NATION

PASSWORD

US House Committee Moves to Restrict LGBT Adoption

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20791
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

US House Committee Moves to Restrict LGBT Adoption

Postby San Lumen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:43 pm

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?
Last edited by San Lumen on Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:47 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Godular
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8770
Founded: Sep 09, 2004
New York Times Democracy

Postby Godular » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:45 pm

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.
RL position
Active RP: ASCENSION
Active RP: SHENRYAX

Faction 1: The An'Kazar Control Framework of Godular-- A collective of formerly human bioborgs engaged in a galaxy-spanning reign of terror for as-yet-unknown reasons. (SWG)

Faction 2: The Servants of the True Way of the Will-- A multi-species anti-technology crusade that travels the galaxy in ships brought forth from the power of their own minds. (MWG) (Faction represented in WA)

A 3.1 civilization, according to this Nation Index Thingie

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20791
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.


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

User avatar
Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1235
Founded: Jun 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:01 pm

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?
Officially retired as of 8/10/2018. Don’t bother sending TG’s since I’m not coming back.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20791
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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?


Discrimination is wrong no matter who does it.

User avatar
Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1235
Founded: Jun 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


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.
Officially retired as of 8/10/2018. Don’t bother sending TG’s since I’m not coming back.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20791
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:08 pm

Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
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.

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 30498
Founded: Antiquity
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby 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.

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.
Last edited by Katganistan on Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Incorrigible Punsters
Kat, I am your father!
Why I Should Be One of the New Moderators

Kat: "What crime am I to be charged with?"
Sgt Toomey: "Being off the market and denying the many legions of Katganifans the chance to hope they will be the next to be putty in your Katganihands. Sorry. Just Hammasturbating."

Ahhhhh. look at all the Statesy people....
In the Beginning...
The Skeptic's Elite
Katganistan can!
My Little Nations

Drasnia's description of the Nationstates Experience

Learning English: It's Not Just for Non-Native Speakers
The Hivemind... isn't. Your mileage may vary.

User avatar
Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1235
Founded: Jun 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


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?
Officially retired as of 8/10/2018. Don’t bother sending TG’s since I’m not coming back.

User avatar
The South Falls
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7756
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The South Falls » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:15 pm

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?
This is an MT or PMT nation that reflects some of my beliefs, trade deals and debate always welcome! Call me TeaSF. A level 8, according to This Index.
Satsuki is in fact the edgiest I could get without breaking site rules.
You have seen a wild South Fallus Fallusi Texaso nativa. Your Friendly Neighborhood Black Kid. Social Democrat,
sometimes breaks rules. Sorry! I've got myself a nice situation with tea, so I'm doing good there.

Political Compass Results:

Economic: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28

I make dumb jokes. I'm really serious about that. Yes, we're pretty much a different Australia.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20791
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.

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.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20791
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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?


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

User avatar
Xelsis
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1120
Founded: Jul 25, 2016
Corporate Bordello

Postby Xelsis » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:19 pm

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.
Last edited by Xelsis on Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This nation does represent my political views.
Pro: Evangelical Protestantism, womens' rights, chastity, limited government, free markets, right to bear arms, traditional marriage, free speech, competition, honesty, transparency, voucher systems, private unions, police accountability, decentralization, states' rights, free discussion of ideas, the British "u", trial by combat, exclusionary rule, Red, Arminianism.
Uncertain: Circumcision
Anti: Statism, communism, socialism, government-defined marriage, racism, abortion, censorship, adultery, pork-barrel politics, sodomy, public unions, SJWs, classroom censorship, whitewashing history, divorce, NSA, No-Fly List, Undeclared Wars, Calvinism, party-line voting, infinite genders, Trump/Clinton/Johnson


Virgin and Proud

User avatar
Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1235
Founded: Jun 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby 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?


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.
Officially retired as of 8/10/2018. Don’t bother sending TG’s since I’m not coming back.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20791
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.


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.

User avatar
Geneviev
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7395
Founded: Mar 03, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Geneviev » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:21 pm

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.
Please donate and volunteer.
Weird at last, weird at last. God almighty, weird at last!
Ukes not nukes
One of those evangelicals who loves chemistry and doesn't believe in evolution.
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87
Telegrams welcome! Currently investigating the Quran. Germany is better than you, but the World Cup was a disaster.

User avatar
Xelsis
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1120
Founded: Jul 25, 2016
Corporate Bordello

Postby 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.


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.
Last edited by Xelsis on Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This nation does represent my political views.
Pro: Evangelical Protestantism, womens' rights, chastity, limited government, free markets, right to bear arms, traditional marriage, free speech, competition, honesty, transparency, voucher systems, private unions, police accountability, decentralization, states' rights, free discussion of ideas, the British "u", trial by combat, exclusionary rule, Red, Arminianism.
Uncertain: Circumcision
Anti: Statism, communism, socialism, government-defined marriage, racism, abortion, censorship, adultery, pork-barrel politics, sodomy, public unions, SJWs, classroom censorship, whitewashing history, divorce, NSA, No-Fly List, Undeclared Wars, Calvinism, party-line voting, infinite genders, Trump/Clinton/Johnson


Virgin and Proud

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20791
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.


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

User avatar
Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1235
Founded: Jun 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


Why should an institution that does not pay any taxes receive taxpayer money?
Officially retired as of 8/10/2018. Don’t bother sending TG’s since I’m not coming back.

User avatar
The South Falls
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7756
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.

Ruining children's lives just for votes is despicable.
This is an MT or PMT nation that reflects some of my beliefs, trade deals and debate always welcome! Call me TeaSF. A level 8, according to This Index.
Satsuki is in fact the edgiest I could get without breaking site rules.
You have seen a wild South Fallus Fallusi Texaso nativa. Your Friendly Neighborhood Black Kid. Social Democrat,
sometimes breaks rules. Sorry! I've got myself a nice situation with tea, so I'm doing good there.

Political Compass Results:

Economic: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28

I make dumb jokes. I'm really serious about that. Yes, we're pretty much a different Australia.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20791
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:28 pm

The South Falls wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
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

User avatar
Firaxin
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1289
Founded: Sep 28, 2017
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Firaxin » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:28 pm

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.
Male
I’d define myself as an Ethical Autocratic Socialist
Catholic
Distrusting but optimistic outlook on humanity
Pro: State Socialism, Imperialism, Secularism, Autocracy, Transhumanism, Moralism/Legalism, Pro-Consumer, Meritocracy, Populism, Protectionism, Ethical Socialism, Christian Socialism.
Neutral: Democracy, Republicanism, Zionism, Anti-Zionism, Communism
Anti: Capitalism, Anarchism, Monarchism, Ethno-Nationalism, Anti-Semitism, National Socialism, Fascism, Economic Liberalism, Oligarchy, Authoritarianism
Chastity and Lust
Temperance and Gluttony
Charity and Greed
Diligence and Sloth
Patience and Wrath
Kindness and Envy
Humility and Pride


Fuck EA

User avatar
Xelsis
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1120
Founded: Jul 25, 2016
Corporate Bordello

Postby 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


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:
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?


Generally because people think aiding in helping orphaned children find homes is a good idea.
This nation does represent my political views.
Pro: Evangelical Protestantism, womens' rights, chastity, limited government, free markets, right to bear arms, traditional marriage, free speech, competition, honesty, transparency, voucher systems, private unions, police accountability, decentralization, states' rights, free discussion of ideas, the British "u", trial by combat, exclusionary rule, Red, Arminianism.
Uncertain: Circumcision
Anti: Statism, communism, socialism, government-defined marriage, racism, abortion, censorship, adultery, pork-barrel politics, sodomy, public unions, SJWs, classroom censorship, whitewashing history, divorce, NSA, No-Fly List, Undeclared Wars, Calvinism, party-line voting, infinite genders, Trump/Clinton/Johnson


Virgin and Proud

User avatar
Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1235
Founded: Jun 02, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


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.
Officially retired as of 8/10/2018. Don’t bother sending TG’s since I’m not coming back.

User avatar
San Lumen
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20791
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.

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?

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AnarchoEarthlings, Cannot think of a name, El-Amin Caliphate, Ism, Joohan, Kiruri, Northern Davincia, OUR, Syllabun, Tarsonis, The Liberated Territories, Torrocca, Washington Resistance Army, Wolfrenia, Yaqobia

Advertisement

Remove ads