US House Committee Moves to Restrict LGBT Adoption

[The New California Republic]

She asked him to provide proof that having gay parents causes harm to the child, as it was his reason why LGBT adoption should be restricted. It wasn't really a medical discussion...

Sure, and he has ever right to form an opinion lacking objective evidence supporting his conclusion.

Of course, but saying that gay people turn children into rapists needs to have some pretty strong sources to back it up, as otherwise it is a really bizarre thing to just pluck out of thin air...

[San Macalin]

How is this even a discussion? Parents > no parents.

[Vassenor]

So back to the point at hand, I'm still having a hard time getting my head around the legislature's rationale for this move.

[The South Falls]

That sort of ninja, after a ban, is kinda crazy amounts of ninja.

Sure, and he has ever right to form an opinion lacking objective evidence supporting his conclusion.

Of course, but saying that gay people turn children into rapists needs to have some pretty strong sources to back it up, as otherwise it is a really bizarre thing to just pluck out of thin air...

How does a child rape anyone? That's my question.

[Thanatttynia]

So back to the point at hand, I'm still having a hard time getting my head around the legislature's rationale for this move.

I'm just guessing here but it could be because they care less about children in care than they do about the rights of queer people

[Reploid Productions]

That sort of ninja, after a ban, is kinda crazy amounts of ninja.

Probably was writing his post and got in posted in between my ban post and filing the ban paperwork.

[The New California Republic]

How is this even a discussion? Parents > no parents.

I mean sure, but I think that some limits are reasonable, such as ensuring the parents have a stable income before they adopt, but having "being straight" as one of the conditions just seems nonsensical.

[Puldania]

But children need parents and there's already not enough people who are prepared to adopt.

Children need a father and a mother, not two fathers and two mothers, because it can harm them and make them going to go to the wrong way and becoming sinful and making wrong choices

You're an idiot. One: God made LGBT people with the sexuality. He created them. Thus, the argument that god intended only x type of relationship is bullshit, and you know it.
Two: I want you to give me ONE solid argument as to why having same-sex parents would be harmful to a child.
Three: I can think of a variety of reasons why forcing a gay person to be in a straight, child bearing relationship would be disastrous for the child. Lemme know if you wanna hear them.

So piss off with your righteous "good christian" BS. Regurgitating these opinions is akin to desecrating God's name. You put yourself above Him by judging others.

[Telconi]

Sure, and he has ever right to form an opinion lacking objective evidence supporting his conclusion.

Of course, but saying that gay people turn children into rapists needs to have some pretty strong sources to back it up, as otherwise it is a really bizarre thing to just pluck out of thin air...

Well sure, it's certainly odd, but not all that uncommon to be honest.

[Telconi]

So back to the point at hand, I'm still having a hard time getting my head around the legislature's rationale for this move.

Could be a number of things, they could support the idea of religious institutions being allowed to operate within their doctrinal framework, they could believe homosexuals make inadequate parents, they could just be going on a salt mining expidition. Honestly, here's probably a bit from each.

[San Macalin]

How is this even a discussion? Parents > no parents.

I mean sure, but I think that some limits are reasonable, such as ensuring the parents have a stable income before they adopt, but having "being straight" as one of the conditions just seems nonsensical.

Exactly.

[Reploid Productions]

You're an idiot.
<snip>
So piss off with your righteous "good christian" BS.

And you can argue your opinion without flaming. As you were told a few weeks ago, another player trolling doesn't give you a free pass to flame/flamebait them in response.

*** Puldania, 7-day ban for flaming. ***


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Godular]

But children need parents and there's already not enough people who are prepared to adopt.

Children need a father and a mother, not two fathers and two mothers, because it can harm them and make them going to go to the wrong way and becoming sinful and making wrong choices

Gender roles are not an objective or qualitatively defined property of the universe.

[Peopre]

So, getting back to the matter at hand, do you have proof that having gay parents causes the child harm?

No (Google is pretty much liberal), but that's how I believe it

Maybe google seems liberal because your completely wrong and your opinion has no factual backing?

[The South Falls]

That sort of ninja, after a ban, is kinda crazy amounts of ninja.

Probably was writing his post and got in posted in between my ban post and filing the ban paperwork.

That's pretty fast. Sonichu levels. But anyway, on topic.

I think gay parents are better than none.

[The New California Republic]

Of course, but saying that gay people turn children into rapists needs to have some pretty strong sources to back it up, as otherwise it is a really bizarre thing to just pluck out of thin air...

Well sure, it's certainly odd, but not all that uncommon to be honest.

I mean I find it quite sad that some people genuinely think that my parenting would turn my adopted child into a rapist later in life, regardless of my parenting skills, just because I happen to be gay. The argument was based on the fallacious assumption that gay people are incapable of teaching right from wrong, to such an extent that the child would be incapable of discerning later in life that raping people is wrong.

[Telconi]

Well sure, it's certainly odd, but not all that uncommon to be honest.

I mean I find it quite sad that some people genuinely think that my parenting would turn my adopted child into a rapist later in life, regardless of my parenting skills, just because I happen to be gay. The argument was based on the fallacious assumption that gay people are incapable of teaching right from wrong, to such an extent that the child would be incapable of discerning later in life that raping people is wrong.

People believe unfortunate things.

[Geneviev]

Well sure, it's certainly odd, but not all that uncommon to be honest.

I mean I find it quite sad that some people genuinely think that my parenting would turn my adopted child into a rapist later in life, regardless of my parenting skills, just because I happen to be gay. The argument was based on the fallacious assumption that gay people are incapable of teaching right from wrong, to such an extent that the child would be incapable of discerning later in life that raping people is wrong.

To be fair, hardly anyone believes that.

[The Vine and Fig Tree]

This is a pretty stupid restriction on rights. If the parents and adopted child (or guardian if they're too young) gives informed consent, there should be nothing standing in the way. No evidence that LGBT parents are worse parents compared to anyone else.

[Telconi]

This is a pretty stupid restriction on rights. If the parents and adopted child (or guardian if they're too young) gives informed consent, there should be nothing standing in the way. No evidence that LGBT parents are worse parents compared to anyone else.

Nobody is restricting homosexual couples from adoption. they're simply saying that a church ran adoption program doesny need to serve homosexual couples.

[The Vine and Fig Tree]

Nobody is restricting homosexual couples from adoption. they're simply saying that a church ran adoption program doesny need to serve homosexual couples.

Oh right, in that case it shouldn't need to.

[The South Falls]

This is a pretty stupid restriction on rights. If the parents and adopted child (or guardian if they're too young) gives informed consent, there should be nothing standing in the way. No evidence that LGBT parents are worse parents compared to anyone else.

Nobody is restricting homosexual couples from adoption. they're simply saying that a church ran adoption program doesny need to serve homosexual couples.

It shouldn't receive federal funding then.

[Telconi]

Nobody is restricting homosexual couples from adoption. they're simply saying that a church ran adoption program doesny need to serve homosexual couples.

It shouldn't receive federal funding then.

They're still performing adoptions.

[Tobleste]

No (Google is pretty much liberal), but that's how I believe it

Maybe google seems liberal because your completely wrong and your opinion has no factual backing?

Don't be ridiculous! Facts must be exactly in the middle of the political spectrum and should move to accommodate extremists or they're not real. /s

[Godular]

Maybe google seems liberal because your completely wrong and your opinion has no factual backing?

Don't be ridiculous! Facts must be exactly in the middle of the political spectrum and should move to accommodate extremists or they're not real. /s

Facts are fake news.