Trump Says Adoption Agency Should be Allowed to Refuse LGBT

[Neanderthaland]

I think we should TAX LGBT adoption, but not ban it entirely. The money can go to balancing the budget.

To what possible benefit?

Well, the greatest statistical predictor of a child's future success is wealth. So by depriving gay people of money, they can make sure that their children are statistically worse-off than the children of straight couples.

Thus, allowing them to argue that gay people are bad parents, and ban gay adoption.

[Centai Mal]

No queer person is doing that, though, so IDK what you're even talking about.

It's pretty obvious when you start describing yourself with pejorative terms that you're looking for shock value. IE: the "Dyke March," people who identify as "Genderfuck," Milo Yiannopoulos saying he's a "dangerous faggot," etc.

And you are no more valid than the people who refuse to use T.

Pretty much sums up the problem right there.

Terms like gay, sapphic, lesbian, asexual, bisexual, transgender, or intersex give clear indication on either your gender identity, intersex status, or sexual orientation. Queer, on the other hand, lacks any actual meaning in that regard. I mean, there are straight people who identify as "queer" too. What queer indicates is a belief in "Queer Theory," a political "study," queer is a political term as opposed to an apolitical description of who you are attracted to or what your gender is as with the other terms of LGBT.

The idea that a gender identity (Male including FtM, Female including MtF), intersex status, or sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual, asexual) and any number of woke politically correct terms (queer, demisexual, genderfluid, etc.) are equivalent is a delegitimization of the former.

You're trans right? Surely you've seen people who identify as "transracial" and claim it's the same thing as your identity? You should be able to see the problem.



If a homophobe says "I don't want to see any gay people on TV, stop forcing your politics on me," the response would of course be that being gay is not political in any way, which is correct.

The core notion of this argument hinges on the fact that sexual orientations, gender identities, and intersex statuses are not political - However if gay and trans are now equivalent with queer, a political term - because now LGBT identities can now be political. In falsely equating the two, you delegitimize the former.


The gay equality and transgender equality movements are very comparable to the Civil Rights struggle of Black Americans in the 1950s and 60s - a group of people faced discrimination for the way they were born and worked to change things and force politicians to stop making their existence a political issue. This hinges on the idea that being black, or being gay, or being transgender, is not political. If you say "Black People and Communists should not have their identity politicized," the problem is obvious - your demands are inherently unfulfillable, because "Communist" is a political class.

The idea that being "queer" and being L, G, B, T, or I are equivalent is thus inherently harmful to L, G, B, T, and I equality, because it adds credibility to the anti-LGBT belief that LGBT+ identities are "politics" and there's nothing wrong with politicizing them.

Look, I don’t alter my description of myself because assholes want to use that description against me. I’m queer. It’s a very common descriptor used by LGBTQI people, as it has largely been reclaimed. I’m done debating here whether or not I should use a reclaimed word that I find describes me better (my attraction is a weird-ass mess) than anything else.

Queer people existing are not a political, but assholes legislating our rights choose to make our existence political. That is not my problem

[Nobel Hobos 2]

To what possible benefit?

Well, the greatest statistical predictor of a child's future success is wealth. So by depriving gay people of money, they can make sure that their children are statistically worse-off than the children of straight couples.

Thus, allowing them to argue that gay people are bad parents, and ban gay adoption.

Or actually the opposite. Only rich LGBT will adopt, because they know about the tax in advance, and only those who can pay it easily will make the choice.

Or what you said and what I said, for different people, cancelling out in the stats. I hate it when that happens.

[Neanderthaland]

Well, the greatest statistical predictor of a child's future success is wealth. So by depriving gay people of money, they can make sure that their children are statistically worse-off than the children of straight couples.

Thus, allowing them to argue that gay people are bad parents, and ban gay adoption.

Or actually the opposite. Only rich LGBT will adopt, because they know about the tax in advance, and only those who can pay it easily will make the choice.

Or what you said and what I said, for different people, cancelling out in the stats. I hate it when that happens.

Foiled again!

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Or actually the opposite. Only rich LGBT will adopt, because they know about the tax in advance, and only those who can pay it easily will make the choice.

Or what you said and what I said, for different people, cancelling out in the stats. I hate it when that happens.

Foiled again!

All statistics ever prove is that we haven't considered all the variables.

[Big Jim P]

I would rather see a child raised in a loving LGBT family than an abusive straight family.

[Tombradyonia]

So once again religious or religious-based agencies or institutions should be allowed to discriminate, but if it is ever reversed they'll yell persecution as usual.

Wanna bet Trump holds up a gay pride flag at some moment between now and the election and proclaims all gay people love him and should vote for him because reasons?

[Gormwood]

So once again religious or religious-based agencies or institutions should be allowed to discriminate, but if it is ever reversed they'll yell persecution as usual.

Wanna bet Trump holds up a gay pride flag at some moment between now and the election and proclaims all gay people love him and should vote for him because reasons?

[State of Turelisa]

I'm both Catholic and queer. I find it problematic on two fronts - A) that's discrimination on the basis of sexuality, and B) Jesus specifies that it is not up to us to judge others, that is up to God.

Well if you read the Bible, Jesus says the exact opposite of that
John 7:24

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

... I agree that discrimination is wrong, but you shouldn't justify that by saying something completely untrue and contrary to the Bible.

This post has taken the words right out of my mouth. Both Christians and anti-Christians are guilty of corrupting the Bible's literal meaning to suit their agendas.

[San Lumen]

Well if you read the Bible, Jesus says the exact opposite of that
John 7:24

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

... I agree that discrimination is wrong, but you shouldn't justify that by saying something completely untrue and contrary to the Bible.

This post has taken the words right out of my mouth. Both Christians and anti-Christians are guilty of corrupting the Bible's literal meaning to suit their agendas.

and you have still yet to show evidence of your claims about homosexuality being harmful and you also cited a city regarding same sex adoption that is highly questionable. i know someone who was raised by two men and he turned out perfectly fine

[Centai Mal]

I would rather see a child raised in a loving LGBT family than an abusive straight family.

Exactly. This really hits home for me because I really, really want to be a father, and I've been planning on adoption. I know I could provide a loving, stable home for kids in the system, even if I'm married to another man, not a woman.

[San Lumen]

I would rather see a child raised in a loving LGBT family than an abusive straight family.

Exactly and as a gay man I hope to be a father someday and adoption is my best bet for that.

[Kannap]

The question that just came to mind is:

If I, a homosexual man, married a woman and we wanted to adopt a child, would we be allowed to? Would that child be withheld from us because I'm homosexual?

If not, then why can I not adopt a children if I'm married to another man?

[Purple Rats]

The question that just came to mind is:

If I, a homosexual man, married a woman and we wanted to adopt a child, would we be allowed to? Would that child be withheld from us because I'm homosexual?

If not, then why can I not adopt a children if I'm married to another man?

It would be interesting, if two people who are assigned as man and woman at birth are married, adopt kid, and then one of them comes out as trans, but they still stay married.


Anyway kids are way more open minded about everything...
Once my nephew asked me do I live alone. And at time I lived in shared flat, because it was cheaper, so I said that no, I live with one woman... and he thought we are together, and was cool about it. And then I explained that we just live together because of rent.... and it was way more harder to explain to him why I need to pay rent (as my sister owns her apartment), than the fact that two woman could be in relationship.

[VVerkia]

And then I explained that we just live together because of rent.... and it was way more harder to explain to him why I need to pay rent (as my sister owns her apartment), than the fact that two woman could be in relationship.

Because it make sense but $ don't