by San Lumen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:43 pm
by Godular » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:45 pm
by San Lumen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:47 pm
Godular wrote:Technically, denying adoption services funding because of such refusals is not in itself discrimination. It is simply recognizing that the service in question is not fulfilling federal standards of operation.
I'd say that representative can get stuffed on their justification.
by Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:01 pm
by San Lumen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:03 pm
Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:I view this a move to appease social conservatives. By the way, why are any religiously based adoption agencies getting any tax payer money? Religion institutions don’t fucking pay tax anyway, why the fuck should they be given tax payer money?
by Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:06 pm
San Lumen wrote:Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:I view this a move to appease social conservatives. By the way, why are any religiously based adoption agencies getting any tax payer money? Religion institutions don’t fucking pay tax anyway, why the fuck should they be given tax payer money?
Discrimination is wrong no matter who does it.
by San Lumen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:08 pm
by Katganistan » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:11 pm
Godular wrote:Technically, denying adoption services funding because of such refusals is not in itself discrimination. It is simply recognizing that the service in question is not fulfilling federal standards of operation.
I'd say that representative can get stuffed on their justification.
by Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:13 pm
Katganistan wrote:Godular wrote:Technically, denying adoption services funding because of such refusals is not in itself discrimination. It is simply recognizing that the service in question is not fulfilling federal standards of operation.
I'd say that representative can get stuffed on their justification.
Given that same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, I don't see that gender identity and adoption should be problematic from a legal standpoint.
by The South Falls » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:15 pm
by San Lumen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:15 pm
Katganistan wrote:Godular wrote:Technically, denying adoption services funding because of such refusals is not in itself discrimination. It is simply recognizing that the service in question is not fulfilling federal standards of operation.
I'd say that representative can get stuffed on their justification.
Given that same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, I don't see that gender identity and adoption should be problematic from a legal standpoint.
From a moral standpoint? There are 400,000 kids in foster care, one quarter of which are eligible for adoption. About 20,000 kids a year age out -- that is, are sent off on their own at age 18.
Let gays adopt, ffs. These kids need a safe, stable environment.
by San Lumen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:17 pm
The South Falls wrote:Children are children, and the foster agencies are understaffed. Why deny adoption to willing parents, then cut funding for the foster system, and complain about it?
by Xelsis » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:19 pm
by Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:19 pm
The South Falls wrote:Children are children, and the foster agencies are understaffed. Why deny adoption to willing parents, then cut funding for the foster system, and complain about it?
by San Lumen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:20 pm
Xelsis wrote:Massively misleading headline. The committee is instead insuring that adoption agencies that do not place children with LGBT parents are protected from losing funding for that reason.
The alternative is stripping funding from adoption agencies over disagreement with their ideology, pretty much shafting the kids in need.
by Geneviev » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:21 pm
by Xelsis » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:23 pm
San Lumen wrote:Xelsis wrote:Massively misleading headline. The committee is instead insuring that adoption agencies that do not place children with LGBT parents are protected from losing funding for that reason.
The alternative is stripping funding from adoption agencies over disagreement with their ideology, pretty much shafting the kids in need.
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.
by San Lumen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:25 pm
Xelsis wrote:San Lumen wrote:
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.
by Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:26 pm
Xelsis wrote:San Lumen wrote:
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.
by The South Falls » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:27 pm
San Lumen wrote:The South Falls wrote:Children are children, and the foster agencies are understaffed. Why deny adoption to willing parents, then cut funding for the foster system, and complain about it?
Because it seems some Republicans like to use religion as a means for discrimination and also like to be petty.
by Xelsis » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:28 pm
San Lumen wrote:Xelsis wrote:
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.
Therefore a adoption agency should be able to discriminate and deny a child loving parents and a LGBT couple the ability to have a family of their own? Discrimination is never ok
Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:Xelsis wrote:
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.
Why should an institution that does not pay any taxes receive taxpayer money?
by Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:31 pm
Xelsis wrote:San Lumen wrote:
Therefore a adoption agency should be able to discriminate and deny a child loving parents and a LGBT couple the ability to have a family of their own? Discrimination is never ok
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.Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
Why should an institution that does not pay any taxes receive taxpayer money?
Generally because people think aiding in helping orphaned children find homes is a good idea.
by San Lumen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:31 pm
Xelsis wrote:San Lumen wrote:
Therefore a adoption agency should be able to discriminate and deny a child loving parents and a LGBT couple the ability to have a family of their own? Discrimination is never ok
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.Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
Why should an institution that does not pay any taxes receive taxpayer money?
Generally because people think aiding in helping orphaned children find homes is a good idea.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Emotional Support Crocodile, La Paz de Los Ricos, San Lumen, The Kharkivan Cossacks, The Two Jerseys, Three Galaxies
Advertisement