US House Committee Moves to Restrict LGBT Adoption

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

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.

Even though I support defunding Planned Parenthood, I think they are one of the largest providers of women’s health in the country and they are pretty good providing said healthcare. The great majority of the care they provide are not abortions.

[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.

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

Presumably an adoption agency which affirms atheism, as the title would imply. I'm not claiming non-religious adoption agencies are atheistic, I'm pointing out that funding to adoption agencies regardless of belief are not given directly on account of religion.

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.

Is not stripping funding from an organization because of their beliefs discrimination itself?

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.

Where, exactly, are the organizations "imposing" their beliefs on anyone? They are not going out and taking children from same-sex couples, simply not placing children with them.

If there is an imposition of belief, it is the government seeking to strip funding from said organizations because of disagreeing with their beliefs.

[Xelsis]

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.

Even though I support defunding Planned Parenthood, I think they are one of the largest providers of women’s health in the country and they are pretty good providing said healthcare. The great majority of the care they provide are not abortions.

That depends on the measures you use, but I'll avoid getting into that in more detail to avoid a derail. The point is that defunding Planned Parenthood is not removing health funding, it is redirecting it.

[Katganistan]

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.

You're funny.

"BAN GAYS FROM ADOPTING!"
That's immoral and prevents kids from being adopted.
"IF YOU CAN'T PROVE MORE THAN HALF OF KIDS ARE ADOPTED BY GAYS IT DOESN'T MATTER!"
...It matters to whatever percentage of prospective families are prevented.

I mean, it's a simple concept: allowing any qualified gay families to adopt allows more kids to be adopted than denying them.

I mean statistically, redheads make up less than 2% of the WORLD population. Would anyone be stupid enough to deny them adoption because of that?

[San Lumen]

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

Presumably an adoption agency which affirms atheism, as the title would imply. I'm not claiming non-religious adoption agencies are atheistic, I'm pointing out that funding to adoption agencies regardless of belief are not given directly on account of religion.

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

Is not stripping funding from an organization because of their beliefs discrimination itself?

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.

Where, exactly, are the organizations "imposing" their beliefs on anyone? They are not going out and taking children from same-sex couples, simply not placing children with them.

If there is an imposition of belief, it is the government seeking to strip funding from said organizations because of disagreeing with their beliefs.

And why should they be allowed to discriminate? If you deny a same sex couple adoption because your religion says its wrong that is imposing your beliefs on them.

What's next allowing more people like Kim Davis?

[S i t k a]

I don't think these organizations should be allowed to discriminate like this in this day and age, but it's difficult to address this well because if you cut off funding to such an agency, you cut off the money that gets the kids food, facilities, and shelter. The organizations that discriminate don't deserve funds, but it's hard to think of an efficient way to cut off funds and still ensure the children in their care have good living standards. I don't really know what the ideal solution here is.

[Katganistan]

"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"

I know.
Kids need parents.
Denying ANY kid a perfectly qualified parent is abominable, and shows that the kids' interests are NOT being protected.

[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.

You're funny.

"BAN GAYS FROM ADOPTING!"
That's immoral and prevents kids from being adopted.
"IF YOU CAN'T PROVE MORE THAN HALF OF KIDS ARE ADOPTED BY GAYS IT DOESN'T MATTER!"
...It matters to whatever percentage of prospective families are prevented.

I mean, it's a simple concept: allowing any qualified gay families to adopt allows more kids to be adopted than denying them.

I mean statistically, redheads make up less than 2% of the WORLD population. Would anyone be stupid enough to deny them adoption because of that?

The capitalization is amusing.

I'll restate the point, as you seem to have missed it: If one strips funding from an organization that does not place children with same-sex couples, then that organization must scale back its adoption efforts (or shut down, depending on its financial situation) for all placements, the majority of which are not to same-sex couples, and less children are adopted.

Same-sex adoptions are a minority of adoptions. Curtailing all adoptions through pulling back funding is a net loss for children seeking to be adopted. It is a simple concept.

[Dahon]

Pragmatic reasons -- if the choice be between handing kids over to straight couples only OR shutting them down due to lack of funds (while tackling the costs and what else of relocating and housing and feeding their kids), I'd side with the practical.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Even though I support defunding Planned Parenthood, I think they are one of the largest providers of women’s health in the country and they are pretty good providing said healthcare. The great majority of the care they provide are not abortions.

That depends on the measures you use, but I'll avoid getting into that in more detail to avoid a derail. The point is that defunding Planned Parenthood is not removing health funding, it is redirecting it.

I don’t think Planned Parenthood or clinics that lie about who they are(the ones you social conservatives love so much) should receive ANY taxpayer money.

[The South Falls]

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

Presumably an adoption agency which affirms atheism, as the title would imply. I'm not claiming non-religious adoption agencies are atheistic, I'm pointing out that funding to adoption agencies regardless of belief are not given directly on account of religion.

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

Is not stripping funding from an organization because of their beliefs discrimination itself?

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.

Where, exactly, are the organizations "imposing" their beliefs on anyone? They are not going out and taking children from same-sex couples, simply not placing children with them.

If there is an imposition of belief, it is the government seeking to strip funding from said organizations because of disagreeing with their beliefs.

They're saying that gay couples shouldn't have adopted children. That's belief imposition. What is bad enough about gay couples to not place kids with them?

[Xelsis]

Presumably an adoption agency which affirms atheism, as the title would imply. I'm not claiming non-religious adoption agencies are atheistic, I'm pointing out that funding to adoption agencies regardless of belief are not given directly on account of religion.



Is not stripping funding from an organization because of their beliefs discrimination itself?



Where, exactly, are the organizations "imposing" their beliefs on anyone? They are not going out and taking children from same-sex couples, simply not placing children with them.

If there is an imposition of belief, it is the government seeking to strip funding from said organizations because of disagreeing with their beliefs.

And why should they be allowed to discriminate? If you deny a same sex couple adoption because your religion says its wrong that is imposing your beliefs on them.

What's next allowing more people like Kim Davis?

I'll repeat the same question as above: How exactly are you imposing your beliefs on someone if they come to you, and demand something of you? Is not the demander the one seeking to impose their beliefs? Is not the government, stripping funding from these agencies for their beliefs, the one seeking to impose?

[San Lumen]

You're funny.

"BAN GAYS FROM ADOPTING!"
That's immoral and prevents kids from being adopted.
"IF YOU CAN'T PROVE MORE THAN HALF OF KIDS ARE ADOPTED BY GAYS IT DOESN'T MATTER!"
...It matters to whatever percentage of prospective families are prevented.

I mean, it's a simple concept: allowing any qualified gay families to adopt allows more kids to be adopted than denying them.

I mean statistically, redheads make up less than 2% of the WORLD population. Would anyone be stupid enough to deny them adoption because of that?

The capitalization is amusing.

I'll restate the point, as you seem to have missed it: If one strips funding from an organization that does not place children with same-sex couples, then that organization must scale back its adoption efforts (or shut down, depending on its financial situation) for all placements, the majority of which are not to same-sex couples, and less children are adopted.

Same-sex adoptions are a minority of adoptions. Curtailing all adoptions through pulling back funding is a net loss for children seeking to be adopted. It is a simple concept.

And then you have same sex couples being denied their right to adopt which they have in all 50 states.

[Krasny-Volny]

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.

Agree it's appalling that 20,000 kids a year age out, and also agreed that pulling the plug on adoption agencies will make the problem worse. I don't see any point of contention between these two arguments.

[Katganistan]

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.

Even though I support defunding Planned Parenthood, I think they are one of the largest providers of women’s health in the country and they are pretty good providing said healthcare. The great majority of the care they provide are not abortions.

At least we can agree on that.

And weasel-words like 'redirecting' mean precisely the same as 'defunding' Xelcis. You're taking it away from the largest provider of women's healthcare in the country -- removing funds -- DEfunding.

I'm not much for alternative facts or newspeak.

[San Lumen]

And why should they be allowed to discriminate? If you deny a same sex couple adoption because your religion says its wrong that is imposing your beliefs on them.

What's next allowing more people like Kim Davis?

I'll repeat the same question as above: How exactly are you imposing your beliefs on someone if they come to you, and demand something of you? Is not the demander the one seeking to impose their beliefs? Is not the government, stripping funding from these agencies for their beliefs, the one seeking to impose?

Was Kim Davis wrongly imprisoned for contempt of court? Were same sex couples not demanding something from her and imposing their beliefs?

[Xelsis]

Presumably an adoption agency which affirms atheism, as the title would imply. I'm not claiming non-religious adoption agencies are atheistic, I'm pointing out that funding to adoption agencies regardless of belief are not given directly on account of religion.



Is not stripping funding from an organization because of their beliefs discrimination itself?



Where, exactly, are the organizations "imposing" their beliefs on anyone? They are not going out and taking children from same-sex couples, simply not placing children with them.

If there is an imposition of belief, it is the government seeking to strip funding from said organizations because of disagreeing with their beliefs.

They're saying that gay couples shouldn't have adopted children. That's belief imposition. What is bad enough about gay couples to not place kids with them?

Is having or stating a belief imposing it, now?

If they were taking children from same-sex couples, you would have a point of their imposing their beliefs. They are not doing that. The only imposing of beliefs that can be argued in this case is from the government.

The capitalization is amusing.

I'll restate the point, as you seem to have missed it: If one strips funding from an organization that does not place children with same-sex couples, then that organization must scale back its adoption efforts (or shut down, depending on its financial situation) for all placements, the majority of which are not to same-sex couples, and less children are adopted.

Same-sex adoptions are a minority of adoptions. Curtailing all adoptions through pulling back funding is a net loss for children seeking to be adopted. It is a simple concept.

And then you have same sex couples being denied their right to adopt which they have in all 50 states.

The phrase "right to adopt" is not the best one, but in any case, it is not denied because a single institution does not place children with same-sex couples, other organizations do exist.

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.

Agree it's appalling that 20,000 kids a year age out, and also agreed that pulling the plug on adoption agencies will make the problem worse. I don't see any point of contention between these two arguments.

I agree, and that is the point I have been trying to make, though it seems it has not been understood.

[Petrasylvania]

So some people still believe that gay adopters will molest their charges and transmit homosexuality to them like a zombie virus. Pathetic.

[Xelsis]

I'll repeat the same question as above: How exactly are you imposing your beliefs on someone if they come to you, and demand something of you? Is not the demander the one seeking to impose their beliefs? Is not the government, stripping funding from these agencies for their beliefs, the one seeking to impose?

Was Kim Davis wrongly imprisoned for contempt of court? Were same sex couples not demanding something from her and imposing their beliefs?

Kim Davis was a government official, a private organization is not. That should be a fairly clear distinction.

[Liriena]

There should be no such thing as "religious" adoption agencies in the first place. The fact that the government has thus far enabled such a thing, and is now using it to lowkey legalize discrimination, further adds to the pandering bullshittery of it.

Y'all need some laïcité.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Even though I support defunding Planned Parenthood, I think they are one of the largest providers of women’s health in the country and they are pretty good providing said healthcare. The great majority of the care they provide are not abortions.

At least we can agree on that.

And weasel-words like 'redirecting' mean precisely the same as 'defunding' Xelcis. You're taking it away from the largest provider of women's healthcare in the country -- removing funds -- DEfunding.

I'm not much for alternative facts or newspeak.

I would say that a good % of social conservatives want PP funds to be used for those anti-abortion “clinics” they set up. You know, the ones that lie in their advertising to get women in to “save their baby and possibly their soul”. They want taxpayer money used for proselytizing.

[Petrasylvania]

There should be no such thing as "religious" adoption agencies in the first place. The fact that the government has thus far enabled such a thing, and is now using it to lowkey legalize discrimination, further adds to the pandering bullshittery of it.

Y'all need some laïcité.

Just open up some Muslim adoption agencies and watch the GOP turn on them in a dime.

[Liriena]

"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"

I know.
Kids need parents.
Denying ANY kid a perfectly qualified parent is abominable, and shows that the kids' interests are NOT being protected.

It's pure self-indulgence for sanctimonious douches, and these representatives are further enabling it.

[San Lumen]

Was Kim Davis wrongly imprisoned for contempt of court? Were same sex couples not demanding something from her and imposing their beliefs?

Kim Davis was a government official, a private organization is not. That should be a fairly clear distinction.

How was she any different by your logic? If violated her beliefs and same sex couples wanting to marry was imposing on her.

[Kannap]

Just let gay couples adopt, it's not difficult.

I would like to have my own kids one day, adopted of course because I can't have my own. I already work in childcare - I'm great with children and would like to have my own.