• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Trump Administration discussing policy to help block LGBT child adoptions.

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,743
3,052
960
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the Trump administration over a stated plan to make it easier for tax-funded adoption agencies to reject prospective parents on faith-based grounds. The plan is already implemented in South Carolina, which received a waiver from the Trump administration from an Obama-era ordinance that forbids discrimination on the basis of marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity from adoption agencies which receive federal funding, according to Bloomberg News.

Filed in Greenville Federal Court against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the state of South Carolina, the ACLU is acting on behalf of a family who was rejected by Miracle Hill Ministries, a South Carolina adoption agency run by an Evangelical Christian organization. The ACLU says the law is discriminatory against those who do not practice the Protestant religion.

"Families who are rejected by an agency because of their faith or sexual orientation may not have other options in their area," ACLU Deputy Director Leslie Cooper said in a statement. "Even if they do, the sting and humiliation of discrimination may deter some from approaching other agencies to possibly face more discrimination."
I mean on one hand this is a sticky issue,. On the other hand we have seen the abuse that these people have implemented on adopted kids, which gets worse every year, and we have proof outlets have bee covering them up. (not saying the other side doesn't but only one side is being covered up and getting more extreme)

There doesn't see to be much of a middle ground solution other than blocking in Red states and leaving things open in Blue States. Or having the States vote on the policy, but then if a democrat gets in the WH they will force all the states to comply with an agenda like Obama did.

Very complex situation.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,542
14,658
840
Sucks for those kids would be less likely to get adopted.
Then a secular adoption agency can fill that void.

The headline is a misleading. This isn't about the government 'blocking adoptions'. Agencies can still let lbgt parents adopt. This is about letting some agencies opt out for religious reasons. Consider that declining any potential adopter is discriminatory in some way, that's sort of the point.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: clem84

Super Mario

Mario Mario
Nov 12, 2016
1,435
1,672
545
Having actually known quite a few adopted people on a very personal level, I know that it is a hard topic. It leads many children feeling like they were unwanted, without a purpose, or not normal. Being placed into an LGBT family only makes it worse most of the time. Sure, there absolutely are LGBT families that would be better parents than your "traditional" family. However, it's not always as pretty as the cover of a clothing catalog would make it look.

It's been proven infinite times that a child fares the best with a mother and a father. The left does not care about this as they want to continue to destroy the family structure, as is the cause for many of the issues we have today. A child having two mothers does not replace a father. A child without a father is far more likely to crave male attention in an unhealthy way.
 

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,850
1,648
710
On the other hand we have seen the abuse that these people have implemented on adopted kids, which gets worse every year, and we have proof outlet
Still going on your bullshit claims even though the majority of studies say Children that grow up with LGBT parents fair the same as Opposite sex parents.

 

Grinchy

Member
Aug 3, 2010
22,243
5,319
1,060
In a cave outside of Whooville.
Then a secular adoption agency can fill that void.

The headline is a misleading. This isn't about the government 'blocking adoptions'. Agencies can still let lbgt parents adopt. This is about letting some agencies opt out for religious reasons. Consider that declining any potential adopter is discriminatory in some way, that's sort of the point.
Yeah, I haven't read deeply about this stuff yet, but that was my initial takeaway too.

I don't see it as agencies being told not to allow these parents from adopting, but that they can choose to be an agency that doesn't allow it if that's what they want. It's a weird area to get into, though. If we think of these agencies as we would any other business, would it be fair to not provide service to someone just because I think they shouldn't believe in 87 genders? We get right back into the gay cake debate.
 

Jonirenicus

Member
Jun 23, 2019
326
404
310
Yeah, I haven't read deeply about this stuff yet, but that was my initial takeaway too.

I don't see it as agencies being told not to allow these parents from adopting, but that they can choose to be an agency that doesn't allow it if that's what they want. It's a weird area to get into, though. If we think of these agencies as we would any other business, would it be fair to not provide service to someone just because I think they shouldn't believe in 87 genders? We get right back into the gay cake debate.
And the baker was in the right so we have our answer.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,542
14,658
840
Yeah, I haven't read deeply about this stuff yet, but that was my initial takeaway too.

I don't see it as agencies being told not to allow these parents from adopting, but that they can choose to be an agency that doesn't allow it if that's what they want. It's a weird area to get into, though. If we think of these agencies as we would any other business, would it be fair to not provide service to someone just because I think they shouldn't believe in 87 genders? We get right back into the gay cake debate.

If you dedicated your life to finding homes for kids in need of adoption, and were getting the job done, would you want to be forced to hand kids off to parents you found unsuitable for some reason?

I would think it seems perfectly natural that, say, a Muslim orphanage would not necessarily want to put a child born to Muslim parents into a Christian, Jewish, or atheist household, and vice versa.

Being forced by the government to do so does not seem just to me, for it rather defeats the purpose of community run orphanages.

Likewise, if i were a mother putting up my child for adoption, it seems perfectly reasonable for me to want to seek out adoption agencies that strictly control who they adopt out to for exactly the same reason.
 
Last edited:

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
1,020
1,575
465
If you dedicated your life to finding homes for kids in need of adoption, and were getting the job done, would you want to be forced to hand kids off to parents you found unsuitable for some reason?

I would think it seems perfectly natural that, say, a Muslim orphanage would not necessarily want to put a child born to Muslim parents into a Christian, Jewish, or atheist household, and vice versa.

Being forced by the government to do so does not seem just to me, for it rather defeats the purpose of community run orphanages.

Likewise, if i were a mother putting up my child for adoption, it seems perfectly reasonable for me to want to seek out adoption agencies that strictly control who they adopt out to for exactly the same reason.
if by some reason you mean whatever religious garbage you believe in mandates that you should treat people differently based off immutable characteristics then yeah, I don't want that person working that job. if you work a job supported by the taxpayers and you cant keep your religion out of it you are not fit for that job.

same thing with that dumb cunt that got fired for denying a gay couple a license to wed. religious freedom does not mean you get to dictate how other people live, solely because of your religion.
 

nani17

Member
May 3, 2018
892
1,048
395
It's not your kid so your religious reasons don't come into it simple as. If I work there and I don't care about it and the other guy does what happens then?
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,743
3,052
960
Small sample sizes and no control group, but we'll trust them anyway!
He was already clobbered by some other guy on this same issue in another thread just a couple days ago. This guy was routinely made a fool of before the name change.
 

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,850
1,648
710
He was already clobbered by some other guy on this same issue in another thread just a couple days ago. This guy was routinely made a fool of before the name change.
When the scientific consensus goes against your beliefs you start making shit up lol

You or the other randy could not hold a candle up to the treasure trove of research done that says otherwise.

 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
34,031
833
1,265
I personally know a few same sex couples with children (some adopted, some conceived through donor conception) and they are all doing quite well. Of course, these families are all very well off and have dual incomes. They are loving and caring parents and the kids seem like they are getting on great.

With that said, I don't think religious organizations should be forced to act against their beliefs. I'm no fan of religious beliefs in the first place, but if you're going to let them practice their religion, you shouldn't be able to dictate how unless it's actively harming others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tygeezy and EviLore
Aug 29, 2018
1,771
2,710
420
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
Children are best placed in loving male-female households.

Then loving, and boring, conservative homosexual households who have gone through a higher degree of background checks. Sorry gays, but we have a higher rate of abusing adopted children. Anybody that doesn't have shady shit going on has nothing to fear.

Then single people wanting to adopt, with the higher degree of background checks. This is more of an economic argument that puts it behind a normal homosexual couple. If a single person makes the money, and has the time to raise a child that would be better than the State doing so.


I used to have different opinions about gay adoptions, but now we have 9 year old drag queens, pre-pubescent gender transitions, and horrific stories of child abuse against the most vulnerable of society. Gays can raise kids, but they need to be boring gays who make shitty dad jokes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ikutachi and brap

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,743
3,052
960
When the scientific consensus
Which there is none, but you only want to link to what you believe in and dismiss the research that goes against your wishes, this was proven multiple times in the other thread, and before your name change. You'll get it one of these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonirenicus

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,850
1,648
710
Which there is none, but you only want to link to what you believe in and dismiss the research that goes against your wishes, this was proven multiple times in the other thread, and before your name change. You'll get it one of these days.
There’s a clear scientific consensus, keep on making up your own facts so you can spin your Anti LGBT bullshit.

Again a treasure trove of research says otherwise you’ve got shit to say, you’re just a glorified troll at this point.

Scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has found that children raised by same-sex couples are as physically or psychologically healthy, capable, and successful as those raised by opposite-sex couples,[24][25][26] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[25] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[26][27][28][29][30]
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,743
3,052
960
There’s a clear scientific consensus,
Sorry but Wikipedia doesn't prove there's a consensus.

BTW did you know that Wiki has an article on Transgenders being a theory that hasn't been proven yet? You sure you want to use that as your "source"for this?

Maybe you should try thinking first instead of being emotionally aggressive, use some logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonirenicus

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,850
1,648
710
Sorry but Wikipedia doesn't prove there's a consensus.

BTW did you know that Wiki has an article on Transgenders being a theory that hasn't been proven yet? You sure you want to use that as your "source"for this?

Maybe you should try thinking first instead of being emotionally aggressive, use some logic.
Did you know each link has a research paper attached to it which rips your shit filled ideology to shreds.

Your level of comprehension must be that of a fucking 5 year old given you have not been able to point to any credible scientific research to say otherwise and I’ve presented you with over 70.
 
  • Fire
  • Like
Reactions: Lamel and crowbrow

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,743
3,052
960
Your level of comprehension must be that of a fucking 5 year old.
Well, you do support throwing money at 5 year olds. ;)

Also over 70, lol, you have been given research papers multiple times in many different threads for a long time, and ignored them because you didn't like them. You even ignore the lawsuits going on NOW, of which there are a couple threads in politcsGaf, that involve researchers from both sides, you have no interest in researching the opposition. Hush. Fix your bias issues first.

To be honest your aggression on this issue is weird and awkward.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,766
5,982
420
if by some reason you mean whatever religious garbage you believe in mandates that you should treat people differently based off immutable characteristics then yeah, I don't want that person working that job. if you work a job supported by the taxpayers and you cant keep your religion out of it you are not fit for that job.

same thing with that dumb cunt that got fired for denying a gay couple a license to wed. religious freedom does not mean you get to dictate how other people live, solely because of your religion.
Than maybe atheists should come together and handle these orphanages and adoption homes. You can have all the secular rules you want and gleefully pass kids off to gay couples.

But considering that it’s mostly religious people with their “religious garbage” views who give enough of a fuck to do this, I have no problem with them holding standards
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,542
14,658
840
if by some reason you mean whatever religious garbage you believe in mandates that you should treat people differently based off immutable characteristics then yeah, I don't want that person working that job. if you work a job supported by the taxpayers and you cant keep your religion out of it you are not fit for that job.

same thing with that dumb cunt that got fired for denying a gay couple a license to wed. religious freedom does not mean you get to dictate how other people live, solely because of your religion.
First, the bolded in no way relates. You are doing a flip of cause and effect. A priest, imam, or rabbi refusing to marry two men does not 'dictate' how others should live, since the two men have other options. Likewise, a religious organization that does community service [say an adoption agency, an orphanage, a school, or a hospital] is not dictating how others should live by limiting who they adopt to, what they teach, or whether they offer sex reassignment surgery.

In fact, the only 'dictating' being done is by the State, if they insist a person must operate in defiance of their own religion.

That is, the services I offer do not limit your freedom, since my services are my labor and are contingent on my desire to do them. If you expect me to write 'fuck the police' on a cake, you can fuck right off and out my bakery. I am not limiting your freedom to have my cake, because you have no right to my labor.

Now, the only place this gets interesting is if the organization is tax funded. Now, honestly, i'd rather the gov't get out of most things. It only leads to moral conundrums like this one, marriage, etc.

The statement from the HHS says that, "The proposed rule represents the Trump Administration's strong commitment to the rule of law—the Constitution, federal statutes, and Supreme Court decisions... These require that the federal government not infringe on religious freedom in its operation of HHS grant programs and address the impact of regulatory actions on small entities... [The rule is to guarantee] the protection of religious liberty."
Now, i am not a lawyer, but based on the article itself, the position of the Dept of Health and Human Services is that they are absolutely acting in line with precedent regarding religious freedom.

Note that the lawsuit involves an adoption agency named "Miracle Hill Ministries, a South Carolina adoption agency run by an Evangelical Christian organization". Do you really think a mother using this organization wants their child adopted by a gay couple?
 

Tajaz2426

Gold Member
Jan 20, 2017
320
255
475
Beaufort, SC
if by some reason you mean whatever religious garbage you believe in mandates that you should treat people differently based off immutable characteristics then yeah, I don't want that person working that job. if you work a job supported by the taxpayers and you cant keep your religion out of it you are not fit for that job.

same thing with that dumb cunt that got fired for denying a gay couple a license to wed. religious freedom does not mean you get to dictate how other people live, solely because of your religion.
Hey bud, I’ve known plenty of ignorant people just like you. You say religious garbage, I say if your kid was dying you would tell them that they are going to heaven. Faith is what wakes most people up in the morning. I see you haven’t opened your own orphanage, so you do that, then you can talk trash about people actually helping people.

I don’t believe in much of anything, however, if a community orphanage wants to only let straight people adopt, that is their right.

All my kids believe in God and I don’t have one issue with it. I do have issues with people that have such a low intelligence quotient, spewing vitriol about what people believe.

Imbeciles are all the same, they say they don’t believe in religion, till that last second of their life, or their family is dying.

If you want to have a real discussion, instead of using fifth grade insults, I’ll be here to debate you. A good day to you, sir.
 

Jonirenicus

Member
Jun 23, 2019
326
404
310
I'm going to write a paper about three people I watched with no control group and because it supports the forced "consensus" that's being pushed by pop science it'll get heralded as yet another True Study, it doesn't matter how poorly written it is or how bad the science was
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
1,629
2,482
475
All kids need is love and attention. Don’t see the sexuality of the parents matters, but I don’t know any lgbt parents personally
 

Weiji

Member
Jul 20, 2018
578
658
365
pure evil.

if you are funded by tax-payer money you don't get to pick and choose based off faith or ideology or whatever retarded book you believe is true.
I agree, tax funded operations should not be allowed to discriminate, certainly not for religious reasons.

Which is why he should defund all adoption agencies. Across the board. The left can place as many children as they have the heart for, the right can do the same.

When it’s your own money spent rather then someone else’s, let’s see who steps up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonirenicus

Patriots7

Member
Jul 15, 2008
2,849
94
890
A potentially loving home vs an oprhanage.

Even if you are against gay marriage, you cannot honestly tell me that you'd rather a child be in the system or an oprhanage than a home. Seriously?
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,636
3,719
425
A potentially loving home vs an oprhanage.

Even if you are against gay marriage, you cannot honestly tell me that you'd rather a child be in the system or an oprhanage than a home. Seriously?
The truth is, it's difficult and expensive for straight people to adopt too. There are about a zillion fucking loops to jump through, my wife and I looked into it. The system is fucked for everyone as far as I'm concerned.
 
Last edited:

Super Mario

Mario Mario
Nov 12, 2016
1,435
1,672
545
i love when people make shit up without sourcing anything at all
you're wrong
You seem lost, shouldn't you be at ResetEra? If you're at this point in life and need sources to know that a child needs their father, I'm quite sure this debate is going somewhere. Your "peer-reviewed" articles are a tired, old, Liberal tactic. LGBT couples adopting children relatively new as far as the family structure goes. A small sample size of propaganda doesn't change something we have seen literally millions of times over. Saying a child isn't disadvantaged without a father is like arguing water isn't wet.



 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,572
447
485
You seem lost, shouldn't you be at ResetEra? If you're at this point in life and need sources to know that a child needs their father, I'm quite sure this debate is going somewhere. Your "peer-reviewed" articles are a tired, old, Liberal tactic. LGBT couples adopting children relatively new as far as the family structure goes. A small sample size of propaganda doesn't change something we have seen literally millions of times over. Saying a child isn't disadvantaged without a father is like arguing water isn't wet.




All of those studies are about single moms. It doesn’t say anything about two gay parents not being able to raise a child. I sent you at least 70 sources that are on this topic that prove otherwise. You implied that a child raised by gay parents will be gay with an older man. You have a disturbing mindset
 
Last edited:

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,850
1,648
710
Well, you do support throwing money at 5 year olds. ;)

Also over 70, lol, you have been given research papers multiple times in many different threads for a long time, and ignored them because you didn't like them. You even ignore the lawsuits going on NOW, of which there are a couple threads in politcsGaf, that involve researchers from both sides, you have no interest in researching the opposition. Hush. Fix your bias issues first.

To be honest your aggression on this issue is weird and awkward.
You mean the research paper that I provided because the user posted a graphic without any context so I had to dig up the shitty paper it came from only to find out the author is a fraud lol.

Lawsuits are not scientific, you have provided zero evidence to suggest having LGBT parents are bad for children. I’ve provided you with all the info you need but you seem to be in denial. You can’t back any of your thinking up with research just random articles. Abit pathetic if you ask me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crowbrow

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,572
447
485
Sorry but Wikipedia doesn't prove there's a consensus.

BTW did you know that Wiki has an article on Transgenders being a theory that hasn't been proven yet? You sure you want to use that as your "source"for this?

Maybe you should try thinking first instead of being emotionally aggressive, use some logic.
wiki itself is not, but the sources are. Try reading them sometime.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,455
658
1,650
These arguments always come down to idiotic claims about what’s best for a child and how studies prove it...

...guess what, there are lots of kids who will never get that ideal nuclear family mom and dad household. And they outnumber the number of mom and dad ideal nuclear family households looking to adopt a kid. And that small subset of gay couples looking to through the time and expense of adoption proceedings probably represent a much better option than the status quo for such children. So spare the idealistic option when it’s a fantasy and maybe allow a loving couple to give a child a home FFS.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,572
447
485
These arguments always come down to idiotic claims about what’s best for a child and how studies prove it...

...guess what, there are lots of kids who will never get that ideal nuclear family mom and dad household. And they outnumber the number of mom and dad ideal nuclear family households looking to adopt a kid. And that small subset of gay couples looking to through the time and expense of adoption proceedings probably represent a much better option than the status quo for such children. So spare the idealistic option when it’s a fantasy and maybe allow a loving couple to give a child a home FFS.
The people who are against this and ignore the studies generally don’t care about the welfare of the actual kids—they just don’t like gay people raising them.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,743
3,052
960
You mean the research paper that I provided because the user posted a graphic without any context so I had to dig up the shitty paper it came from only to find out the author is a fraud lol.

Lawsuits are not scientific, you have provided zero evidence to suggest having LGBT parents are bad for children. I’ve provided you with all the info you need but you seem to be in denial. You can’t back any of your thinking up with research just random articles. Abit pathetic if you ask me.
The court called researchers to provide evidence of legitimacy. You know this but play dumb anyway.

Just give up, you have no interest in even considering the opposition. Wiki doesn't prove a consensus no matter how many goal posts you move.

Again your aggression on this is weird and creepy. If you can't prove the consensus you claim you can't just make one up. Making one up isn't "evidence" either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonirenicus

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,572
447
485
Im sorry but no man can substitute a woman when it comes to raising kids.

It is a womans nature to be a mother.
If that was the case then every single woman in the world would want to be a mother. A lot of women exist that want nothing to do with raising children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crowbrow

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,850
1,648
710
The court called researchers to provide evidence of legitimacy. You know this but play dumb anyway.

Just give up, you have no interest in even considering the opposition. Wiki doesn't prove a consensus no matter how many goal posts you move.

Again your aggression on this is weird and creepy. If you can't prove the consensus you claim you can't just make one up. Making one up isn't "evidence" either.
The consensus exist , your just a shit talking troll at this point who can’t point to a single point of evidence. It’s clear that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of LGBT families loool.

Take the L