US House Committee Moves to Restrict LGBT Adoption

[San Lumen]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/39657 ... n-agencies

A law recently passed in Oklahoma that would allows adoption agencies to refuse to allow LGBT parents to adopt based on religious beliefs might go national. It still has to pass in Senate were it might get removed. It might even be removed on the House floor.

Now the US House Appropriations committee recently adopted a amendment to a spending bill that ensures adoption agencies dont lose federal funding if they refuse to place children with LGBT couples. Rep. Robert Aderholt a Alabama Republican who introduced the amendment defended it as needed to allow social service agencies to exercise their religious freedom and not face discrimination

This is using religion to discriminate plain and simple. The welfare of a child should take precedence over your religious beliefs. If you cannot place a child with loving parents because of your religion then dont work for a adoption agency.

There is absolutely no evidence that adoption by same sex parents harms the child in any way. They said LGBT rights were not jeopardy well here is a prime example.

What's your take NSG?

[Godular]

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.

[San Lumen]

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.

It is a attempt to undermine LGBT rights and the justification is even worse.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

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?

[San Lumen]

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.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

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.

I believe that religious institutions do have and should have the right to discriminate. Getting tax payer money however, that’s going to be a huge fuck no.

[San Lumen]

Discrimination is wrong no matter who does it.

I believe that religious institutions do have and should have the right to discriminate. Getting tax payer money however, that’s going to be a huge fuck no.

If a Priest, a Rabbi or a Man does not want to marry a same sex couple that is their right. A adoption agency should not have that right. The welfare of the child should come first.

[Katganistan]

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.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

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.

How about, if they receive one penny of taxpayer money, they have to open adoption to same-sex couples? If not, they are free to deny an abortion to whomever they wish for any reason?

[The South Falls]

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?

[San Lumen]

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.

I agree completely. I know someone who was raised by a same sex couple. They are the only family he's ever known and he turned out just fine.

[San Lumen]

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.

[Xelsis]

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.

If you think the welfare of a child should take precedence over your beliefs, then you should be supporting this amendment, not opposing it.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

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?

According to these religiously based agencies, they believe they would be putting a child in “spiritual danger” if they let a same-sex couple adopt the child, even if said same-sex couple is more than qualified and are making well over six figures a year.

[San Lumen]

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.

[Geneviev]

Well, that's disappointing. One of my friends has two dads and it hasn't harmed her at all. The agencies that are discriminating shouldn't get money from the government.

[Xelsis]

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.

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.

[San Lumen]

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.

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]

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.

Why should an institution that does not pay any taxes receive taxpayer money?

[The South Falls]

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.

Ruining children's lives just for votes is despicable.

[San Lumen]

Because it seems some Republicans like to use religion as a means for discrimination and also like to be petty.

Ruining children's lives just for votes is despicable.

I dont disagree

[Firaxin]

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.

[Xelsis]

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

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.

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?

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

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

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.

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.

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.

[San Lumen]

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.

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.

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?