The question isn't whether that's OK, most people would argue it isn't, but whether you consider it bad enough to make the children lose out by cutting the agency's funding.

Once again, the adoption agency is not a person. It does not have religious beliefs.

[Xelsis]

Again, that isn't the question. Let's say that they discriminated against couples that both had red hair and green eyes, just because they hated that for whatever reason. The question isn't whether that's OK, most people would argue it isn't, but whether you consider it bad enough to make the children lose out by cutting the agency's funding.

They're already losing out because 20,000 kids a year age out. Denying perfectly good parents because they're gay is abominable.

In other words, their discrimination prevents the number of kids who are left without a family from decreasing.

Utterly immoral.

Unless you have any data showing that more than half of children adopted are adopted by same-sex couples, losing out on the majority of adoptions to opposite-sex couples because of being upset over not providing the minority of adoptions to same-sex couples is an obvious loss to the children.

[Xelsis]

Do you apply that same argument to the poor? A significant percentage of Americans do not pay any taxes in net. Should they be removed from welfare?



Nearly every effort to strip funding from Planned Parenthood has been one which redirected that funding to women's health organizations that had such healthcare as their main focus, rather than as a side note to abortions. It's not ending the funding, it's redirecting it, and to institutions that use more of it for actual healthcare (Number of mammogram machines in Planned Parenthood facilities=0).

No, I don’t apply the same standard to the poor? You know why? Because they are poor, and religious institutions are not. As for restricting welfare, and helping the able body adults on welfare find a job, I’m all for. But just because you believe your religion is “good for society” does not mean it should be given taxpayer money while not paying any taxes.

They are not given taxpayer money because they believe their religion is "good for society", it is because they are adoption agencies that they are funded. An atheistic adoption agency can operate in exactly the same way.

Again, that isn't the question. Let's say that they discriminated against couples that both had red hair and green eyes, just because they hated that for whatever reason. The question isn't whether that's OK, most people would argue it isn't, but whether you consider it bad enough to make the children lose out by cutting the agency's funding.

Once again, the adoption agency is not a person. It does not have religious beliefs.

The persons in the adoption agency carrying out the actions of it are people, with religious beliefs, and it is they who set the policy of that organization.

[San Lumen]

They're already losing out because 20,000 kids a year age out. Denying perfectly good parents because they're gay is abominable.

In other words, their discrimination prevents the number of kids who are left without a family from decreasing.

Utterly immoral.

Unless you have any data showing that more than half of children adopted are adopted by same-sex couples, losing out on the majority of adoptions to opposite-sex couples because of being upset over not providing the minority of adoptions to same-sex couples is an obvious loss to the children.

Im not sure I follow. Are you saying that more children are adopted by same sex couples than heterosexual couples?

[Conserative Morality]

"UGH, can you believe my adoption agency got stripped of funding just because I don't believe in letting black people adopt white children? smh"

[Xelsis]

Unless you have any data showing that more than half of children adopted are adopted by same-sex couples, losing out on the majority of adoptions to opposite-sex couples because of being upset over not providing the minority of adoptions to same-sex couples is an obvious loss to the children.

Im not sure I follow. Are you saying that more children are adopted by same sex couples than heterosexual couples?

I am saying the opposite. If you shut down funding for an adoption agency due to not placing children with same-sex couples, then you are denying the funds to the majority of children who are placed with opposite-sex couples.

[The South Falls]

No, I don’t apply the same standard to the poor? You know why? Because they are poor, and religious institutions are not. As for restricting welfare, and helping the able body adults on welfare find a job, I’m all for. But just because you believe your religion is “good for society” does not mean it should be given taxpayer money while not paying any taxes.

They are not given taxpayer money because they believe their religion is "good for society", it is because they are adoption agencies that they are funded. An atheistic adoption agency can operate in exactly the same way.

Once again, the adoption agency is not a person. It does not have religious beliefs.

The persons in the adoption agency carrying out the actions of it are people, with religious beliefs, and it is they who set the policy of that organization.

The people at the agency don't go over the children.

[Katganistan]

But why should my taxpayer money go to an institution that I find immoral, religiously based institutions. See, this argument can go both ways. See, they can help all the orphaned children they wish, but since they don’t pay a fucking dime in taxes, they should not get any tax payer money.

Do you apply that same argument to the poor? A significant percentage of Americans do not pay any taxes in net. Should they be removed from welfare?

Please. The conservatives behind your bill that tell us not to discriminate because of religious reasons want to defund Planned Parenthood which does cancer screenings, STI screenings and treatment, gynecological exams and treatment, education and prescription of contraceptives because they also perform abortions EVEN THOUGH none of the federal funds are allowed for anything related to abortion. For religious reasons.

So no. If they can defund Planned Parenthood which is an absolute must for especially teens, single moms, and poor families who can't afford more mouths to feed over a tiny percentage of what it does, how does they expect us to let it get its foot in the door by denying adoption on religious grounds?

You want all or nothing, you get all or nothing.

Or stop being assholes and denying people the services they need because muh religion says so.

Nearly every effort to strip funding from Planned Parenthood has been one which redirected that funding to women's health organizations that had such healthcare as their main focus, rather than as a side note to abortions. It's not ending the funding, it's redirecting it, and to institutions that use more of it for actual healthcare (Number of mammogram machines in Planned Parenthood facilities=0).

Not quite true. Some clinics have mobile mammography buses they send into the community.

That doesn't refute what I said about cancer screenings either -- they do pap smears for cervical cancer, and referrals to centers that can do mammography after doing initial breast exams.

[Xelsis]

They are not given taxpayer money because they believe their religion is "good for society", it is because they are adoption agencies that they are funded. An atheistic adoption agency can operate in exactly the same way.




The persons in the adoption agency carrying out the actions of it are people, with religious beliefs, and it is they who set the policy of that organization.

The people at the agency don't go over the children.

Can you elaborate on that statement? I am not quite certain what you are saying.

[San Lumen]

Im not sure I follow. Are you saying that more children are adopted by same sex couples than heterosexual couples?

I am saying the opposite. If you shut down funding for an adoption agency due to not placing children with same-sex couples, then you are denying the funds to the majority of children who are placed with opposite-sex couples.

Then perhaps they shouldn't discriminate. if you feel the need inflict your beliefs on others than don't work for a adoption agency.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

No, I don’t apply the same standard to the poor? You know why? Because they are poor, and religious institutions are not. As for restricting welfare, and helping the able body adults on welfare find a job, I’m all for. But just because you believe your religion is “good for society” does not mean it should be given taxpayer money while not paying any taxes.

They are not given taxpayer money because they believe their religion is "good for society", it is because they are adoption agencies that they are funded. An atheistic adoption agency can operate in exactly the same way.

Once again, the adoption agency is not a person. It does not have religious beliefs.

The persons in the adoption agency carrying out the actions of it are people, with religious beliefs, and it is they who set the policy of that organization.

What the hell is an “atheistic” adoption agency? You are aware abstaining from promoting any particular religious view =/= atheism....

[Xelsis]

Do you apply that same argument to the poor? A significant percentage of Americans do not pay any taxes in net. Should they be removed from welfare?



Nearly every effort to strip funding from Planned Parenthood has been one which redirected that funding to women's health organizations that had such healthcare as their main focus, rather than as a side note to abortions. It's not ending the funding, it's redirecting it, and to institutions that use more of it for actual healthcare (Number of mammogram machines in Planned Parenthood facilities=0).

Not quite true. Some clinics have mobile mammography buses they send into the community.

That doesn't refute what I said about cancer screenings either -- they do pap smears for cervical cancer, and referrals to centers that can do mammography after doing initial breast exams.

Which does not refute my point either-that there are other organizations that provide the same services, and more, and solely such services, rather than those services in addition to abortion.

A Planned Parenthood "defunding" is a redirection of funds to those other organizations, which have a greater focus on providing those health resources. The whataboutism of coming on Republicans for defunding women's health via that method isn't a valid point from that.

[The South Falls]

The people at the agency don't go over the children.

Can you elaborate on that statement? I am not quite certain what you are saying.

The adoption agencies' workers signed up for the job. We shouldn't impose their religions on others. Plus, adoption is a public business. The government can't have official beliefs to impose.

[Dahon]

I am in principle opposed to most forms of discrimination against LGBTs, be they single or couple. However, it seems to me the alternative to letting some adoption agencies discriminate against them for religious reasons (and so defer kids the gratifications provided by having loving parents sooner) is even more draconian or at least more needlessly cruel to kids and their future welfare, especially as to gratify the desires of a minority of the American population.

Let them be, for now.