Support NeoGAF

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

The House Appropriations Committee passed an amendment on Wednesday that, if implemented, would allow adoption agencies to refuse gay couples based on their moral or religious beliefs.
The amendment, which was introduced by GOP Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama, would allow child welfare providers to decline to "provide a service that conflicts with its sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions," according to the congressman.

"Same-sex couples are six times more likely to foster and four times more likely to adopt. Denying kids loving parents is wrong," Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan, a gay congressman from Wisconsin, said in a tweet.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the amendment a "disgusting, deeply immoral and profoundly offensive effort."

Link

I thought the point of being "pro-life" was so people could adopt the kids...

 

[The Sane Psycho]

Okay, this is fucked up. Even as a conservative, I've never seen a case of someone being harmed because their parents are gay. My mom is gay and I turned out okay, as did my brother.

That's why libertarians > republicans

 

[i_am_ben]

I wish I could say this is unexpected but it's really not.

Republicans gonna Republican.

 

[ic3cait]

I thought the point of being "pro-life" was so people could adopt the kids...

The thought of 'pro-life' is that the child in the womb shouldn't be murdered as a form of birth control.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

The thought of 'pro-life' is that the child in the womb shouldn't be murdered as a form of birth control.

Why not call it pro-birth then?

 

[TheMikado]

Link

I thought the point of being "pro-life" was so people could adopt the kids...

It’s not that I even agree about this being a moral or religious conviction. The problem is when these extend to other convictions which aren’t measurable such as denying interracial, interfaith or intercultural adoptions. The issue is that this is a slippery slope so I’d argue that any adoption centers would have to seperate from faith based institutions to avoid infringement.

 

[Christopher]

Republican here, fuck this. This is hateful and disgusting. Lesibisn and gay people have been proven to love and raise children just as normal as hedrosexual couples.

This shit is an embarrassment for my party.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Is there no separation between church and state? Denying gay couples adoption for religious reasons seems backwards.

Title is a bit misleading, there ain't gonna be a law that says gays couples can never adopt, child welfare providers can cite religious reasons to decline the adoption.

 

[Chiggs]

Absolutely pathetic. Absolutely GOP.

 

[Corrik]

Okay, this is fucked up. Even as a conservative, I've never seen a case of someone being harmed because their parents are gay. My mom is gay and I turned out okay, as did my brother.

That's why libertarians > republicans

I personally disagree with the ability to adopt children by same sex couples.

I believe a child shouldn't be put into a household with a relationship of that kind prior to an age that they can understand sexuality and that relationship.

I believe they should have to be a certain age where their mind is fully developed, say like age 13. And that they should have to sign off on accepting the parents after affirming they understand the situation.

 

[Atrus]

The government is one of the poorest forms of parenting outside of abandoning a child or handing them over to criminals or the criminal-minded. Its unconscionable in my view for people to leave children in the care of the state when there are perfectly acceptable parents to go to, same-sex or no.

I do not believe that objectors have the best interests of the children in mind.

 

[kunonabi]

The government is one of the poorest forms of parenting outside of abandoning a child or handing them over to criminals or the criminal-minded. Its unconscionable in my view for people to leave children in the care of the state when there are perfectly acceptable parents to go to, same-sex or no.

I do not believe that objectors have the best interests of the children in mind.

Pretty much this. So many kids need good homes that turning potential parents away for such a petty reason is ridiculous.

 

[quickwhips]

I personally disagree with the ability to adopt children by same sex couples.

I believe a child shouldn't be put into a household with a relationship of that kind prior to an age that they can understand sexuality and that relationship.

I believe they should have to be a certain age where their mind is fully developed, say like age 13. And that they should have to sign off on accepting the parents after affirming they understand the situation.

COol we will send all the unadopted kids to your house since you want to raise them.

 

[JORMBO]

My sister and her husband adopted. They went through a bunch of interviews, home checks and background checks. If a gay couple can pass these same checks and prove to be fit to adopt a child I think they should be allowed to do so.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Give the kids a home. Adoption or surrogates can be expensive anyway, and you really gotta want to be a parent and have the financial means. I know a few gay couples who adopted children who are straight into adulthood. Don't boogeyman gay couples and assume they'll force their kids to be gay.

 

[Coffe Time]

I personally disagree with the ability to adopt children by same sex couples.

I believe a child shouldn't be put into a household with a relationship of that kind prior to an age that they can understand sexuality and that relationship.

I believe they should have to be a certain age where their mind is fully developed, say like age 13. And that they should have to sign off on accepting the parents after affirming they understand the situation.

Homosexuality isnt a complex or traumatizing thing. Its just a thing that exists. If we treat it as this thing that you have to be older to understand, we're discriminating against same sex couples. If we just acknowledge it as something normal, like it is, kids will be fine. Studies show that kids who are introduced to the concept of homosexuality and transgenderism at an early age, they are likely to be less bigoted and just accept it. That's what we want.
What you want is perpetuating bigotry. Kids are fine with these things. Trust me.

 

[captainraincoat]

to me loving a child should not have a sex or gender affiliation or sexual orientation attached to it....its whats best for the child that should be the most important factor

 

[Nobody_Important]

I personally disagree with the ability to adopt children by same sex couples.

I believe a child shouldn't be put into a household with a relationship of that kind prior to an age that they can understand sexuality and that relationship.

I believe they should have to be a certain age where their mind is fully developed, say like age 13. And that they should have to sign off on accepting the parents after affirming they understand the situation.

This is a disgusting take.

 

[JordanN]

I'm not for banning same-sex adoption, but I would like a system that puts heterosexual couples first on priority before same-sex ones.

It's only in recent human history have we toyed with the concept of same-sex partners and I would like to see more science done on this to fully understand the long term effects of what it could have on society.
Outright banning is a knee jerk move though.

 

[CaliggyJack]

So they voted to ban gay and lesbian adoption? Your title is weird tbqh

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

I personally disagree with the ability to adopt children by same sex couples.

I believe a child shouldn't be put into a household with a relationship of that kind prior to an age that they can understand sexuality and that relationship.

I believe they should have to be a certain age where their mind is fully developed, say like age 13. And that they should have to sign off on accepting the parents after affirming they understand the situation.

The mind is not fully developed at age 13.

Also, you're wrong.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not for banning same-sex adoption, but I would like a system that puts heterosexual couples first on priority before same-sex ones.

It's only in recent human history have we toyed with the concept of same-sex partners and I would like to see more science done on this to fully understand the long term effects of what it could have on society.
Outright banning is a knee jerk move though.

There is science on this. Not every gay couple flaunt their sexuality like you see in parades.

Sister is a lesbian and has kids and they play with mine all the time there is nothing wrong with them at all.

 

[Wulfric]

I'm not for banning same-sex adoption, but I would like a system that puts heterosexual couples first on priority before same-sex ones.

what the fuck

 

[Azzurri]

Doesn't surprise me he's from Alabama.

 

[JordanN]

what the fuck

Call me a biological realist, because I feel like progressivism needs to be equally balanced with what nature laid out for us.

Heterosexual couples has been the norm for thousands of years and it's a model that clearly works for us. Same-sex adoption has only been a relatively new phenomenon so I'm going to express some skepticism to what effects it may have on a society.

Doesn't mean I hate LGBT. But if nature intended for humans to have a mother and a father unit for thousands of years, then perhaps we should continue working with that system before exploring other options.

There is science on this. Not every gay couple flaunt their sexuality like you see in parades.

Sister is a lesbian and has kids and they play with mine all the time there is nothing wrong with them at all.

It has nothing to do with the parades (their life style didn't cross my mind when I typed this).

I'm concerned with working with models we evolved with. A mother and a father goes back thousands of years and has kept society going. Same-sex hasn't so I express some cautions with changing the system.

 

[Arkage]

Call me a biological realist, because I feel like progressivism needs to be equally balanced with what nature laid out for us.

Heterosexual couples has been the norm for thousands of years and it's a model that clearly works for us. Same-sex adoption has only been a relatively new phenomenon so I'm going to express some skepticism to what effects it may have on a society.

Doesn't mean I hate LGBT. But if nature intended for humans to have a mother and a father unit for thousands of years, then perhaps we should continue working with that system before exploring other options.

Or you could just read one of the 75 studies done on the subject that says gay parents are fine, instead of using a naturalistic fallacy to dismiss evidence and say "we better wait more just in case."

https://whatweknow.inequality.corne...eing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

 

[JordanN]

Or you could just read one of the 79 studies done on the subject that says gay parents are fine, instead of using a naturalistic fallacy to dismiss evidence and say "we better wait more just in case."

https://whatweknow.inequality.corne...eing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

I didn't dismiss anything. I said, heterosexual parenting goes back thousands of years. What society has had same-sex adoption for the same amount of time?
You miss my point when I said I'm expressing caution/skepticism to something that is clearly new, not the act of it.

You are a sick fuck and don't deserve to live in this country.

Because you say so? I don't fall for feelings, I only listen to facts.

 

[Forthefuture]

Call me a biological realist, because I feel like progressivism needs to be equally balanced with what nature laid out for us.

Heterosexual couples has been the norm for thousands of years and it's a model that clearly works for us. Same-sex adoption has only been a relatively new phenomenon so I'm going to express some skepticism to what effects it may have on a society.

Doesn't mean I hate LGBT. But if nature intended for humans to have a mother and a father unit for thousands of years, then perhaps we should continue working with that system before exploring other options.

Your side mostly believes so because a magic guy in sky told them gay are icky. So please cut it with realism facade. I have had enough of something-realists during the past couple of years. What happened to personal responsibility? Now you are advocating barring people from adoption based on traditionalism not based on science?

As for the topic, 45 waving a flag didnt mean he was progressive nor wass his regressive party. These people are liars,phonies and crooks.

 

[JordanN]

Your side mostly believes so because a magic guy in sky told them gay are icky. So please cut it with realism facade. I have had enough of something-realists during the past couple of years. What happened to personal responsibility? Now you are advocating barring people from adoption based on traditionalism not based on science?

No one can read anymore. I said from the beginning a ban was a knee jerk reaction. My actual comment was I believe we should prioritize heterosexual adoptions first because it's the tried and true system we evolved with.
No where did I say same-sex cannot adopt at all. Nor do I care about religion.

 

[Arkage]

I didn't dismiss anything. I said, heterosexual parenting goes back thousands of years. What society has had same-sex adoption for the same amount of time?

If you don't dismiss anything, then why persist in asking how old a certain method of raising children is when another is proven to be equally valid.

 

[JordanN]

If you don't dismiss anything, then why persist in asking how old a certain method of raising children is when another is proven to be equally valid.

Because I'm a skeptic and more willing to keep an open mind. That's the point of science. Evidence is always changing and I like thinking about long term effects as opposed to the short term.

 

[Christopher]

I’m a conservative too.

Sorry bring your thoughts into 2018 guys, Love is Love. I’m not going to say I personally agree/disagree but don’t take away peoples chances who want to be parents.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Unless there's science or cases of same sex couples turning adopted children into gay monsters, what's the reason besides just being petty. Children need a real home and adopting is already a limited pool that takes lots of dedication to even be approved.

 

[Forthefuture]

No one can read anymore. I said from the beginning a ban was a knee jerk reaction. My actual comment was I believe we should prioritize heterosexual adoptions first because it's the tried and true system we evolved with.
No where did I say same-sex cannot adopt at all. Nor do I care about religion.

So you want them to discrmininate a little based on nothing but "tried and true" crap nothing to do with science huh. Here we have a ban barring poeple completely from their previously state given rights and your reaction is I think the victim should be given a less harsh punishment. Your conservative state interventionism is showing buddy.Drop the logic-based and "realist" mask.

 

[Coffe Time]

Because I'm a skeptic and more willing to keep an open mind. That's the point of science. Evidence is always changing and I like thinking about long term effects as opposed to the short term.

The research has been done already. Study up:
https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

 

[JordanN]

So you want them to discrmininate a little based on nothing but "tried and true" crap nothing to do with science huh. Here we have a ban barring poeple completely from their previously state given rights and your reaction is I think the victim should be given a less harsh punishment. Your conservative state interventionism is showing buddy.Drop the logic-based and "realist" mask.

There doesn't exist a society we can look upon were same-sex rearing has existed for thousands of years.
It's not being petty, it's placing trust in a natural system that is guaranteed to work.

The research has been done already. Study up:
https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

You're not even reading my posts.

 

[Coffe Time]

You're not even reading my posts.

The long term effects has be researched. If your position is to always be skeptical regardless of the evidence provided that shows the facts, then I won’t even try with you anymore. I just provided evidence that shows that you don’t have to be skeptical and you didn’t even read it.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

There doesn't exist a society we can look upon were same-sex rearing has existed for thousands of years.
It's not being petty, it's placing trust in a natural system that is guaranteed to work.


You're not even reading my posts.

Your argument is completely based on a naturalistic fallacy and your pseudo-scientific interpretation of human history and sociology. Meanwhile, when presented with actual scientific studies that counter your claims, you dismiss them.

Mmmk.

 

[Forthefuture]

There doesn't exist a society we can look upon were same-sex rearing has existed for thousands of years.
It's not being petty, it's placing trust in a natural system that is guaranteed to work.


You're not even reading my posts.

I am willing bet that past conservatives would have loved your thinly-veiled reasoning.

 

[JordanN]

I am willing bet that past conservatives would have loved your reasoning.

Depends on what conservatives we're looking at.
You mentioned before you think I'm coming at this from a position of religion, but it has zero to do with wanting to push forward systems humans evolved with instead of what a bible says.
My reasoning comes from being concerned when progressiveness is taken to its extreme. It seems like all older belief systems were based on extreme viewpoints as opposed to my level headed skepticism and retaining moderate policies (that is NOT banning same-sex adoptions. Only being skeptical of them as compared to the thousands of years of heterosexual success).

 

[Arkage]

Because I'm a skeptic and more willing to keep an open mind. That's the point of science. Evidence is always changing and I like thinking about long term effects as opposed to the short term.

Skeptical of what? The 75 studies all agreeing that same sex marriages produce normal kids? Because, if you didn't know, there are 75 independent studies all agreeing that same sex marriages produce normal kids. So really the only thing you can hang your hat on is a naturalistic fallacy that contradicts science.

 

[Coffe Time]

It seems like all older belief systems were based on extreme viewpoints as opposed to my level headed skepticism and retaining moderate policies.

you’re either a narcissist or a troll. I don’t know.

 

[JordanN]

you’re either a narcissist or a troll. I don’t know.

Everyone seems to think I'm out to ban same-sex adoption when I never said that. It exactly fits the moderate position to be ok with same-sex adoption, but still place a little bit more trust in heterosexual couples.
Like I said, evidence is always changing. I'm not a person who only cares about short term effects but is also interested in seeing how different society could look when it's given more time to mature.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Jordan you place arbitrary standards and there is more than enough to go around. Eliminate waste. Literally, next opinion please.

 

[Coffe Time]

Everyone seems to think I'm out to ban same-sex adoption when I never said that. It exactly fits the moderate position to be ok with same-sex adoption, but still place a little bit more trust in heterosexual couples.
Like I said, evidence is always changing. I'm not a person who only cares about short term effects but is also interesting in seeing how different society could look when it's given more time to mature.

I provided evidence that shows that there is no difference between hetero and homosexual parenting.

 

[Forthefuture]

Depends on what conservatives we're looking at.
You mentioned before you think I'm coming at this from a position of religion, but it has zero to do with wanting to push forward systems humans evolved with instead of what a bible says.
My reasoning comes from being concerned when progressiveness is taken to its extreme. It seems like all older belief systems were based on extreme viewpoints as opposed to my level headed skepticism and retaining moderate policies (that is NOT banning same-sex adoptions. Only being skeptical of them as compared to the thousands of years of heterosexual success).

We are talking about conservatives that mattered politically and socially. But they were more than happy to have complacent moderates on their side. They could bring their reason masks too if they were into that. Heck there were plenty of masks there already.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

but still place a little bit more trust in heterosexual couples.

"Same-sex couples are six times more likely to foster and four times more likely to adopt. Denying kids loving parents is wrong,"

Much like your ethno state argument, your adoption argument reveals your bias. Despite all evidence to the contrary you hold on to your regressive views. It's kind of sad, actually.

 

[JordanN]

Much like your ethno state argument, your adoption argument reveals your bias. Despite all evidence to the contrary you hold on to your regressive views. It's kind of sad, actually.

Do you believe adoption is a right or a privilege?

 

[Mahadev]

Republicans: Getting their priorities straight in a country with banana republic levels of inequality, crumbling infrastructure and a decimated middle class. Jesus, what a shitty fucking party.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

Do you believe adoption is a right or a privilege?

I believe that regardless to what anyone says you'll fall back to your same tired talking points over and over again. Interacting with you is a pointless and frustrating endeavor and I suggest that everyone ignore all your posts if to do nothing more than protect their blood pressure.